I am opening a new thread since the other one is, once again, so difficult to open. Please continue discussion from the last thread here.
April 14, 2009
April 14, 2009
I am opening a new thread since the other one is, once again, so difficult to open. Please continue discussion from the last thread here.
April 14, 2009 at 7:43 am
In looking back through past articles and their comments on my “thatmom” blog early this morning, I came across an article that I think needs to be brought back out, specifically because the discussion in the 95 comments is so good and helpful. Sometimes I find I have forgotten some of the reasons the patriocentric movement is so dangerous as it is a movement that has been growing and heading further and further down the continuum away from sound doctrine. If you want a mini refresher course, go and read here:
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/the-great-divide-patriocentrists-on-one-side-thinking-women-on-the-other/
April 14, 2009 at 8:06 am
Last comment. : ))
Emmy, you said, “but which discussed the training (recorded on video) of young girls to groom and dress and shave their fathers. ”
Ick. Haven’t seen it; don’t want to. It’s a great example, though. Talk about why this is bothersome. State that you don’t see any biblical mandate for this sort of behavior.
But don’t attack the people in it. They’re your family in Christ.
April 14, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Curious,
You can’t possibly have read what I wrote. It’s not about the cucumber sandwiches. (Besides, I’m a hamburger kind of gal.)
I don’t have time to restate stuff again and again, but I do feel I have already addressed your thoughts.
April 14, 2009 at 3:38 pm
interview with Geoff Botkins:
http://www.worldviewradio.com/episode.php?EpisodeID=11593
April 14, 2009 at 3:46 pm
from my Bible reading this morning:
“Titus 1:11 (New International Version)
They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain.”
April 14, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Curious, what a picture you have painted for us. Thank you so much for sharing this insight. And thank you for being so clear in your message. Appreciated.
April 14, 2009 at 3:49 pm
momgodin says: “sorry about that double post! ”
Don’t worry about it…it was worthy saying and reading twice!
April 14, 2009 at 4:25 pm
re: Botkin
There is no historical context, nor any kind of engagement with the ideas of Marxism in this lecture.
All sorts of things are equated with Marxism (diversity, multiculturalism, youth groups, the demise of the “great American South,” political correctness) without querying how they are connected.
There are some appaling fallacies in here, something a philosopher could really have a heyday with. A is partially based on B is partially based on C is partially based on D is partially based on E, so obviously, F must equal A. That sort of thing.
Once he has fear-mongered up a Marxist state that we live in, he advocates building a Christian culture to compete with the “Marxist” culture he has set up. And you can build this culture through buying his and his children’s materials.
Also, the defense of Joseph McCarthy was very strange. If Marxism takes away from American freedoms, why support an era and a subcommittee that took away basic rights–rights to a fair trial, right to trial on what you’ve actual done or not done, not on guilt by association, trial for what you’ve done, not what you think?
April 14, 2009 at 4:26 pm
re: Botkin
There is no historical context, nor any kind of engagement with the ideas of Marxism in this lecture.
All sorts of things are equated with Marxism (diversity, multiculturalism, youth groups, the demise of the “great American South,” political correctness) without querying how they are connected.
There are some appaling fallacies in here, something a philosopher could really have a heyday with. A is partially based on B is partially based on C is partially based on D is partially based on E, so obviously, F must equal A. That sort of thing.
Once he has fear-mongered up a Marxist state that we live in, he advocates building a Christian culture to compete with the “Marxist” culture he has set up. And you can build this culture through buying his and his children’s materials.
Also, the defense of Joseph McCarthy was very strange. If Marxism takes away from American freedoms, why support an era and a subcommittee that took away basic rights–rights to a fair trial, right to trial on what you’ve actual done or not done, not on guilt by association, trial for what you’ve done, not what you think?
April 14, 2009 at 5:45 pm
(oops, don’t know how that double-posted!)
April 14, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Thatmom, I’ve thought of that Titus verse so many times. I don’t think the dishonest gain is necessarily limited to the monetary kind either; for instance, how many in patriocentricity have benefited from the undivided devotion of their children, peers, leaders etc., in emotional, psychological, AND monetary ways?? Frankly, I consider devotion (either of the passionate or reluctant nature) gained through illegitimate means (taking Scripture out of context to garner a desired response) to be dishonest gain for an ego’s sake.
April 15, 2009 at 7:22 am
Alisa, you are correct that that verse has many implications when you study it. I just spent several months looking at 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus and have been amazed at how, now, all the passages of Scripture relating to false teachers, seem to pop off the pages at me!
I also am just finishing Kathryn Joyce’s Quiverfull book and getting ready to write a review. One thing that was new information to me was how much money there really is in marketing to homeschoolers. And how easy it is to be deceived. I remember subscribing to Gentle Spirit magazine for several years and I loved it. I loved all the simple living ideas and the creative suggestions for homeschooling. I loved Cheryl Lindsay (now Seelhoff). But the whole time I was reading it, I admired her family so much because it appeared that they were just getting by on so little, that they were making sacrifices out of their convictions. And I felt so good to be a part of helping them with their little cottage industry.
This is what Joyce says:
“With the endorsement of Dobson, Seelhoff’s stapled paper newsletter, which started with twenty-three subscribers, grew over five years to a glossy magazine with a circulation of seventeen thousand that brought her an annual gross income of approximately tree hundred thousand dollars.”
And that was 15 or more years ago. This is big business, even more so today. I would think that evangelicals should have learned their lessons about accountability by now. And how does this compare to even the bank business today and the lack of accountability that has resulted in such a financial fiasco?
April 15, 2009 at 7:23 am
Has anyone heard from Cynthia Gee? I haven’t seen her around here and the last we heard she was having terrific leg pain.
April 15, 2009 at 7:24 am
oops, that should read “annual gross income of $300,000.00.
April 15, 2009 at 8:00 am
Here is an interesting link that was sent to me:
http://www.christianexodus.com/
Be sure to check out the items on the main menu, the blogs and articles, and the daughters stuff. Also scroll down to the second video with Glenn Beck and listen to the scenario of militia takeover and what is called the “bubba” affect. Very interesting and related to some of the things we have discussed here.
April 15, 2009 at 8:45 am
Thatmom, I’m here… I’m sorry I didn’t get back to you about it. The hospital checked out the leg, and didn’t find a clot,(though I do think that there was probably a small clot in a superficial vein somewhere near the tibia, and they missed it) but the pain continued, so I went home and upped my aspirin dosage, and increased my intake of fluids and vitamin C, and gradually the swelling and pain have subsided.
Sorry I didn’t let you know, and thanks for your prayers.
April 15, 2009 at 8:51 am
Regarding the “Bubba Effect”, Karen, all I can say is that the secessionists are really coming out of the woodwork lately — the internet is FULL of this sort of chatter, and it’s as prevalent in non-religious and pagan conservative groups as in Christian ones.
April 15, 2009 at 10:15 am
“This is one issue that, IMHO, is not really our business but theirs. I will pray for all of them.”
I agree.
April 15, 2009 at 1:55 pm
[C]hildren are generally willing to forgive! that is, unless they’ve been *taught* otherwise.
Anne said, “I think that kind of speculation is dangerous. It allows us to assume things we don’t know and make judgments we’re ill equipped to make.”
I would agree with you that musn’t base judgments on speculation. But it isn’t speculation about what the children were taught about their mother. Stacy wrote about her mortification when Christa? stood up in church requesting prayer for her “promiscuous mother”. Her mortification wasn’t in having taught the child thus but that the church assumed she was the mother in question.
My mother protected us from all those things until we were of such an age to have a proper perspective and maturity in the faith to choose how best to relate to Dad.
April 15, 2009 at 2:09 pm
“I don’t see how anyone can defend what they did to these children? If these children are Christians, and adults, surely we should pray reconciliation on a basis of unity (even if you don’t care about the real mother).”
Who is “defending wrong acts,” “defend[ing] what they did to these children” or indicating that they don’t care about the real mother?
April 15, 2009 at 3:30 pm
In the weeks before Easter, my pastor did a sermon series about Jesus (specifically restoration, reconciliation, and redemption). The sermon about reconciliation was really poignant, because he specifically discussed this very issue. Not that we should forget what people did and allow them to mishandle us, but that we should try to make peace of some sort with those who have hurt us or whom we have hurt in some way. That is really the basis of God’s entire plan of salvation! God makes man, man screws up, God gives man an option to reconcile to Himself. The funny thing is, reconciliation is up to US. In this situation, I don’t know any of the facts, but the mother has clearly asked forgiveness (it’s right there on the web!), and the children are using their free will to not reconcile with her. Sadly, I don’t think at this point there is anything that can be done, outside of the intervention of the Holy Spirit convicting their hearts. In Christa’s comment (mentioned previously here), though she said she forgave her mother, the attitude clearly does not say full forgiveness, as she is unwilling to reconcile. I’m not saying that anyone should just kiss and make up, but we ARE supposed to live at peace with everyone, should she not make every effort? How is ignoring the woman who gave you birth living at peace with her? I can’t see it.
It reiterates the idea that this whole mess is very sad. But even sadder is that it happens EVERY day in families all over the place. This one just happens to be more public.
April 15, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Could anyone lead me to a place where the teachings in Stacy and Jenny Chancey’s book are laid out? I would like to see what people claim are the flaws, and I think I’ve missed any reviews that have been posted here. It’s been a while, I know!
April 15, 2009 at 5:42 pm
#45 is a perfect example of what I was referring to in #43. I actually laughed out loud when I read it!
Anne, I appreciate your perspective and agree with your take on these issues. Beautifully said.
April 15, 2009 at 7:26 pm
In regards to Mr. McDonald’s having ever been ordained, it didn’t take me long to find evidence that he was. I googled lists of rpcga ministers and McDonald and soon found an article that actually provided documents from the rpcga which stated:
That was written by Dr. Randall Talbot and can be found here under the heading “Clarification From the RPCGA Moderator On the “Deposition Is Censure” Issue” where the document is available to view.
I can’t find evidence of his current ordination in the Covenant Presbyterian Church, but since they are an independent body I would think it would be easy for them to ordain him.
Whether one accepts that ordination as having authority really depends on their own beliefs. I’m not a Presbyterian, and not a member of their group, so it has no authority for me. But, at the very least, I know he has been ordained by someone and went through the proper training by that body. He wasn’t removed from his office for misconduct but because he wanted to be and that’s the way they appear to do things since they don’t acknowledge independent churches.
April 15, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Anne, this is how I understand the ordination situation. This is what was presented to me so I could understand the “presbyterian” situation. “ Mr. McDonald at his request was deposed without censure. The removal of any minister from office in the RPCGA is done by ‘deposing’, but it can be with ‘censure’ or ‘without censure’, and yet, being removed from office and his vows, thus removing his credentials is still an act that states that the RPCGA would not recognize him currently as a valid minister. Mr. McDonald is considered to have left the RPCGA as a layman, and is still considered a layman from a Presbyterian polity point of view.”
Further, the RPCGA never saw any ordination paperwork from the SBC. So, I think it is reasonable to ask where he was ordained. This should be a simple thing to do. Just post the name of the church and the dates. What is the big deal? It would certainly bring an end to the questions.
April 15, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Anne, I really understand what you are trying to say and the position you are taking. But I am asking you if you think Scripture ever demands that we evaluate the fruits of those who are teachers? I have been immersed in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus the past few months and have come to the conclusion that we just don’t take false teachers seriously enough. And, as has already been pointed out here several times, MOST of the Scripture addressing false teachers addresses their actions and behaviors rather than their teachings. I am trying to see why this isn’t important.
April 15, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Cindy, your perspective on repentance and forgiveness is really an interesting one. I would imagine that most Presbyterian churches would also hold to those views, given that Jay Adams has written extensively holding to the same position.
April 15, 2009 at 8:24 pm
“I can’t find evidence of his current ordination in the Covenant Presbyterian Church, but since they are an independent body I would think it would be easy for them to ordain him.”
This is the crucial point. In the Presbyterian world, there is no such thing as an independent body. “Independency” is considered to be errant and unbiblical, ie, sin.
April 15, 2009 at 11:54 pm
One would think that would put an end to the question. It probably would for some people. For others they’d assume he was lying. What matters to me was that he was ordained by a legitimate church body, which he was, I was able to verify it rather quickly. We have many “pastors” who are only such based on their own say-so. I guess I’m not sure why it matters when and where he was ordained by the Baptists unless one thinks he’s lying about that, and I just can’t figure out why he would.
Absolutely! And were Mr. McDonald my pastor I’d be much more concerned about his personal life. Then again, I’d also be in a better position to evaluate it. But the scriptures you’re talking about are dealing with local church leaders. I think they were dealing with local leaders whose lives and teachings were all wrapped up together and out where all the local church could evaluate it. I can’t do that for the McDonald’s.
How do we apply those teachings to the modern age we live in? How do we evaluate appropriately the conduct of teachers whose lives we don’t know, and of whom we only hear in second and third hand accounts? How do we do that and still be charitable and filial?
That’s true of the Presbyterian body he was a part of before, but he and the other churches have started a new denomination as I understand it. As their own denomination, they can ordain whomever they please.
April 16, 2009 at 12:20 am
Just out of curiosity, would they have asked to see the paperwork from the SBC? The rpcga, as I understand it (feel free to correct me) wouldn’t have recognized that ordination, so it seems reasonable that they might not have ever requested it.
April 16, 2009 at 8:11 am
Anne, lemme see if I got this straight:
James & Stacy McDonald operate a Family Reformation ministry, speak to audiences (including IFB-my denom) with the authority/title of PASTOR and publish books used in *our* denomination’s church Sunday Schools and Ladies Bible Studies.
Yet, you don’t think they should be scrutinized for their personal character- you think we should stick to questioning their doctrine.
EVEN though the scriptures warn us about false teachers, describing their behaviour.
You don’t think we should look at behaviour.
EVEN though they claim to be EXAMPLES.
I admit this statement shocked me:
“We have many “pastors” who are only such based on their own say-so. I guess I’m not sure why it matters when and where he was ordained…”
Why it matters?? Because IFB’s believe we must “PROVE all things.” I Thess 5:21 (test, approve, establish, demonstrate. -OED)
Now THIS I do not understand. We are IFB- independent- yet NOBODY can call themselves pastor without presenting credentials of an official ordination to the church he joins.
And I can tell you that if folks in my denomination knew he could not produce such evidence, they wouldn’t recognize him as such.
And they sure wouldn’t recognize a newly created denomination.
April 16, 2009 at 9:22 am
Regarding the scrutiny of Stacy’s personal life. Upon reading her book, she makes such uncharitable charges against women for their biblical liberty, that it BEGS we look at her own life for evidence that she herself lives up to her standards. That’s just common sense and it’s biblical. “Physician, heal thyself!” (Prove that you’re a physician!) Prove that you’re an authority on family issues.
The FIRST standard would be honesty- forthrightness. You say that because your blended family doesn’t feel it’s an issue, that the McDonald’s might feel likewise.
While this is charitable, I must say it cannot be in their case because their ministry makes such matters significant in their evaluations of family situations. How can you argue this?
If I am reading a book that adamantly states the biblical standards of relationships in the family, wifely submission and women’s roles, it is a relevant and reasonable concern that the author was once divorced!
NOT because people must be “perfect”, (really tired of that straw man…) but because Christians must be HONEST.
I guess I don’t think like you, Anne. Does your reasoning about James’ claims also apply to Stacy: “Well, I see no reason to question [her] unless you think [she] is lying…”
Now here, it seems that you think the only reason one would seek to prove things is that one must be thinking someone is lying? and does that, to your mind indicate “evil thinking” rather than “cautious prudence”?
I’m trying to understand.
I’m really not picky. I have friends in various denominations.
I basically read her book looking for just ONE thing: fruit of the Spirit. namely, charity.
I thought to myself, “I should have a lot in common with this woman with ten kids. But, after birthing ten babies, I have more sympathy for women- not LESS…??” So, what happened?
Well, it turns out she didn’t have the ten kids and she has a bitter root. I think that is relevant. I’m not here to judge her, this information was gleaned by proving her. I do disagree with many of her conclusions and biblical mandates. But my first issue was the charity, bcz her book is a stumblingblock to young women.
So I had to ask who was this self-proclaimed authority? Because the teachers of good things mentioned in Titus are ladies who can be known personally, and as such can be trusted. So maybe you’re right after all- we don’t know. We can’t know. If such is the case, then we can’t trust her opinions on marriage and family because she cannot be proven.
I do appreciate your Christian charity here:
“..we… can’t prove their (McD’s) motives. We can speculate that it was greed and ambition, but we can’t know. On top of that, I feel like it would be uncharitable to assume such negative motives. I don’t even know them!”
Yes, it is just as uncharitable as their book. Hence, the biblical truth:
“For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
April 16, 2009 at 10:08 am
Has anyone shared this link, yet?
http://ministrywatchman.com/?cat=19
About Sproul and McDonald’s new, unaccountable denomination that will “ordain” anyone.
It also has a Vision Forum “Patriarchy Weirdness” article with pics and videos.
April 16, 2009 at 11:44 am
momgodin, you referred to the Passionate Housewives book and the way nonpatriocentric women are portrayed….I found that part of the book to be so offensive, too. And here is an example of the hypocrisy that drives you crazy. Recently Stacy printed R. C. Sproul Jr.’s essay on people feeling judged by the standards and convictions of others. He says that people need to realize that people aren’t judging you they are just living out their convictions. But how does that mesh with the belittling women for having marble sinks or wearing highheels? Or what about the judging of the girl’s spiritual state by her wearing the WWJD t-shirt, as Stacy wrote about? And wasn’t it Stacy that told us in the Monstrous Regiment of Women DVD that outward appearance defines us, specifically what we wear as women? Again, saying it here for the 100th time, it is about the hypocrisy, the holding others to standards they won’t be held to. That is so much of what this movement is all about.
April 17, 2009 at 10:00 am
One more point I would like to make. One of the reasons I ask so many questions is to find out the facts. I have asked many questions, repeatedly, regarding the patriocentric teachings and/or claims only to receive no response at all. Anyone have any suggestions on how we can get those things answered?
April 17, 2009 at 10:44 am
(((prayers for Anne’s mom)))
Don’t worry about this thread..it’ll be here when you return.
And thanks for not being offended at my questions. I live among…kids. And I probably think like them- suspicious of everyone over thirty!
April 17, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I have finally finished Quiverfull and posted a review of it. I know some of you are or have read it and would welcome any discussion if you are interested.
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/book-review-of-quiverfull-inside-the-christian-patriarchy-movement-by-kathryn-joyce/
April 17, 2009 at 9:46 pm
You know, I was so stunned that Curious could actually be that inane that I forget I did have something I wanted to say.
I think part of my disagreement with some of you stems from a difference in personality. I read Passionate Housewives, and what I took from it was a gratefulness that I am able to be a mother. To me, it promoted the beauty of family and caused me to refocus my priorities a little bit.
I’m a working mother, and while I don’t have marble sinks, I do have granite countertops. : )
But I was not at all offended, and did not feel judged, by the fact that Stacy or Jennie Chancey viewed my having a career as unbiblical. They have studied scripture and come to their conclusions, and they shared them in the book.
I read their thoughts, realized that they felt differently than I, took the positives from the book and moved on.
If I became offended every time I read something by someone who didn’t believe exactly as I do, I’d spend a lot of time disgruntled. Seriously, how much Christian non-fiction have any of you read where you agreed with every word? I know that most of you are avid readers (and boy, am I sitting on my hands to stop from saying something uncharitable here) so I know you have read lots of theology/Bible studies, etc.
There are always going to be those who study the same verses you have and yet come up with a different conclusion. Do you always feel judged by that?
Anyway, I’m trying to say that I’ve really been thinking about how some of you may have taken those things to heart, whereas I was able to just put them aside. If this aspect of my personality caused me not to take concerns seriously, I apologize for that.
But I also suggest, in the nicest possible way, that you learn to lighten up a little bit, and trust your own judgment at least as much as you trust a stranger who writes a book.
April 17, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Marcia, are you a nurse by any chance?
April 17, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Yes ma’am. : )
April 17, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Except…I’m a baby nurse. I work in a neonatal ICU. So I’m not much help with adult stuff…
There are other nurses here, though.
April 17, 2009 at 10:05 pm
The 12 hour shifts gave it away.
I’m also a nurse and I think being involved in a career that I also feel has a large component of servanthood and ministerial value makes it easier for me.
April 17, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I was afraid you needed advice. I don’t mind giving it within my area of expertise, but when my MIL wants to ask me about her GI problems..
Now we’re off-topic.
April 17, 2009 at 10:17 pm
That post should say “easier for me to be a working mom”
But I know what you mean about advice. I’ve been in transitional and long term care for years. Grandma broke her hip? Granpa has Alzheimers? I’m your girl! Other areas and well…. LOL
April 17, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Marcia- “There are always going to be those who study the same verses you have and yet come up with a different conclusion. Do you always feel judged by that?”
Of course not, bcz we’re not talking about folks simply “feeling” judged. We’re talking about her literally judging people.
She admits doing this in the book, when she spoke of being in a store and seeing a younger pregnant woman, she thought to herself, ‘She thinks I’m just riding in this wheelchair bcz I’m lazy. Of course when she gets old like me she probably won’t be having babies anymore..’…I realized bcz of my own sinful pride toward others in the past, I was making assumptions about what others must be thinking of me now.”
Yet, she continues to make such assumptions about the motives of people throughout the book. This not simply being fully persuaded in your own mind, or having a conviction, this is judging people.
She admits here that she does this because of her pride, which obviously is not in the past as she thought.
April 18, 2009 at 9:51 am
Alice, is this the story you’re referring to?
http://Www.homeschoolingtodaythetruth.blogspot.com/2009/03/sisters-in-christ.HTML
April 18, 2009 at 9:54 am
Ahem..Alice?
April 18, 2009 at 11:46 am
White washed feminists are hosting an interesting discussion and it looks like Stacy McDonald is willing to participate, even offering to discuss the Passionate Housewives book. And, Marcia, Molly is there, too, so I think you might enjoy the exchange.
http://whitewashedfeminist.com/2009/04/16/happily-agnostic/
April 18, 2009 at 11:50 am
MDS, I found Stacy’s side of that particular story here. Your link appears to be broken.
This is yet another red herring in my opinion. A mistake made 10 years ago that Stacy reports she has since made right with the wronged party.
Just to be clear, I have done MANY things wrong with the best of intentions, handled many things a certain way that I would do differently now.
What’s the point of bringing this issue up? What can it possibly accomplish?
April 18, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Thanks, Karen. I’m off to a dance recital, so I’ll check it out later.
April 18, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Where has Cindy K been? Is she perhaps writing under “Curious?”
April 18, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Jane you need a real e-mail address and IP to continue posting here.
BTW, Cindy is really busy these days and she is not Curious. Most people here know who she is.
- Show quoted text -
April 18, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Thanks, Karen. I didn’t realize you required personal info to post here. I understand the desire to know that a person is real. However, you have to realize that this site is not exactly hospitable nor is it known for its charity and grace. Who in her right mind wants to reveal her identity and be sliced apart online?
Anne and Marcia are a breath of sensibility and charity here. They have given this thread the check it needed. Hallelujah. Thanks for letting them post.
Ladies, I exhort you to exercise your biblical love and faith outside of blogs. Put your feet on the pavement and DO something. Healthy discussions and dialogues are great and are not wrong. But when a topic goes on and on and on and on and on, one has to wonder if the husband, the household, and even one’s personal faith is being neglected. Just a thought. Let’s get off of the keyboards and put our hands to the plow.
April 18, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Again, I’m defending a principle. And that principle is larger than the McDonalds.
Here’s what I got from Curious’ post:
1) She doesn’t know that amends weren’t made. She says “as far as I know” and it seems plausible that since Stacy says amends were made to the moderator in question, not the group as a whole, she wouldn’t be privy to that exchange.
2) Then, after admitting that she doesn’t know, she calls Stacy a liar, anonymously, without presenting any evidence to back up her claim.
I don’t know Stacy McDonald, have openly spoken out against the Patriarchy movement and have no reason to defend her, except that I think she is being treated unfairly, in a way I would not want to be treated.
Regardless of what the circumstances were with regards to this Matthew 18 letter, I have to wonder what the point of bringing it up here is?
The tongue has the power of life and death, and those who love it will eat its fruit. Proverbs 18:21
This must apply for what we write as well, mustn’t it? Mustn’t we be very careful what we say and what we write, especially when it has to do with someone else and their character and reputation?
April 18, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Hi Alice.
I’m not a Sherlock Holmes. First of all, your name has been brought up here at TW, and second, I remember you. We actually talked over email, ages and ages ago.
I remember you as being a completely different sort of person than Curious.
April 18, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Alice, were you the moderator this letter was written to?
At the very least Stacy’s testimony in that piece is that she admits wrongdoing and is sorry for it.
(taken from the post at the link above)
April 18, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Hey Karen–
I had some thoughts I wanted to post, but they are somewhat off-topic. Basically, it’s along the lines of why someone believes in God, but in my case, it has a little bit to do with stuff that happened at this here forum.
Could you start another thread along this line, or do you prefer to stay on women’s issues only?
April 18, 2009 at 11:31 pm
“Basically, it’s along the lines of why someone believes in God, but in my case, it has a little bit to do with stuff that happened at this here forum.”
That would be an interesting topic.
A related idea I had was for a chapter-by-chapter discussion of C.S. Lewis’s book, “Mere Christianity” (which in my opinion is one of the best modern commentaries on the Christian faith extant in the English language.)
April 19, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Just for the record, I am Independent Baptist, and SOME, though not many, Independent Baptist churches DO allow divorced and remarried men to be pastors. Our church is one of the few that doesn’t treat divorced people like second class citizens.
April 19, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Hi Cindy,
I am aware that there are churches who believe different on the divorce and remarriage issue from us who do treat divorced people with love and respect. But I have also seen some that don’t, some churches not letting them serve in any capacity etc. Anyhow this is the first Independent Baptist church I’ve been in that does think it’s ok for a pastor to be divorced and remarried, provided the divorce itself was Biblical. So I grew up with the other belief all my life. Some still are nice to those people and some not so nice.
April 19, 2009 at 10:46 pm
To clarify something Anne said…
My article on the Matthew 18 process was not about internet issues. I was addressing the difference between approaching those who are false teachers and those who have personally offended us. Matthew 18 applies to the personal offenses, requiring that we go to individuals one on one first. False teachers are another matter and ought to be dealt with publicly as their teachings are public.
April 19, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Abby, you asked a few posts ago where you can find the teachings of Jennie Chancey and Stacy McDonald from the Passionate Housewives book. I would encourage you to read the book itself. Used copies seem to be under $10.00 these days and I think it would probably be the best way to get what they are saying and place it against the backdrop of their other teachings such as on their blogs. I am in the process of writing book reviews on their book and will note some of these teachings. On thatmom under the questions for Stacy, there are quite a few quotes from the books, too.
April 20, 2009 at 8:27 am
Karen, (I think it was you) thanks for the link over to the discussion at WWF. I have found Cally’s post to be really refreshing and I wrote a few comments over there.
I think one thing we all need to be continually reminded of whenever we are dealing with a false “philosophy” (in the words of Paul), is that we need to look to Scriptures to figure out what to do.
There are certainly people who come here because they disagree with the patriarchy forum, and those who come because they feel that they have been sucked in by this misleading teaching and are trying to find the right track. And still there are others who come here because they don’t like what we are saying and want to know who exactly to throw their stones at. (very very few of them actually comment, they linger in the background just as Saul/Paul did at the stoning of Steven)
But sometimes in our discussion, it feels like preaching to the choir. Yet, at other times, it feels like those of us who agree on one thing: Patriarchy is a false teaching, somehow have other things we disagree on, and those things always cause the conversation to degrade.
I have personally started reading Colossians, and I think it is a good idea to go next to Galatians. Both of these are a prescription for dealing with false teachings.
I think that when we fight accusations with accusations, we are no better than heathens, but if we fight lies with Truth, Christ will certainly win out. We shouldn’t worry about saving our own skin, or looking smart. We should only be concerned with the Truth.
April 20, 2009 at 8:57 am
Abby, you are correct, the Scriptures do tell us how to deal with false teachers. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus make it very clear that we are not to remain silent about these things.
Titus 1:10-11: “For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.”
April 20, 2009 at 1:01 pm
““Many men I know call themselves pastor. Who cares if they’re really ordained? What difference does it make?”
HUH????
Many people I know consider themselves to be “married” too, who have never gotten a marriage license or been before a minister or priest in a marriage ceremony.
They consider themselves to be married, but the truth is, they are shacking up — they’re living together in fornication.
The same reasoning applies to unordained men who style themselves as “pastors” — Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Ordination for a reason, and these unordained posers are rebels acting without His authority.
April 20, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Cynthia Gee,
That was my “take” on Annes post#63:
“We have many “pastors” who are only such based on their own say-so. I guess I’m not sure why it matters when and where he was ordained by the Baptists unless one thinks he’s lying about that, and I just can’t figure out why he would.”
-was her actual quote. I admit I was frustrated with her lack interest in credentials.
Sorry everybody! :embarassed:
April 20, 2009 at 2:00 pm
You know, I’m sorry I even posted that. I will happily leave this conversation entirely if those who stay would kindly stop bringing my name up. If you have a question about anything I think, feel, or believe, you’re welcome to e-mail me at AnneBassoATgmailDOTcom
April 20, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“If you don’t want to understand where I’m coming from, that’s fine, but please do me the courtesy of not misrepresenting what I’ve said here.”
Anne! I just now quoted you exactly to correct what I felt misrepresented you. (even tho I didn’t attribute the quote to you in my post #133, I just admitted I had you in mind.)
April 20, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Aw, heck, I’m sorry I stuck my foot into it. Anne, I didin’t mean to criticize or hurt you.
But I do think that this whole thing underscores why ministers ought to be ordained in the first place.
Regardless of what modernday denominations choose to do, Jesus instituted ordination as a prerequisite to ministry, and this was practiced by all of Christianity up until the Anabaptists started doing otherwise in the 1500′s.
Doing things God’s way works, but doing things man’s way results in the sort of confusion we see demonstrated in the McDonald mess.
April 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm
((I’m sorry, too!))
And the truth is… I didn’t know that there were denominations that didn’t ordain their ministers.
That is why I compared the trust level of pastors with that of physicians in a previous post:
“We assume that the *physician (pastor) is acting in our own best interests.
We assume that *doctors (pastors) are highly educated, so they must know more than we do.
We assume that *doctors’(pastor’s) licences are a certification of their competency.
We assume that prestigious medical centers (seminaries) would never allow incompetent *physicians(pastors) to practice (preach) 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.”
-Harvey Wachsman M.D. , J.D. “Lethal Medicine: the epidemic of malpractice in America”
April 20, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Anne, don’t go. You don’t know who may be reading here, never commenting, but appreciative of your calm, rational (not in any way emotional), educated take on things.
Seriously, this forum needs your voice.
April 21, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Anne,
I am truly sorry that you feel unsafe here.
April 21, 2009 at 1:54 pm
sort of off topic, but I know this issue exists in patrioland. Chuck Colson is doing a series right now on domestic abuse in the church. I subscribe to his BreakPoint commentaries and this is the topic he is talking about this week.
April 21, 2009 at 8:05 pm
An OT question:
I was just reading a fella’s blog, who says the wife should call her husband “lord” bcz it shows she recognizes him as her master.
The word in Hebrew does mean “lord, master, owner” But Strongs notes the difference between 1. LORD- deity and 2.lord- “a human title of honor” which I think is the understood meaning because in Gen 24:18 we have Rebekah calling Eleazer “my lord” when he was neither her master nor her owner. It seems to be a respectful manner of addressing a man. Do you think Rebekah was calling Eleazer “master”? Or simply addressing him respectfully?
April 21, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Thanks for sharing that info, Kelli.
Here is another interesting article. It is Bill Gothard’s response to some of the things Michael Pearl wrote about him in the previous issue of No Greater Joy magazine. I think Mr. Gothard has some good things to say and seems to be as concerned as the rest of us are regarding some of the teachings on young women.
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/fileadmin/template/PDFs/2009-May-June.pdf
April 22, 2009 at 8:53 am
momgodin, would you be willing to share the link to that blog, or at least lead us in the right direction?
April 22, 2009 at 11:19 am
Sure. I just stumbled on it, so I don’t even know anything about the blogger:
http://umbl0g.blogspot.com/2007/01/call-him-master-what.html
thanks!
April 22, 2009 at 6:04 pm
oops. sorry- wrong link you guys. It’s my birthday, so I posted and ran. I gave you the abuse link that I searched for. :p I’ll try to find where I was reading last night.
April 22, 2009 at 8:25 pm
momgodin, happiest of birthdays to you! May all your wildest dreams come true!
April 22, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Thanks for the link momgodin. Great blog here. I’m a conservative believer in Jesus with a wonderful wife, two daughters and a son. I’m always on the lookout for good explanation of 1 Timothy 2. If you need a pigeonhole for me, consider me a reluctant complementarian, but that’s on odd days of the month. On some even days I am egalitarian on women elders and pastors. But on average I’m a complementarian.
God is good
jpu
April 23, 2009 at 12:28 am
tee hee! I’m feeling too old for those wild dreams, let me tell you. “Forty-eight” girls! Actually I feel pretty good today, considering I’m seventh months pregnant and we won’t say how much I weigh. After losing the last baby, I wanted to make sure I was getting all the nutrition I could, and taking natural progesterone to sustain the pregnancy. Don’t know if that helped, but I’m very thankful to have just one more.
I got some opal earrings, and some comfy flip flops. It is also my son Samuel’s b’day. He was best birthday present.
Um, now I guess I *know* who John the family man is, lol. Sorry, but that is the first time I’ve read your blog- in a long chain of links.
All those terms just confuse me. Nobody stays in their box when they say they’re one or the other, so I will never learn which is which or what I am. I believe the Bible- usually the simple interpretation.:)
I believe it was a snippet from CTBHH about actually calling husbands “lord”.
So now I’m wondering if terms of endearment like “hon” and “dear” and “babe” and “bay-buh” are not respectful enough for hubbies. Is there a modern day equal to “my lord”?
April 23, 2009 at 11:36 am
Anne,
McDonald was on probation for a year and did not have voting rights. He was asked for the documents concerning his divorce and ordination and he was to supply them during this probationary period. The ordination is important because it is McDonald who claims he was ordained. That gave him credibility and the aura of experience in this presbytery’s eyes, I suppose. No pastor worth his salt would have a problem giving the name of the church and the city/state where he was ordained. It would be a reflex action for a pastor. In fact, I have conducted my own little experiment. I have asked several pastors where they were ordained and they rattled it off like they were rattling off their social security number. It was reflexive, no thought involved nor hesitation in providing me with this information.
Having experienced the shenanigans and witnessing them for a decade, I know how these people operate. Since I have experienced these things, firsthand, I am aware of how they operate. I have no time for the b.s. at this point in my life.
I would like to know why the burden of proof isn’t on the man who claims that he was ordained? This makes no sense to put the burden of proof on those who question it based on good reasons.
April 23, 2009 at 1:22 pm
In those denominations which require their ministers to BE ordained in the first place, doesn’t a prospective pastor have to produce proof of ordination in order to be allowed to preach?
April 23, 2009 at 2:25 pm
It is interesting, Cynthia Gee, because several people have made the observation that this is really the responsibility of the church that calls and hires a pastor or the denomination that welcomes him in. But what if those people neglect their responsibility and the pastor is not just a pastor but a public teacher to those outside of their group? It seems that being ordained lends credibility to their position.
I don’t necessarily believe that a pastor has to have attended seminary in order to preach or be ordained. But they have to be men of integrity who are honest among other things.
April 23, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Corrie, I have had the same experience. Most pastors are thrilled to talk about their training and education. And if you ask how ordination works in their denomination, they jump at the chance to tell you.
April 23, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Wow! Joy, I just went back and read through the Contributor’s page and the discussion there and it is a good and FRESH reminder of many things. Talk about marketing, Lin! That is exactly what people are doing in an effort to reinvent themselves and come across as “tolerant” and “kind” but they haven’t changed their teachings or beliefs at all. It is all so very patronizing and very obvious, at least to me.
I was castigated on the PW list for merely saying that the Bible does not condemn pants for women. Stacy, herself, told the list that women, like me, who say these things are just trying to justify their immodesty. And she doesn’t want those kind of ladies there causing confusion on her list. Now she says that pants are okay?
What I want to know is when did she change her mind and where is her public retractions of such teachings and apologies for those, like me, who she publicly castigated for saying the very same thing she said.
Oh, I still have that discussion from the PW list.
This is the problem. These leaders teach things but when confronted, they obsfucate and play kissy-face. They do not stand by their teachings but cast aspersion on those who question them about their teachings. They use people for their own gain and they do it by making nice and making it appear that they are, once again, “victims”.
There is NO middle ground with Stacy McDonald as I have personally found out from my own dealings with her. She has been VERY intolerant towards me (and others) when I have disagreed with her teachings on pants and other things. In fact, she told me that when I signed up for PW, that I had agreed to the charter of PW and that meant I was not to talk about it being okay for women to wear pants.
Really? So, now pants are okay as long as they meet her stringent standards of being loose enough?
When I came out of the patriarchal movement, I had no problem telling people that I was WRONG about things I used to believe. I didn’t just act like I never taught or believed those things. That would be silly.
I hear none of that from her. She just changes (not really) and then goes on the defense when people hold her to her teachings.
April 23, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Momgodin,
Don’t you know that flip-flops are evil?
Anyone remember the discussion about flip-flops?
April 23, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Corrie, oh please provide a link to the flip-flops discussion! I have heard notions of them being evil and would love to read that. At least they are not stilettos…now stilettos truly are evil…think of what they do to your feet. LOL.
April 23, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Mrs.W, it was all sandals in general, but only if men wore them. But only without socks, because they cause girls to stumble… ironically.
April 23, 2009 at 4:49 pm
The flip-flop discussion was over on WWF. A Lutheran pastor talked about flip-flops showing off women’s pedicures and not being fitting for church for either men or women because they looked “lazy” or something like that. He then went on to say that he wants to see women wearing feminine shoes to church that don’t show off their pedicure.
I like flip-flops but I don’t wear them to church, but that is my preference. I am pretty sure biblical Christians wore something very much like flip-flops in the early days of the Church.
I don’t wear flip-flops to show off my pedicure, either. I don’t know what it would bother someone to see a woman’s feet that were pedicured? But, I do wear open-toed sandals with heels to church.
http://latifhakigaba.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-women-wear.html
As you can see, this man’s post is all about “what women wear”.
“Pants are an interesting case because the danger, it seems to me, goes in both directions with the choice to wear pants. It is very difficult for pants not to show off your rear end, unless a girl is determined to utterly hide the fact that she is a girl, and in that case will end up wearing loose blue jeans that make her fit in with the guys. So girls who like to utterly hide their girlhood can find the pants to serve that purpose, while the girl who wants to be flirty knows precisely what she is doing with pants. In the area of blue jeans she will find the tight, low rise fit. And outside the realm of jeans there is a whole world of flirty pant styles. Indeed, in between these two types of girls, there is the girl who does not want to be a man, and is not aiming necessarily to be “sexy.” She, nonetheless, I contend, will find it difficult to find pants that do not either show off her rear, or on the other hand make her look like a man.”
Here is what he said about pants. Guys do not, for the most part, wear loose, baggy jeans that hide their “manhood” or do not “show off their rear”.
Not sure why I should feel like I have to hide my rear just because I am a woman? I mean, not that I should show it off, either but why should I have to hide the fact that I have one when men walk around all day long “showing off their rears”?
April 23, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Anyone know what “flirty pant styles” he is talking about besides the low-rise, underwear showing tight ones? It seems, from the article, that all pants on women are “dangerous” (he says something like this later on in the article).
I looked around at the women in Walmart in pants and I didn’t see one that looked like a man and most of them were not “flirty”.
But, then do not have this guy’s mind on what is “flirty”.
It scares me to think that a man thinks most pants show off a woman’s rear and that they are “flirty”.
April 23, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Oh, he also says that women shouldn’t go shopping in flip-flops..that it is not fitting. I guess I am in trouble.
April 23, 2009 at 5:53 pm
This guy sounds cranky.
I just linked to a George Will article on thatmom where he sounds cranky, too,as he rails against people in blue jeans. Honestly, does anyone here notice what people are wearing all the time?
April 23, 2009 at 6:05 pm
About those immodest pants… what about pants on MEN?
Now, it’s a sin for a woman to lust after a man, but it’s an abomination for a man to lust after a man.
Aren’t all those men who wear pants worried that they will tempt their weaker brothers into homosexuality?
April 23, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Regarding that Lutheran blog, you can tell a person by the company he keeps — get a load of who’s posting, it’s “Father Hollywood”, misogynist extraordinaire…
April 23, 2009 at 6:16 pm
“It scares me to think that a man thinks most pants show off a woman’s rear and that they are “flirty”.”
So he’s a pervert. Hopefully he confines his prurience to being unduly aware adult women’s rear ends, and doesn’t go around thinking that pre-teen girls who wear pants are also being “flirty” and “know exactly what they are doing”.
April 23, 2009 at 8:54 pm
I went to that Lutheran blog and it gave me a chuckle. Let’s see, ladies. You shouldn’t dress flirty. But be careful, because you shouldn’t go in the other direction and go frumpy, either. You should just be feminine. By whatever arbitrary standard or entirely subjective whim that that guy deems fit. That reminds me of the CCC list, where they once said that a woman’s garment should be loose enough so that you couldn’t see her shape, but then you had to add a lace scarf or something frilly so they’d know you were a woman.
April 23, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Maybe men shouldn’t wear jeans either. Some of them have quite sexy looking bottoms in them, and I think they should stop trying to tempt me. They’re obviously only wearing them to show off their sex appeal and lure me into adulterous thought, right?
April 23, 2009 at 11:29 pm
What a depressing blog! It’s disturbing to read sooo many thoughts devoted to such serious spiritual warfare.
“[flip flops] do betray a laziness, and a lack of effort at dressing for the ocassion.”
Yep. I did get new flip flops because I wanted shoes I could just slide on. What of it?
His attention to pedicures makes me wonder if he has a foot fetish or something. GET HELP!
(and don’t be doin’ no foot washin’)
April 24, 2009 at 9:25 am
Well our family has reasons for choosing for us that the girls (only me right now haha) will not wear pants, but it is a preference rather than us thinking the Bible actually says not to.
My husband thinks skirts are more feminine, and I certainly feel more feminine AND get treated in a more feminine matter when I am wearing a skirt. However, I don’t think that my pants wearing sisters are in sin for doing so.
We also just like the testimony it brings. In our particular local area here in the deep south, it is only the baptist or pentecostal women that wear long skirts AND long hair, and the pentecostal ones have slits up to their thighs with tight skirts, and the baptist ladies wear long skirts without slits and loose fitting. I happen to be Baptist. My husband says it is a testimony issue here because it is ONE way for people to assume immediately that I am a Christian.
But again, it’s all a personal choice and should be left as such.
This is the deep south. Everyone wears flip flops to church, and yes, right now I do have a pedicure. I even paid for it. My baby belly is so huge that anyone who thinks I am going to try to do my own pedicure is nuts LOL.
We do know some people in this area that think that women should wear long skirts AND pantyhose any time they are in public. Excuse me people, but this is MS/LA/AL/FL and it is HOT here!!!
Oh and I’ll even admit to this…I do wear the occasional pair of culottes…carefully selected ones that I like. They are just very comfortable to me and I only wear them around the house anyway.
April 24, 2009 at 9:55 am
Cynthia,
That is a good point about homosexuals. Shouldn’t these men be obsessed about making sure that they are not wearing pants that “show off their rear” or “cup their butt cheeks”?
It is my opinion that men should go back to biblical dress and wear robes so as to not to tempt other men to lust after their backsides.
April 24, 2009 at 1:05 pm
BTW, I understand that I don’t have the same history with the McDonald’s as others, and that may give me a very different perspective.
April 24, 2009 at 10:15 pm
re: “what women wear” — seems to me like this guy is paying way too much attention to womens’ rear ends and cleavage.
April 25, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Hey check out this guy, calling a woman rebellious because of what she is wearing!
April 25, 2009 at 7:13 pm
JR Corry sent me an email with a link to NGJ’s latest. (Thanks Jennifer!)
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=86&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=564
Bill Gothard denounces some of Vision Forum’s teachings on young, unmarried women. Even Gothard’s distancing himself from Vision Forum these days but cannot see all the other similarities. I guess Brother Bill doesn’t get that he’s one of the main tap roots from which VF draws their doctrinal inspiration, taking his own teachings to the next (il)logical conclusion.
My question is whether this makes Bill Gothard a “tale bearer” that warrants getting “Matthew 18ed.”
How bizarre it all is.
April 25, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Oh, Cindy, that made my day.
One black pot, imho, reporting on another black pot calling another kettle black.
So, when these men start to denounce and correct other men’s teachings, that’s okay, but when women do it, even instructing other women, we’re gossips and tale-bearers?
The whole house of cards will eventually all fall down. Things are shaking up around my neck of the woods, too.
BTW, I really like JR Corry’s reviews.
April 25, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Mrs. W-
Those look like his daughters out there with him. What on earth are they doing out on the street!? If Hillary should be at home doing dishes, why aren’t his girls up to their elbows in suds?
I have very un-Christian feelings towards IFB street pastors, simply because I’ve seen the incredible, sometimes irreversible damage they do when they show up at my campus. It’s horrible that the people I have the most difficulty loving also profess to be Christians.
April 26, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Anne & Carol,
If what Stacy McDonald does is of no concern to you, why did you start a blog called White washed Feminism – in response to Stacy’s book Passionate Housewives Desperate for God?
April 26, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Dear Rachel, if you’re honestly interested in having your questions answered, please feel free to ask them at the WWF blog. There’s also a page regarding our purpose which should answer at least one of your questions.
If you’re not interested in discussing your concerns with us, I would respectfully ask that you stop talking about us here.
Peace,
Anne
April 26, 2009 at 8:04 pm
“Hey check out this guy, calling a woman rebellious because of what she is wearing!
Who on earth IS that nut, anyway?
He also says that no Catholic goes to heaven. Does he think that everyone from the time of the Apostles up until the “Reformation” ended up in Hell?
Sheesh!
And as for the two women with him, since when does covered up equal virtuous? Check out the third chapter of Isaiah, which tells of women who were covered from head to toe, and were judged for their haughtiness and made naked.
April 27, 2009 at 8:39 am
Curious, I well remember all that Jack Hyles nonsense because at that time we had attended a Hyles church that promoted the college and often had speakers who taught there. We had never heard of the guy and once we googled (or whatever it was called back then in the pre-google days)we were stunned to learn of all the shenanigans. Our local church had a young “preacher boy” who molested several of the high school girls in their school. We later found out how common that was in these churches. We also saw a video introduction to Hyles-Anderson…scary stuff. Hyles kept referring to himself saying “I am your daddy.” Creepy. Several of those who had witnessed this believed it was the result of some of the weird gender and male/female “roles” teachings that came from the school. I agree completely. When you are taught all your life that women are here for the use of man, how else do you expect these guys to act?
April 27, 2009 at 8:40 am
Not surprisingly, Mr. Lyman misquotes Scripture. He says women are to be meek and quiet. Doesn’t Scripture say women are to possess a meen and quiet spirit? Big difference.
April 27, 2009 at 9:02 am
“We also saw a video introduction to Hyles-Anderson…scary stuff. Hyles kept referring to himself saying “I am your daddy.”
This is what happens when we leave the Biblical model of ordination and accountability, with bishops, pastors(AKA elders, priests, etc) and deacons, and try doing church our own way — you get people teaching all sorts of error, not to mention doing the nasty behind closed doors –
“1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron…”
April 27, 2009 at 9:10 am
“Not surprisingly, Mr. Lyman misquotes Scripture. He says women are to be meek and quiet. Doesn’t Scripture say women are to possess a meen and quiet spirit? Big difference.”
We’re ALL supposed to be meek, both men and women:
Mat 21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls…
Mat 5:5 Blessed [are] the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
But this guy isn’t meek, he’s a blustering loudmouth, displaying the kind of behavior that Saints Peter and Jude warn us against:
1Pe 3:9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
2Pe 2:11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
April 27, 2009 at 10:08 am
Karen,
Is that the Christianized version of the world’s “who’s your daddy?”
Cynthia G,
You are very right about the meek. We are all to possess a meek and quiet spirit. The word “quiet” does not mean silent. It means “tranquil” or “calm”.
1Ti 2:2 For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
We are all to be quiet.
Funny how these guys want to use that one verse as a cudgel to beat over a woman’s head to bring her under subjugation but they forget that they are to be the same as what they are preaching.
In fact, Moses was the “very meek”. It looks like “meekness” is not a female only quality.
Here are some more verses on “meek” and we will all see that they are NOT gender-specific:
Psa 22:26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.
Psa 25:9 The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way.
Psa 37:11 But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
Psa 76:9 When God arose to judgment, to save all the meek of the earth. Selah.
Psa 147:6 The LORD lifteth up the meek: he casteth the wicked down to the ground.
Psa 149:4 For the LORD taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation.
Isa 11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
Isa 29:19 The meek also shall increase [their] joy in the LORD, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.
Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound;
Amo 2:7 That pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor, and turn aside the way of the meek: and a man and his father will go in unto the [same] maid, to profane my holy name:
Zep 2:3 Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD’S anger.
April 28, 2009 at 8:49 am
I finally borrowed my mom’s NGJ newsletter that Mike Pearl wrote about “Dysfunctional Patriarchy”. I’m trying to see the whole picture here. In the seventies, we had Vision Forum presenting us with the upscale biblical homeschooling family (a little too pricey for us) the Pearls (a little too earthy for us) the Gothards ATI (too authoritarian) Unschooling (too loose) and Michael Farah of HSLDA, giving us the confidence to do our own thing. That’s where we jumped on this train. (Sorry, never read Mary Pride, though I was told to once!)
Now that the book “Quiverfull” has hit the market, folks are trying to distance themselves from the Vision Forum excesses of the patriocentric cult they have created. Mike Pearl says that though he would never hold Bill Gothard responsible for the excesses, he believes his Umbrella Theory and the “Divine Chain of Authority” were the seeds of the excesses.
We could argue that the Pearls likewise seeded excesses with CTBHH, and TTUAC, could we not? Pearl has always advocated raising independent children, which I can see no practical use for in their type of patriarchal marriage. Still, I am very glad he repents of the ‘daughters giving their heart to their fathers’ notion
.
There has also been a backlash against the corruption (excesses) and abuses discovered in our denom (IFB) which I attribute to an unbiblical doctrine of “Pastoral Authority”. The local pastor has replaced the Holy Ghost and the scriptures as the authority of the believers, and the result is a generation of weak, dependent, immature, ineffective witnesses. We have numerous “Dysfunctional Churches” seeded by Hyles’ Pastors’ School. Pastors drunk on their Hyles-ordained authority commanding churches full of dependent, mindless, obedient slaves who sacrifice their children on the altars of Baal. From sexual abuse to fornication, many of these men will not be held accountable by the weak and cowardly sheeple, and so I fear it won’t be long before Big Brother steps in to the rescue.
April 28, 2009 at 9:11 am
Yes Mike Pearl is just as responsible for excessive patriocentric teaching as the next person. The fact that he is trying to distance himself from it is, to me, amusing. He thinks that adult children should be independent, but that once an adult daughter gets married, she is suddenly a doormat. And children are little doormats too. It is only in those few years where you are a “single adult” that Mike Pearl thinks you are able to do anything. I guess that is part of his culture with living in an Amish community. Think about it…the Amish have a time when the child grows up that the child can “run wild” to see if they want to remain Amish or not. Mike Pearl has just changed up this belief into the adult child thing.
The guy is an idiot.
April 28, 2009 at 9:24 am
Momgodin, I have seen exactly what you are talking about regarding Hyles churches. Where is the accountability? And where is the spiritual maturity? From what I have seen, everything is kept at a surface level and any application is made only in areas of personal preference.
“many of these men will not be held accountable by the weak and cowardly sheeple, and so I fear it won’t be long before Big Brother steps in to the rescue.”
This has long been a concern I share, especially when it comes to this attitude toward women in the patriocentric circles. One of these days there will be some sort of lawsuit brought against a family who refuses to give their daughters an education equal to what their sons are given and it will be ugly for everyone. This is one reason I am so frustrated with those who are offended when we expose the true behaviors and teachings of those within the patriocentric movement. If the church isn’t willing to hold false teachers accountable, the state will do it.
April 28, 2009 at 9:28 am
Mrs. W, you have made such a good point….these teachers who have created this mess ARE trying to step away from it. They are attempting to be the “kindler gentler” patriarch or matriarchs of patriarchy. The truth is, the only way any of us will see them as sincere is when they repent of their teachings that have proven to be based on man’s (or woman’s) ideas, in some cases through the pain of their own children) and will speak honestly and transparently. I believe Reb Bradley is one of these people and for that I respect him. Sadly, the blame passers will reap what they have sown.
April 28, 2009 at 9:40 am
I actually appreciate some of Gothard’s stuff and never knew till I started reading here that he was considered part of the patriocentric movement.
I read a child training book by Reb Bradley. What has he said in recent years that might change what he said in that book? I liked some of the stuff but also thought that some was a little unrealistic.
My husband and I are fairly patriarchial in beliefs, and for a long time now I have struggled with what the difference is between a Biblical patriarchy and just over the top patriocentricity. I think I have finally figured it out. Patriarchy, in certain aspects, if done right, brings glory to GOD. Patriocentricity brings glory to a MAN.
April 28, 2009 at 9:46 am
I just saw something else- “Church growth at all costs” is kinda like Quiverfull.
There is a lot of discussion about what churches have sacrificed for [the appearance] of growth. That suggests God’s blessing, dontcha know? This is why it is a mistake to assume that a large family equals godliness!
(Lots of big churches out there deader than a doornail!)
April 28, 2009 at 10:18 am
Hi Anne,
I understand the need to take care of yourself when you are pregnant and cut down on the stress. It is sometimes necessary for all of us to step away from these discussions since they can produce some very intense emotions and confusion.
“I have only wanted to discuss issues over character, and to make sure that when character issues do come up that they are handled with care. I have only tried to stand up for what I believe in. And believe me, that’s much harder when it’s in a forum like this, with people whom I’ve always respected. It would have been much easier to back down, say you all were right, and keep to the safe road. But I didn’t. Because, even if I can’t make anyone understand what I’ve tried to say (and that may be more my fault than anyone else’s), it is a matter of integrity for me to state what I believe and stand by it. Even if it’s unpopular. For that exercise on my part, I’ve been basically called a liar by someone who continues to post here anonymously.”
This is exactly what I have tried to do for years. When I was on the PW list, there were times I had to stand up for what I believed the Bible taught and what I thought was right. One example was the conversation where moms were talking about slapping their kids in the face for discipline. I was horrified, especially because none of the moderators stepped in and rebuked the ones promoting this. In fact, I got a letter from the moderators explaining that I was being judgmental and that we, as parents, have various “tools” in our “toolbox” for administering discipline to our children. Many women from the PW list wrote me, privately, and thanked me for standing up against this ghastly “tool” but it earned me a ticket off of that list, once again, for not going along with the flow. It was very distressing for me to hear women promoting this and seeing none of the leaders rebuke this. So much for Titus 2, huh?
When I stated that wearing pants was not against the Bible, I was excoriated, publicly, for trying to “justify” my immodesty. And this was done by the owner/founder of the PW list.
I have tried to stand up for what is sound doctrine for a long time and I have taken a lot of verbal assaults and I have been accused of a lot of things. It gets hard, for sure.
When I was threatened with legal action for simply standing up for what was right and true (and this was a PRIVATE email that I sent, it was not done publicly), I was pregnant and my husband was out of town. It was very stressful. Who would have thought that Christians would issue threats and demands, especially those who claim to be teachers? James 3:1
I think people are confused by your sudden turn, maybe? Just recently you offered to post the documentation of proof that McDonald owed over $75,000 to a printer. It was an old debt and he had not attempted to pay it until it was made public 4 years later. That isn’t the only thing he owes, either. This is the same “pastor” who recently (about 6 months ago) posted on his blog how we are to owe nothing but the debt of love. Such hypocrisy, especially considering how much he owed to just one creditor and how he refused to pay his debt for so many years. And, when I read that blog post, knowing how much he owed to that printer and to other people who set up their website (Patriarchs Path), it was just one more example of the dishonesty being practice. And, as a believer, I have every right to compare what I know to be true with what a teacher of God’s word claims. This is what blasphemes the word of God. We are told to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy. They teach one thing and live the opposite. They tie up burdens on the backs of their followers but won’t lift a finger to help. He taught his readers to owe no debt but the debt of love when he is up to his eyeballs in unpaid debt. And the spin over on their self-justification blog is really too much. They are NOT telling the whole story, only parts of it and the parts they are telling are the parts that cast them in the most positive light. Partial truth is not truth especially when used to mislead others into thinking something that is less than true.
Thankfully, because of the efforts of Cindy K, the printer now has $7,000 more than he would have ever seen if she hadn’t stood up for what was right and true. Hopefully someone will hold McDonald accountable for making regular payments to this printer until his debt is paid off and this public show won’t lull his followers into forgetting that he is far from done in fulfilling his duty to pay for the services he knowingly solicited.
It wasn’t a “popular” thing for her to do and for her efforts, she was threatened with a law suit, but it was the right thing to do. Talk about stress!
So, when you say things about it not being right to question a public teacher because we are not part of their church, it might confuse people. When teachers refuse to be accountable to legitimate bodies of believers (RPCGA) and go out, independently, in order to form their own churches and be their own bosses, who is going to be on the wall warning the sheep? His former presbytery does not recognize him as a legitimate pastor. This, alone, should cause us to take heed. Where do we see, from Scripture, that we are not to expose those whose doctrine does not match their practices? We don’t. Teachers are only legitimate when they are teaching according to God’s word and not playing the hypocrite.
I wasn’t taking your comment personally. I was just thinking about the people who have tried to talk about these issues and I couldn’t think of one person on this blog who wouldn’t accept documentation if it was given to them.
It goes the other way around, too. We could come up with reams of documentation and I KNOW there are people that will never believe it because they run on emotions and they are subjective in their reason and judgment. If these people have been “nice” to them, they will not believe the documentation because of their personal experiences. This is dangerous.
April 28, 2009 at 10:26 am
Momgodin,
Great point!
I was reading James 4 today and I thought of the multi-generational model and so many other teachings in the patriocentric movement. James tells us it is boasting and arrogant to assume we know what tomorrow will hold and that we will do “such and such”. Our lives our a vapor, that is here for a short time and then vanishes.
They are building their own kingdoms, not God’s, and boasting in their arrogance what they will do tomorrow.
April 28, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Something else about all this…
What is it that has actually caused Gothard and Pearl to call out Phillips? (It amazes me, as I recently read PFO’s page on Gothard, and just reading the subtitles in it that summarize what Gothard teaches sounds identical to Vision Forum. VF just takes Gothard to the next logical conclusion.)
What was the impetus or collection of them that has caused people to start to move away from Phillips? Or Phillips from his own position?
There was the Midwest Christian Outreach article about Vision Forum…. That brought attention to the household vote issue and how women were not to vote. (I see much of that drawn from Dabney and the agrarian writings.) So VF and Doug took the heat for that from MCO. Then in November ’08, Doug annonuces that Beall votes, always has voted, and the Abshire article has disappeared. I didn’t think until now to look to see if Doug also removed his “tale bearer” post from the blog, too. So was it the pressure and heat from the MCO article that caused VF to essentially drop no voting for women? Was it Beall? Was it the email that Lady Lydia sent out that claims that Jennie Chancey has voted all along and didn’t even abide by her own teachings, and how accurate was that info, considering that Beall voted?
What exactly has caused Gothard to move away from Phillips’ teachings about daugthers and arrows that must be kept in the house rather than used in warfare? Was it all Pearl’s articles?
Did the MCO article prompt Michael Pearl in some way? Or is it just that he finally got one too many letters from VF folk that disturbed him?
God’s timing is interesting. I am always amazed. I wonder what he chain of causality really is?
I do find it terribly interesting that Gothard is willing to side with Michael Pearl over Phillips (though no specific names are mentioned), and much of this could go right back to Lindvall, too.
And how far will they take things and how much discomfort will it cause for the patriocentrists? Will the protect their wounds and defend their case? How far will they take it. It will be interesting to see how far they will go to address Brother Bill. Very strange stuff. Maybe they will come up with a new moniker for Gothard?
April 28, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I should have specified –
How far will they take things and how much discomfort will it (Gothard and Pearl) cause for Vision Forum?
That was confusing as they are all patriocentrists to varying degrees. They are making more distinctions among themselves, as the togetherness factor has been outweighed by the discomfort factor for Pearl and Gothard, apparently.
April 28, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I vividly recall the blog piece that Phillips wrote about “tale bearing” as a response to the MCO article because my husband and I cracked up over the TAIL bearers in our house. You have to label everything with some weird “Biblical modifier” or Gothardesque sounding title. (Which reminds me of reading in Quiverfull the other day where it sites the VF catalog selling slips for girls, but they are called “modesty slips” and not just slips. Why do they sell girls undergarments anyway?)
I don’t know if this is still on Doug’s blog, but it is on the VFM website with ALL OF THE ABSHIRE references and MCO references removed. It only links to Doug’s other blog pieces and talks about people being critical of VF on blogs. There is no reference to anything having to do with Abshire, actually, and I don’t know why they left him in the title of the thing.
It is then followed by anything they have put on the Doug’s Blog having to do with cults including a lame piece that Botkin wrote about 2 years ago about “the c word.”
Naturally, they don’t define spiritual abuse as “the c word,” nor do they list the objective evaluation of using Lifton’s thought reform criteria, as you can well imagine. It’s all pejorative and name-calling.
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/cross_examination/how_to_respond_to_a_talebearer.aspx
It is like they just wiped every reference to their hard line position (Dabney’s teaching) about women not voting off the face of Vision Forum as if it never existed. No comments. No disclaimers. No nothing. It’s just conveniently missing.
Yeah well, they did that revisionist art history with Leighton’s painting, so why not do it with their doctrine?
And I am upset now that I wasted an hour more of my life on this nonsense.
April 28, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Cindy said,
“When we dedicate ourselves to anything other than the Word of God … we cannot but help to fall into a place that is not centered.”
Yes! This is the heart of what is the warning against all the extra stuff we “prone to wander, Lord I feel it” humans, who need to return to the feet of Jesus to listen to Him, in His Word, by His Holy Spirit.
I shared these patriarchal teachings with my friend who attends a church where patriarchy is not taught. She was stunned when I showed her some printed teachings coming from hofcc’s visitor’s booklet about women and speaking at the open mic in the congregation. They are to ask their husband/father/elder for permission with their word of encouragement, while men 13+ age and up are free to have their own authority to speak at the mic during the service. (?!) They cite scripture. Her response to the teachings was immediate and she said, “They’ve axed out the Holy Spirit”, in other words, they’ve taken God’s still, small voice guiding us into all truth, and replaced Him with these rules and hierarchies and structures. I have to agree.
April 28, 2009 at 5:57 pm
“God’s timing is interesting. I am always amazed. I wonder what he chain of causality really is?”
It’s like a celestial alignment.
You have the QF book, NGJ, the internet blogs with No Longer Quivering chronicling the horrors.
Now you have the fruit finally speaking out.
I don’t know about the VF and Gothard, but NGJ is a mag read by the whole family. So when Pearl addressed this, the adult children of this movement answered for themselves, deluging him with their letters.
Many of them wrote that the MOTHERS are running the dysfunctional-patriarchy home!
But how can this be, when their readership embraces CTTHH? How can so many people have misunderstood- misinterpreted NGJ all these years?
And don’t forget- the secular world is looking at this cult like it’s an epidemic. You can see how they react to something they fear is a disease. That should be taken seriously.
What’s next?
Exodus to New Zealand to escape persecution!
April 28, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I have something I would like to discuss that we touched on earlier in this tread to some extent.
What actually constitutes a “biblical” divorce?
Also, what would constitute a “biblical” divorce as per the Westminster Confession?
April 28, 2009 at 7:37 pm
What actually constitutes a “biblical” divorce?
Google David Istone Brewer. He is a Hebrew scholar at Tyndale House in London and has done a ton of research on this for meaning in both OT and NT. He has some video clips that are excellent.
http://www.instonebrewer.com/divorceremarriage/
April 29, 2009 at 7:07 am
The first time I ever heard the phrase “biblical divorce” was in our first experience in a Presbyterian church and a man had been nominated for elder who had been divorced twice and was currently married to his third wife. One of the men who sat on the elder board at the time stated that it was nearly impossible to determine whether or not the man had a “biblical divorce” because there was no record that included a statement from the former spouse (spouses) or any legal documentation from a judge who granted the divorce or a church body who was in oversight of this man at the time. I assumed then that those were the documents that would be required when determining a “biblical divorce.”
This was confirmed to me later when I asked someone who was in just such a position of leadership and who was responsible for determining such things in a pastor’s ordination. I was told that testimony from a former spouse (spouses) and documentation from the judge who oversaw the divorce (divorces) would be used to determine a “biblical divorce.” Since I learned this from Presbyterian elders in both cases, I assumed then that this proof would constitute the paperwork necessary to determine these things when it came to ordaining elders in a Presbyterian church.
Last night it occurred to me how someone might interpret these things…perhaps an elder was the defendant in a divorce case and was determined to be the one who was at fault in a divorce. And perhaps the term “biblical divorce” could include any or all of the reasons in the articles Lin linked to, ie, abandonment, lack of care of basic needs, physical harm, etc. So it reality, the divorce was biblical, even if the perpetrator was the elder in question but that elder had repented of the sins against the former spouse (spouses) so he could “technically” be considered to have had a “biblical divorce.” Is this plausible?
I would really be curious to know if anyone has ever heard or or seen these sorts of documents written that could be used within churches to show that, indeed, the elder candidate was “cleared” for leadership.
BTW, the elder I mentioned who was in question was a “ruling” elder not a “teaching” elder, a distinction I never did get since biblically elders are required to be able to teach. In other words, he wasn’t the pastor. Wouldn’t the requirements for a pastor be even greater?
April 29, 2009 at 7:34 am
Biblical divorce IIRC is allowed when there is infidelity and also when there is hardness of heart and when the couple is “unequally yoked.”
Cindy I wanted to make one clarification: For Orthodox and ultra Orthodox Jews, the get is a last resort and there is stigma attached to the family (marriage brokers consider divorce a “problem”). In other words, divorce is easier to get but the stigma in a way is greater and it extends beyond the divorcing folks and their kids.
Hope that helps!
I do pray the patrios learn and grow and mature in Christ.
April 29, 2009 at 7:49 am
Gail,
Thank you for bringing that balance into the discussion. I was not taught and didn’t mean to imply that a divorce or the get was a light matter or not reflective of a serious problem — really nothing less than a wound with serious consequences. I apologize if I gave that impression.
What I posted here was what I was taught in the Assemblies of God and does not really reflect any other training. I actually have not heard divorce presented outside of an adult Sunday School class, and I have not heard it preached or taught as a subject in a sermon in at least 15 years. But from that study, and as I mentioned here, there is a distinction between the OT and the NT qualifications for divorce with the NT’s being quite tighter than those allowed under Mosaic Law. And the Assemblies, at that time anyway, did not remarry anyone. You could come and join if you were, but most pastors would not do the ceremony if they were even permitted to do so, and you could not hold the status of elder or pastor.
I also never got the impression that they looked down their nose on anyone who was remarried or other denominations that did not hold to their convictions and doctrine. (They seemed to limit all of that “us and them” stuff to the Holy Spirit and whether a group or individual spoke in tongues which was seen as a necessary higher level of spirituality. No one needed any further cause for looking down their nose at another group. There was plenty to do within those limits.)
April 29, 2009 at 10:35 am
Historically, King Henry VIII defied what had been the traditional Christian position on divorce and remarriage for 1500 years. The Church had never seen the NT as allowing it – believing that “porneia” refers to an “unclean” union of some kind, incestuous or “unblessed” between the two married people. In other words, the union wasn’t binding because of a flaw in its inception.
Another word, “moicheia” means adultery, apparently, and was not used by Jesus in this statement. And certainly, many other NT verses describe the marriage bond as “two becoming one”.
The early Church fathers, who lived when the original NT language was still commonly used, had the interpretation I’ve expressed here.
I just think it’s important to realize that the many different Protestant views of divorce and remarriage (all thinking that they are the most “biblical”) are of relatively recent invention.
Anyway, it’s a thorny problem, indeed!
(I’ve previously posted as CatholicMom, but that name is used often by others on the blogosphere)
April 29, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Maybe this is old news (I haven’t been able to check in here as often as I would like lately) but Doug Phillips has a new column up lashing out against Kathryn Joyce’s book on the Quiverfull movement:
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/news_and_reports/the_return_of_the_child_catche.aspx
Phillips’s column is stunningly dishonest. First, he portrays the book as pillorying prolific mothers. He asserts that the central claim of the book is that large families are a danger to society. In fact, the book isn’t about large families per se but about a philosophy by which women are subordinated to he tries to discredit her based on her amen.
Rather than tackling Joyce’s factual claims or her pointed analysis of the problems with the Vision Forum philosophy, Phillips tries to discredit her by her association with a semi-well-known feminist. He also claim that her sources are unreliable. Apparently, in his world “disgruntled ex-communicants” (like Jennifer Epstein) or radical feminist lesbians are by definition lacking in credibility just because of who they are. As someone with a J.D. and a college degree from a respectable university, Phillips knows better than to believe that this kind of fallacious argument proves anything. But he thinks he can get away with it because he thinks his audience isn’t very bright. And it’s so much easier to yell, “Ew lesbians!” then to actually address the substantive claims Joyce is making about his movements.
April 29, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Whoa — something weird happened in the last sentence of my first paragraph. Here is my whole post repeated without the error:
Maybe this is old news (I haven’t been able to check in here as often as I would like lately) but Doug Phillips has a new column up lashing out against Kathryn Joyce’s book on the Quiverfull movement:
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/news_and_reports/the_return_of_the_child_catche.aspx
Phillips’s column is stunningly dishonest. First, he portrays the book as pillorying prolific mothers. He asserts that the central claim of the book is that large families are a danger to society. In fact, the book isn’t about large families per se but about a philosophy by which women are subordinated.
Rather than tackling Joyce’s factual claims or her pointed analysis of the problems with the Vision Forum philosophy, Phillips tries to discredit her by her association with a semi-well-known feminist. He also claim that her sources are unreliable. Apparently, in his world “disgruntled ex-communicants” (like Jennifer Epstein) or radical feminist lesbians are by definition lacking in credibility just because of who they are. As someone with a J.D. and a college degree from a respectable university, Phillips knows better than to believe that this kind of fallacious argument proves anything. But he thinks he can get away with it because he thinks his audience isn’t very bright. And it’s so much easier to yell, “Ew lesbians!” then to actually address the substantive claims Joyce is making about his movements.
April 29, 2009 at 2:21 pm
There’s an old fellow I know named Richard who’s about as patriocentric a curmudgeon as they come, but I count him as a Christian brother, and love him and pray for him often.
Richard has a saying,namely, “If ANYONE, even a drunk in the gutter, stands up and tells you the truth, you ought to listen to him.”
Wise man, that Richard….and DP ought to take a page from his book.
April 29, 2009 at 5:17 pm
“I just think it’s important to realize that the many different Protestant views of divorce and remarriage (all thinking that they are the most “biblical”) are of relatively recent invention.”
Exactly. Which is why I linked to Hebrew scholar David Instone Brewer who has studied this indepth. There is a lot that is misunderstood but it is indepth and goes back to the law and then how Jesus responded to the Pharisees on this issue.
April 29, 2009 at 8:47 pm
This blogger has occasionally posted about Vision Forum, and he also commented on the strident (hm, is there any other?) “tone” of Doug Phillips’ post.
http:// ematthaei dot blogspot dot com/2009/04/wow_29 dot html
April 29, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Laurie,
Thank you for that link (I think!).
Adding to your observations, I would add the hypocrisy in Phillips’ complaint that the book was not footnoted. I actually agree with Phillips on the point he makes. Knowing some of the sources, Joyce does shift between sources, quoting them but not footnoting them. That is a deficiency in the book that I agree with.
In his RL Dabney booklet, a collection of quotes from his laudable prophet, Phillips himself presents a grouping of quotes, presumably pulled from a collection of Dabney sources, all organized by topic. Phillips applies goofy subtitles like “Dabney on No Fault Divorce.” (I seriously doubt there was no-fault divorce in 1850.) It is reminiscent of things like the “tale bearer” post and the on on “John Knox on Blogosphere Gossip.” Everything has to have a kitschy sound-byte title.
So I find it bizarre and hypocritical that Phillips observes that there is a problem with footnotes. In the Dabney book, you have to take for granted that the quotes came from a Dabney source and “Trust a Lawyer,” because the only references listed are a general list of a group of somewhere between five and ten Dabney sources. He provides no sources or footnotes, just this general list at the very end of the booklet, almost like an afterthought.
In other words, to find a selected quote, such as the quote of Dabney on no-fault divorce, one would have to have access to every book and reference listed in the back of the booklet, and one would have to read every single reference and hope that the quote could be recognized.
It amazes me that the patriocentrists can just twist the truth so that about 5% of their accounts of things or their observations are accurate, but 95% of the rest amounts to little more than a carefully worded collection of unstated assumptions and implications that will give them loopholes in which to dance and spin, claiming innocence, truth and forthrightness. They can also be blatantly guilty of the very charges that they make of others with bold, audacious arrogance, and they do it with impunity. And if you do it all with sugar and a smile or while you hide behind the guise of a lovely family, you are exempt from all standards.
The virtuous end and and the higher cause give these patriocentrists some kind of bizarre boldness to dissemble, twist and distort in self-righteous self-justification. It is astounding to me.
Are they blind, fearful, seared in conscience, clinging to the Rahab clause, irreverent because they believe they are elect and the election is sure, or do they have a clinical diagonsis? Or is this all just a game to make a buck? Do they think the world and the Church is full of chumps, as Laurie suggests might be the case, and Phillips believes his following is too unsophisticated to challenge him? Or do they feel pretty secure so that they are confident that the fear is sufficient to keep the following in a hyper-suggestible alpha or theta state?
Either way, they are bold hypocrites. I hope that they are just blind for lack of being able to see. And I pray that the Lord moves on them so that they will see and repent.
God have mercy on all of us in our hypocrisy, as we all draw breath and are so much like Paul, the chief of sinners. We all have our proud looks and dispositions of heart, though we are offered grace and the opportunity to repent of that which God hates. None are righteous in ourselves, only under the Blood. May we all have all things under the Blood while we still have the opportunity to do so. God have mercy on us all.
April 30, 2009 at 9:48 am
Kathy, no combination in that mix is working.
Could you post it again as a real link and I will be sure to let the link go through?
April 30, 2009 at 10:07 am
I finally made my way through Doug’s rant about the Quiverfull book, which I understood he also did at the Homeschooling Leadership Summit.
As usual, Doug can only evaluate these things by putting his own spin out there in terms of black and white, biblical and unbiblical, which would be valid if what he is promoting is clearly defined in Scripture but it is not. As my husband has pointed out many times, these people always paint with such a broad brush that you can’t take them seriously.
Last week he and I watched the Monstrous Regiment of Women. It was the first time my husband had watched it. He was blown away. The entire message in the film is that either you agree that feminism in all forms, including women having the right to vote, is unbiblical and heresy, or you are a baby killer. Every topic is simplistic and labeled as “Marxist” and I don’t even think Jennie Chancey understands one wit about Marxism.
Doug is doing the same thing in his evaluation of the Quiverfull book. He says “Christianity is inherently pro-life. Feminism of all stripes is implicitly anti-life. That is one reason why the dark, anti-family mockery coming from feminists sounds increasingly like the rantings of the Child Catcher of Vulgaria.
Within Christianity, the single most pro-life group is the homeschool community. The Christian homeschool movement is a work of God made up of diverse individuals, many of whom share certain basic commitments about the Bible, the family, the role of men and women, godly education, and the preciousness of life. For many of these families, the same spiritual revival which led them to turn their hearts to Christ, and then to their children, has also given them a biblical desire to reject a selfish, feminist vision of life by returning to principles of biblical manhood and womanhood. ”
Do you see what he has done? He has “made the case” that anyone who doesn’t hold to HIS views of men and women isn’t pro-life and pro-child.
He also uses this article to scare the daylights out of homeschooling moms, much like all that mumbo jumbo Stacy McDonald wrote talking about all the blogs that are against mothers and especially stay at home moms. Where are those blogs? I know Corrie and I both spent a great deal of time looking for those blogs and they just aren’t there. We found no articles in either Chrsitian or secular publications that would substantiate those claims. We asked what those are but she never produced proof of those claims. IN FACT, being a stay at home mom and even homeschooling is sort of trendy right now! And as Corrie and I both can attest to, we are praised all the time by people who are in awe of large families. In fact, I am sometimes embarrassed by the admiration. Why do the patriocentrists insist on telling women these things? And then they set up straw men to be the bad guys, which only causes hurt and confusion. In Passionate Housewives, women wearing high heels and owning marble sinks were the bad guys and the antecdotes about them only served to make moms who don’t wear/own these things feel better about their own choices. The truth is, many women own marble sinks and wear high heels who love Jesus and love their families and appreciate large families and the moms who have them.
Doug rants on about how dangerous the anti-children crowd is. I need to see who this crowd is for myself…..give me quotes, Doug. Let’s see it. The patriocentrists aren’t playing fairly.
April 30, 2009 at 10:51 am
Karen,
I read Doug’s latest article and I am embarrassed for him and all the others who align themselves with all this fear-mongering and propaganda.
April 30, 2009 at 11:43 am
Sorry Karen, was trying to make this easier for you and I made it worse. Here is the unadulterated link.
This blogger has occasionally posted about Vision Forum, and he also commented on the strident (hm, is there any other?) “tone” of Doug Phillips’ post.
http://ematthaei.blogspot.com/2009/04/wow_29.html
April 30, 2009 at 11:49 am
Oops, Karen, I see you already found a way to make the link work in #257…(gulp more coffee down)
April 30, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I’m still laughing at Laurie’s comment that all Doug needs to do is yell “Ew Lesbians!” in order to “define and win.”
Karen,
Doug really does read right off the script of thought reform here.
There is milieu control through fear mongering where you are safe in God’s narrowly defined group, mystical manipulation by predicting all of these terrible things, the language is definitely loaded as usual (and is complete with picture and a new fairy tale analogy), the demand for purity is there in black and white thought, there is the sacred science (Doug’s homeschooling doctrine), doctrine over person, and the dispensing of existence to those within the group. It really is classic Doug Phillips. Not much opportunity to pressure people for confession in a written document, or I”m sure that it would be there, too. It is like a textbook example of how groups use thought reform in their published propaganda to manipulate their following. It’s better than something right out of the Watchtower and an exemplar.
April 30, 2009 at 12:30 pm
That is (last sentence),
It is better as an example of thought reform in written form than something right out of the Watchtower AS an exemplar.
April 30, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Oh, little rain, Catholicmom,
You bring up a good point. The Assemblies of God program and the church I was in did not do so well on church history. It seemed for me to jump from John at Patamos (since that’s the last book in the Canon) to these two guys named Luther and Tyndale (though they were not crazy about their supposedly dead churches), to Charles Finney, to Jimmy Swagart. They bypass the rest, though I think they put the United Pentecostal Church in there as the history of departing from heresy (and you never hear of Arius). Defining the Episcopal church as Protestant wouldn’t fit the timeline.
And it is “Good to be the king” when you have the Archbishop of Canterbury in your back pocket and can lop off the head of a wife you suddenly find contentious.
April 30, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Thanks, Cindy. The early Church fathers are fascinating and the earliest were instructed directly by the twelve apostles long before there was a NT canon. Reading the Didache (which expressly forbids abortion and gives such a vivid glimpse of the early church’s practices) and other early documents by living so close to Christ’s own time can add much depth and breadth to “being a Berean”.
Doug Phillips has lost it! Chitty Chitty Bang Bang – puh-leeze.
April 30, 2009 at 2:46 pm
The author of the Quiverful book is probably doing a happy-dance over Doug Phillip’s review. After all, by his response, he just confirmed many of the things that are asserted in that book.
Why is it that he can impugn the people that Joyce used in her book (ie., a lesbian and a woman he put out of his church) but all those that belong under his umbrella are unimpeachable as far as their character and conduct and life history and it is called “gossip” and “slander” when others do the very thing he engages in all the time?
April 30, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Well, she’s at least noticed it.
http://kathrynjoyce.com/
Personally I’m more interested in how Doug Phillips tracks with Sara Robinson’s current essay. But I’ll put that up on my own blog in the next day or so.
May 2, 2009 at 10:22 am
#268
Do you think it was wise of the author to use Jen Epstien as a witness against Doug Philips? Didn’t you impugn her, Jen Epstien, character as well? Unless of course I’m thinking of the wrong Corrie.
May 2, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Hi Jonathan,
I would rather not go into the whole Jen Epstein issue on this blog. It is long and involved and, frankly, sordid. But, imho, using Jen Epstein in that book is not a good idea, especially after all I learned when I dug for the truth concerning the situation of the Epsteins and Doug Phillips. I am not popular with people on my side of the debate when I say that Doug Phillips got a “run for his money” when he met Jen Epstein. She should have NEVER gone public with her story with her history and behaviors. And I have stated, publicly, that I probably wouldn’t have handled that situation as patiently as it seems that Phillip’s church did. And this just proves that I only care about truth. I will change my mind based on FACTS, EVIDENCE and TRUTH.
I got very close to Jen during the year she had her story up and I learned a lot and I weighed the facts. Much of what was written by Boerne/Matt Chancey was right on. They were guessing at some of it, so they weren’t completely accurate in all the details, but I learned much of it straight from the source. During the course of that year, I was horrified at what I learned and I repeatedly told Jen to get her site down and stop misrepresenting herself and her situation.
The whole situation is very sad and I have prayed, consistently, about it and for all involved. She needs help and not the kind of help that says “get right or get left” nor does she need “biblical counseling” and told to “just submit”. She needs professional/medical help. I have no problem talking about character and behavior when it applies to what people say as compared to what they do.
My point was that the Phillip’s crowd doesn’t allow any criticism of the character/behavior of the people involved with that ministry (ie., authors, teachers, etc) and they label it as “gossip” and “hearsay” and “misrepresentation” and “not any of our business” and “there is always two sides to the story” but they have no problem talking about the character of Jen and Cheryl.
I have no problem with them talking about it, either, but it is highly hypocritical for them to not allow this to go both ways.
You see, they impugn the character of anyone who opposes their teachings (ie., “marble sinks”, “little dogs”, “white-washed feminists”, “marxists” etc) but they plug their ears up and obsfucate when it comes to it coming back to them.
This is a good case of “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.
If Jen and Cheryl’s character can be brought into question, then so can their character. That was my point.
May 3, 2009 at 7:48 am
Corrie, I agree that Jen and Cheryl were bad choices for Kathryn Joyce to use in her book. In my opinion, it took away much of her credibility in a book that otherwise really presented many of the patriocentric views accurately. I did post a full review on the book on my other blog if anyone is interested:
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/book-review-of-quiverfull-inside-the-christian-patriarchy-movement-by-kathryn-joyce/
May 3, 2009 at 7:51 am
This is a good case of “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.
If Jen and Cheryl’s character can be brought into question, then so can their character. That was my point.
Corrie, this really is part of the problem is it not? Where does accountability of homeschooling leadership lie? Cheryl was a homeschooling leader. Those who are invited to attend an HSLDA leadership conference must consider themselves leaders. Kevin Swanson is a leader and who holds him accountable for the over the top statements he makes? I just wonder about these things. I mean, there was a time when I would attend a homeschooling conference and never give the time of day wonder if I am listening to the real deal. A few years ago that changed and now I am much more of a Berean.
May 3, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Jonathan,
This brings up an interesting point all of it’s own.
What exactly qualifies as “impugning someones character” specifically?
I never knew Jen well enough to make any kind of assessment of her character, but I can cite several instances where it was demonstrated that she hid very critical aspects of the truth from her readers. For instance, if I had known that she was aided by racialists, I would have not become involved with her discussion to the degree that I did by so strongly defending her. I took her at her word, the image she presented.
My point is that anything I said regarding Jen was related to this deception she created and promoted. It involved a particular act on her behalf.
You state:
Didn’t you impugn her, Jen Epstien, character as well?
I didn’t impugn (to attack as false, to challenge in an argument) Jen Epstein personally, only her behavior as it affected me because she lead me to believe something that was untrue. I impugned her statement that she had nothing to do with a certain group, but then she admitted openly that she was involved with the group and a number of individuals in it.
Another analogy, as I have also laid that particular matter to rest and “set forth” or released those people from any personal debt owed to me (forgiveness, where I no longer expect anything from those who have offended me, not to be confused with reconciliation).
If my neighbor borrows my shovel and my tiller and never gives them back, claiming he does not have them when he does (they are in his garage and are marked with my name), if I confront him about the tools, does that mean I have drawn the whole of his CHARACTER into question? The neighbor might be the truest friend that I have, and I might trust him in all other areas, save for the issue of the lawn tools which may have some other explanation. Is it not fair to say that I can impugn his behavior related to only the tools (that he well may not remember or may find a great issue of shame for some odd reason related only to that), but that I have not impugned the whole of his character?
The same is true of ideas. Karen Campbell and I went around on the issue of oral contraceptives a few months back. We disagree and accept different information as reliable, so I hold to a different assessment on a matter that I know she holds intensely strong convictions about. That has nothing to do with her character (and actually, it engenders more respect in me for the fiber of her character). It’s something that is even, at times, an intensely personal subject, but though I openly challenged her stance and argued against a presupposition she held (I impugned her presuppostion), I did in no way impugn her personally.
I would think that to impugn someone’s character would be to say that you find them to be without any good character traits on a deeply personal level. I don’t even have those kinds of opinions about those who have directly abused me so as to personally impugn them. I’ve impugned their behavior or their statements, not them as human beings or even as personalities.
Where is the dividing line between challenging or rejecting a person’s behavior or a statement of belief and actually impugning them personally? If you contain the challenge to specifics, why would it be a personal matter to impugn?
Now, it does add to the way a person is perceived. It does cause people to draw character into question, but that is quite different that impugning one’s character.
I think that the same is true of Kathryn Joyce’s “Quiverfull” book itself. I read some facts in the book, such that Joyce claims that Phillips was homeschooled. I understand that Phillips was not homeschooled and confirmed with others that he has said in the past that he was not homeschooled as a child or young man. If Joyce missed that fact, what other fact did she also miss? I also question why half of the introduction discussed that Haggard pastor from Colorado who was caught in sexual sin. What does he have to do with the Quiverfull movement? Not a whole lot. It gives reason to ask questions, but it does not mean the book is without value and should be thrown in a dustbin. It just makes the book weaker than it could be in those areas. Certain aspects of it, from my understanding of the topic, are right on target and should be qualified as such.
May 3, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Jonathan,
That statement wasn’t directed at you necessarily but is a question that I have from a broader perspective. You framed it as such, so I used the example, though it is my intent to pose it as a general question directed at whoever reads it would want to respond.
I would like to better discern what constitutes that which is specific and factual as opposed to that which is personal. I honestly wish to understand better what qualifies one from the other for my own benefit and growth.
May 3, 2009 at 7:16 pm
“This is a good case of “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.
If Jen and Cheryl’s character can be brought into question, then so can their character. That was my point. ”
yes, but even more to the point, when it comes to homeschooling “leaders” like Phillips and the McDonalds, people in glass houses shouldn’t stow bones.
Jen was not above reproach, but her blog was very useful in that it brought VisionForum and the Patriarch’s Path crowd into the internet spotlight, and aired their dirty kinist/secessionist/Constitution Party/League of the South laundry for all the world to see.
May 3, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I wrote:
It just makes the book weaker than it could be in those areas.
meant to say:
It just makes the overall book weaker, is is not as strong as it could be in those areas.
May 3, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Cynthia Gee, this is too clever:
yes, but even more to the point, when it comes to homeschooling “leaders” like Phillips and the McDonalds, people in glass houses shouldn’tstow bones.
That is why Paul lists so many requirements for leaders and shepherds in the New Testament. They aren’t there as a nice idea, but they are there to protect the people who entrust themselves to the leadership of those men. It also protects those who are in leadership positions from being drawn into question before a great bunch of witnesses, having to defend themselves against public charges of deficiency. No closets full of bones and you don’t have a whole lot of room to criticize.
May 3, 2009 at 10:53 pm
So then is Dougs criticism of the book unwarranted or wrong?
“Her un-footnoted work draws from the bizarre and inflammatory testimonies of a former homeschool mom turned lesbian-feminist activist;[6] from a disgruntled excommunicant with an exposure “ministry” whose personal behavior led her to be criminally cited, cuffed by police, and ultimately lose custody of her children; to pseudononymous individuals operating anti-pastor hate sites.”
Is this true?
“Joyce’s book is full of numerous half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods.”
Is this true?
“None of this should surprise us, because Beacon Press, Joyce’s publisher, is well-known as a purveyor of ultra-radical, pro-homosexual, feminist, anti-Christian propaganda…”
Is this true?
Here’s the clincher though.
“but she and the anti-patriarchy movement she hopes to advance are the true spiritual progeny of the founding mothers of some of the most vicious, life-destroying branches of radical feminism…”
Doug wasn’t wrong in attacking this hatchet job. Unfortuantly for you, True Womanhood, is that it allowed Doug the opportunity to lump you and Kathryn Joyce together. So now True Womanhood, as a representative of the anti-patriachy movement, is synonymous, atleast in the eyes of his followers if not reformed christianity in general, with radical marriage hating, child hating, man hating, baby killing, God hating feminism. And attacking Doug for defending himself only lends credence to his argument that you are nothing more than the above mentioned. It sounds like the quiverfull book only made your job harder.
May 4, 2009 at 1:01 am
I’ve never commented here before, but I’ve followed the discussion here off and on for a year now. The last comment, though, made me want to respond, which is a little funny to me since so much of what is discussed here I have strong opinions about. While I don’t speak for the whole movement, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I feel fairly confident that reformed Christianity in general will be able to read Doug’s review of Joyce’s book and not necessarily agree that those who disagree with his interpretation of Scripture or even his tone toward those who disagree with him are “radical marriage hating, child hating, man hating, baby killing, God hating feminism.” Even though the discussion around here has been more difficult lately, I want the regular participants to know that you have a large community of regular readers who appreciate the commitment to refuting error as it is being taught in subtle ways.
May 4, 2009 at 8:02 am
Jonathan:
Beacon press is Unitarian press. So what? Please define who comprises all of “Reformed Christianity in general”. And keep in mind most Reformed folks say “Vision what? Oh the wacko homeschool folks.” And that should be more of a concern than anything: Homeschoolers are under the microscope and the kinds of antics Mr. Phillips and his co-horts engage in are harming the community they profess to love and support.
May 4, 2009 at 8:15 am
Johnathan: What? When did Doug Phillips mention True Womanhood? How has True Womanhood been slighted?
True Womanhood criticised Vision Forum. So does Ministry Watchmen. So do numerous individual blogs. And so does Kathryn Joyce’s book. But I hardly see how the way one goes about it makes another look bad,. We aren’t connected in the slightest. And True Womanhood has always been about the scriptural refutation of patriocentric theology.
It’s a shame Quiverfull is a secular book that isn’t interested in scriptural accuracy. But it still has valid and interesting points to make, and it hasn’t made our job any harder.
Now, if Doug Phillips (and co) would ever grow up and say ‘True Womanhood’ when they refer to us, not ‘gossips’ ‘anonymous critics’ ‘whitewashed feminists’ and other childish euphemisms, THAT might effect how his followers see us. But to the casual reader of his blog, all his sideways references to us just make him look a bit mad and paranoid. Casual readers of Doug’s Blog have no idea who we are, so his words just make him look strange. Non-casual readers might guess, but only if they’ve been here already – and then I think they can determine our legitimacy for themselves
May 4, 2009 at 9:08 am
“Doug wasn’t wrong in attacking this hatchet job. Unfortuantly for you, True Womanhood, is that it allowed Doug the opportunity to lump you and Kathryn Joyce together. So now True Womanhood, as a representative of the anti-patriachy movement, is synonymous, atleast in the eyes of his followers if not reformed christianity in general, with radical marriage hating, child hating, man hating, baby killing, God hating feminism. And attacking Doug for defending himself only lends credence to his argument that you are nothing more than the above mentioned. It sounds like the quiverfull book only made your job harder.”
Jonathon, LOL! DP and many others like him ALWAYS ‘lump’ folks into narrow categories. It is profitable to do so. It sells more trinkets.
I am not taking your bait. The bait is that we must defend against those accusations. That would be ridiculous and those who have read here for any time know how silly you are being. Karen has 6 kids. Corrie has 10 as one example of your silliness. Child hating?
If other so called ‘reformed’ Christians are that shallow in that they follow DP and what he says instead of Christ FIRST, then there is little we can do about it except question the teaching publicly and pray for these people.
And I certainly would not expect ‘Zondervan’ to publish that book. What you are really upset about is that anyone dare analyze the book.
However, I think the book is instructive in another way.
Those women were following extra biblical rules and roles developed by mere depraved humans that have nothing to do with being IN Christ. It only goes to prove that they were never IN Christ in the first place. They were in a cult. He Who begins a good work finishes it. Those who are IN CHRIST would leave a cult and follow HIM.
Now, how many are still in the cult and not following Christ but playing a ‘role’? That is the question this book should rise.
The book only proves that much of the patriarchal fruit is rotten.
May 4, 2009 at 9:18 am
Lin, you’re exactly right. And Doug was lumping us at True Womanhood in with baby-hating, abortion-promoting feminists LONG before Kathryn Joyce’s book ever came out.
May 4, 2009 at 9:49 am
(Just checking in after some time out-of-town away from the internet — enjoying all the comments, and looking forward to reading them in more depth.)
Jonathan, You are correct to point out that Joyce’s book should not immune from criticism on issues of accuracy, footnoting, etc. The problem with Phillips’s posts is that he simply makes blanket, conclusory statements about the book. Phillips’s post provides no information whatsoever about what specific alleged inaccuracies he is criticising.
Also, it is awfully suspect that his main line of attack is arguing against Joyce by her association with another feminist with whom he disagrees. He has two more posts up about things said by Ellen Willis, who apparently was some sort of mentor to Joyce. Things uttered by Ellen Willis tell me nothing about what is supposed to be wrong with Joyce’s book.
May 4, 2009 at 10:52 am
“I am not taking your bait. The bait is that we must defend against those accusations. That would be ridiculous and those who have read here for any time know how silly you are being. Karen has 6 kids. Corrie has 10 as one example of your silliness. Child hating?”
Indeed. And I only had two, but we would have welcomed more. In fact, I’m 50 now, and I’m a stay-at-home wife and daughter — my 81-year old mother lives with us, and I take care of her, BUT I would welcome another baby more than ANYTHING before it’s too late (and anyone with extra prayer time on your hands, who wants to pray for that with me, I welcome your prayers — “from your lips to God’s ear”, as they say…)
May 4, 2009 at 10:53 am
“Also, it is awfully suspect that his main line of attack is arguing against Joyce by her association with another feminist with whom he disagrees. He has two more posts up about things said by Ellen Willis, who apparently was some sort of mentor to Joyce. Things uttered by Ellen Willis tell me nothing about what is supposed to be wrong with Joyce’s book.”
It’s far easier to attack the author than refute what she says, dontchaknow…..
May 4, 2009 at 11:32 am
Since mentors and associations are such a concern for Doug Phillips, perhaps he can appreciate my questions about his friend Geoff Botkin- a man not just associated with a cult, but a partner with the founder, who was paid to acquire and manage media sources to propagate it.
1.When exactly did he come OUT of/repent of that cult and it’s unbiblical practices?
2.Did his family (daughters)ever receive therapy for the mind control they undoubtedly were subjected to their entire lives?
Or are they peddling the same to the homeschooling community through Vision Forum?
Since mentors and associations are of great concern to Doug Phillips, why are the Botkin authors free from such scrutiny?
3.How can such young ladies write of anything but their own experience? And since their youth was spent in that cult, why are his readers not discerning this?
May 4, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Jonathan,
It looks like you didn’t really read what I said in response to your question to me? You missed the whole point, I see. If it is okay to question the associations of people who oppose his teachings, then it is okay to question the associations and behaviors and histories of those who are in his own camp. But, when we do that we are called gossips and talebearers.
Phillip’s critique is ridiculous and silly. There is no substance. Just a lot of ranting and raving.
And, I, in no way, feel lumped into some child-hating group of people and neither should anyone that posts here at True Womanhood.
Doug may want, through his fear-mongering, his mindless followers to believe that anyone who opposes his extra-biblical, manmade, cultural teachings to be child-haters and feminists but that is asinine. The truth is that the women who post on this blog are anything BUT what Doug is trying to make them out to be.
As a homeschooling mother of 10 (all birthed from my body), Doug would look like a complete fool to do what you say he has done. Why would I or anyone else at True Womanhood think he was directing his comments at us?
The fact that his teachings are rife with error does not mean, just because we point out these facts, that we are somehow radical feminists who hate men and children.
Cindy,
“All Phillips has done in this this latest ridiculous bombastic exercise is demonstrate his multiple attempts to kill the messenger. Joyce is not secretive about her perspective, and she’s not published by Zondervan. She doesn’t falsely claim to be a Christian or use a pen name. The reader is free to consider the source, something every discerning reader should do when they first pick up a book. I think the fact that half the intro discusses Ted Haggard who has nothing to do with the Quiverfull movement says much about the book — that it was poorly titled and does have a particular agenda and focus. But that, again, is up to the discerning reader to figure out. Phillips is left looking like an angry little boy who is kicking mud and stomping in the dust. If people find that credible, more power to them.
You have to understand something of Phillips, too. He lives by the distributive fallacy. He takes a tiny part of a thing and discredits the whole, and takes the whole and determines that the part of a thing represents the small part. ”
Exactly. His review reminded me of a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum in the sandbox.
May 4, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Momgodin,
Excellent point! I would like to know about Botkin’s cult involvement and how that has influenced his current teachings and ministry. That has more relevance than going after an author who doesn’t claim to be a Christian. It is much more dangerous to have false teachers IN our churches behaving as wolves in sheep’s clothing than it is for a “feminist” to write a book about her own perspective of the practices she sees among a certain set of Christians.
May 4, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“Now, if Doug Phillips (and co) would ever grow up and say ‘True Womanhood’ when they refer to us, not ‘gossips’ ‘anonymous critics’ ‘whitewashed feminists’ and other childish euphemisms, THAT might effect how his followers see us. But to the casual reader of his blog, all his sideways references to us just make him look a bit mad and paranoid. Casual readers of Doug’s Blog have no idea who we are, so his words just make him look strange. Non-casual readers might guess, but only if they’ve been here already – and then I think they can determine our legitimacy for themselves ”
Claire,
Great point.
Yes, it all has to do with growing up and being honest and being accountable for one’s teachings.
When these people are confronted and asked to give an example of these so-called “white-washed feminists” that teach “patricentricity” they give some sort of insipid and vague answer along with cowardly and dishonest back-peddling. We all know who they are referring to but they refuse to give an example of all the “blogs” that teach this sort of “white-washed” feminism. They hide behind a cloak of Scripture that, in their own deceived minds, make them feel invisible from the truth. For example, in their world, they like to quote the Proverbs verse that says there are “two sides to every story” but what they really mean is there is only one- their side and all other sides are “lies” and “misrepresentations”. They don’t even give the other side the chance to tell the other side of the story. Classic double-speak.
Who do they think they are fooling? And why do people allow this kind of dishonesty to go unchecked? And how does anyone take anything they say seriously when they throw out labels so willy-nilly and act like spineless jellyfish when confronted?
May 4, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I know that in the past, some young women have posted here that deal with self-injury, cutting, etc.
Over on my blog, after lunch, I am hosting a psychologist there to talk about her new book. We are going to discuss self-injury after lunch today. It’s a topic that I don’t see discussed very often in Christian circles, so it might be a good opportunity to learn more about this. The rest of the book is good too, and the title proves that God’s got a sense of humor. (We set her cyber tours stop up about 2 months ago…)
May 4, 2009 at 12:31 pm
The prophets prophesy falsely, And the priests rule on their own authority; And My people love it so! But what will you do at the end of it? Jer. 5:31
And there you have the patriocentric movement in a nutshell.
May 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Cindy,
I’m so glad you’re hosting the psychologist on that very important subject. I know several young women (Christian and not) who’ve been burdened in this way, and it’s heartbreaking to watch and not be able to do anything but pray at times. This is where all the “restoring the biblical family back to ye old paths” teaching is just empty and so full of man’s interpretation, and IMO, ineffective to touching the heart of hurting souls. What we need is the Gospel in Living Color, and caring hearts and helping hands.
I’ll be gone today, so I won’t be able to ask any questions in real time, but will be looking forward to the discussion when I get back.
May 4, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Willis is to Joyce as Dabney is to Phillips
Need I say more?
May 4, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“Willis is to Joyce as Dabney is to Phillips”
Well, almost. As far as I know, Joyce doesn’t adulate Willis or write poems about her:
““Hail Dabney, prophet of the South, our great apologist… And so with joy we doff our hats and shout from every mouth: Hail Dabney, wise apologist, defender of the South!”
Robert Louis Dabney: The Prophet Speaks
May 4, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Right on, Cynthia G. That is exactly what I was thinking.
If it is okay to examine who Joyce looks up to then it is just fine to examine who Phillips looks up to (an issues no caveats about Dabney’s racist rhetoric).
Hail Dabney? Right there Phillips is dead in the water and his “review” (better known as his tirade) concerning Joyce’s book is hypocrisy, at best.
They can whine all they want about being called “racists” but what is good for the goose…… How many times have they called someone a “feminist” or a “Marxist” when there is So Much More evidence to paint Phillips as a racist? Not saying he is but just applying his own brand of “logic” to himself.
May 4, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Especially read one of the last paragraphs where Doug Phillips is quoted saying that Dabney was “forumlative” to his way of thinking and that he was the “greatest defender of Southern heritage, Christian faith, and common sense” and how Phillips thinks that we are left with no other option but to “run and hide- we can’t deny it- or simply to embrace the truth” of Dabney’s “prophecies” and “conclusions”.
“Here are some choice quotes from Dabney:
It is well known, that, as a general rule, [Negroes] are a graceless, vagabondish set, and contribute very little to the support of the State by which they are protected. They are not citizens, never can become citizens, and wherever found in large numbers they are an expense and a source of trouble…
The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity…
The offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjugation, which they desire to fix on the South.
How does Doug Phillips regard Dabney? He calls Dabney “the greatest southern theologian of the 19th century.” He exclaims: “Hail Dabney, prophet of the South, our great apologist… And so with joy we doff our hats and shout from every mouth: Hail Dabney, wise apologist, defender of the South!”
In Doug’s lecture on Dabney, he says Dabney was “formulative” to his way of thinking. He introduces Dabney as one who would be “in the front lines at Gettysburg, charging toward the Yankees.” Doug calls Dabney “the greatest defender of Southern heritage, Christian faith, and common sense.” He praises Dabney “for being bold enough to say things that others today are afraid to say.” He laments that Dabney is “resented by those Christians who don’t want to hear his prophecies.” He said we may be uncomfortable with Dabney’s conclusions, but we are “left with no other option but to run and hide – we can’t deny it – or simply to embrace the truth…” He calls Dabney “a prophet in the fullest sense,” and after announcing that he might name his next child after Dabney, recites a poem he has written for the occasion entitled, “Hail Dabney, Prophet of the South.”
Doug Phillips also edited a book entitled Robert Louis Dabney: The Prophet Speaks.
Oh, but we’re just getting started.”
http://www.puritanboard.com/f29/what-thinketh-yall-robert-dabney-28917/
May 4, 2009 at 2:15 pm
“Not saying he is but just applying his own brand of “logic” to himself.”
Yep… and you know what they say about people who try to remove the speck from their brother’s eye while ignoring the two-by-four that’s stuck in their own.
May 4, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Just applying more sauce for the gander…
And then we can talk about Phillip’s promotion of the RM Ballantyne and Henty books.
http://racistchurches.wordpress.com/2007/08/04/rm-ballantyne/#comments
This is also from the same site:
“G.A. Henty
June 13, 2007 by Elaine
For many years, Doug Phillips and Vision Forum have sold books by G.A. Henty and hosted an essay contest in his honor. You can see how often Henty is praised there.
One of the books included in the 40-volume set for sale at Vision Forum is By Sheer Pluck. Here is Henty’s opinion of black people, which any young child may find in its pages:
They are just like children. They are always either laughing or quarrelling. They are good-natured and passionate, indolent, but will work hard for a time; clever up to a certain point, densely stupid beyond. The intelligence of an average negro is about equal to that of a European child of ten years old. A few, a very few, go beyond this, but these are exceptions, just as Shakespeare was an exception to the ordinary intellect of an Englishman. They are fluent talkers, but their ideas are borrowed. They are absolutely without originality, absolutely without inventive power. Living among white men, their imitative facilities enable them to attain a considerable amount of civilisation. Left alone to their own devices they retrograde into a state little above their native savagery.
White superiority is the theme that runs through all of Henty’s books. He once wrote of “the utter incapacity of the Negro race to evolve, or even maintain, civilisation without the example and the curb of a white population.”
Note: Doug Phillips is selling the original, unexpurgated (racist) versions of these books, not the versions edited by Mantle Ministries and Preston Speed.
It’s astounding that racist books are being sold to impressionable youths under the guise of Christianity, but Henty is just the beginning. For example, Vision Forum also sells Elsie Dinsmore, which contains the “n-word” and borderline pederasty. Elsie even tells her slaves that “they wouldn’t be Negroes in heaven.””
May 4, 2009 at 2:39 pm
“The feminist, the plutocrat, the wiley carpetbagger,
The Darwinist, the bureaucrat, and transcendental braggart;
The scalawag, the suffragette, the surly Statist simp
Were by your pen defrocked, exposed, and wounded, left to limp.”
Well, there are still some “wiley carpetbaggers” left, alive and well, in the patriocentric movement.
May 4, 2009 at 3:13 pm
“Well, there are still some “wiley carpetbaggers” left, alive and well, in the patriocentric movement.
”
Uh huh. But, sometimes I wonder if the patrios themselves AREN’T especially racist, but are POSING as racists in order to sell their theonomist agenda to impressionable Southerners, like folks in the League of the South.
These guys are power-seekers, and usually, the only thing that is carved in stone with power seekers is gaining and maintaining a power base.
I think that they saw the southern/secessionist/racist/agrarian crowd as an easy mark, and so they tailored their whole message to fit what that particular audience wanted to hear.
May 4, 2009 at 3:44 pm
So let me get this straight……
Jen Epstein is a liar. Most of what Matt and Doug have said about her is true.
Jen Epstien is used as a source for the quiverfull book.
Doug Philips points this out.
You attack Doug Philips criticising him for making the same observation of Jen Epstein as you did.
You harp on doug asking him to refute this and he ends up offereing the same proof of Jen Epsteins dishonesty as you did. Which so far has been none.
Guess I’m just being silly again. You may through me under the bus now. Maybe Jen will keep me company…….
May 4, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Jonathan,
Who are you talking to? You are not being logical.
I am not saying that the whole book is to be discredited because of a couple of examples.
I am saying that if Doug is able to criticize others then so are we but that doesn’t go both ways in the Patrio-world.
I am not throwing anyone under the bus. Truth is truth, Jonathan. I am not going to ignore the truth about Jen’s situation because it suits my own personal purposes.
May 4, 2009 at 4:21 pm
“You attack Doug Philips criticising him for making the same observation of Jen Epstein as you did.”
I will say this a bit slower….
No, I did not.
I criticized him based on the rabid hypocrisy in the patriocentric movement. I have more than adequately explained this and given quite a few examples.
If that book is to be discredited because of Jen and Cheryl then so are most of the books that Phillips sells based on the same “logic” that he is using.
May 4, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Question. And keep in mind that I have not read Quiverfull yet, we’re picking it up tonight.
How much of Doug Phillips rant is about this book and it’s commentary/interviews/reviews coming out in the Liberal political sphere. I mean, when I told people about the Patriarchy movement before they would look at me blankly. Now they nod and reference the book, or the Salon article. Now knowledge of this movement is getting out into larger circles, and not at all in a flattering way.
May 4, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Annie, do you have that link to the Sara Robinson article you mentioned? I would be interested to read it. I am very interested in how the mainstream media treats homeschoolers – as Karen has been saying for so long, these VF extremists make the rest of us look so bad. It’s no excuse for sloppy reporting (ie, making us all look like patriocentrists) but I am very interested to know what’s being said.
May 5, 2009 at 1:22 am
Doug’s response to Quiverfull is not aimed at his critics nor the general public. ‘Tis aimed at his followers, the only ones who take him seriously anymore.
I wonder if he knows what a ridiculous joke he’s made of himself. Outside a narrow group of persons, he looks the fool. His actions alone speak for themselves. Feminists, lesbians, abortion lovers, and gossips are not required to point out the absurdity of his blatherings and bankrupt theology.
Pray for his children. They are on a collision course with pain and disillusionment, as are so many home school children from extreme families.
He’s an intelligent person with many talents. I am saddened to see what he’s become. Of course, there are many who say the same of me.
May 5, 2009 at 4:23 am
—Random comment here as the result of a great epiphany—
I finally figured out why I can’t stand courtship!
The guy has to jump through hoops, hop on one leg, reveal everything about himself to the dad, all for a chance at this girl, but NO ONE FROM THE BOY’S FAMILY GRILLS THE GIRL!
Courtship is all about determining if the guy is good enough for the girl without stopping to think if the girl is good enough for the guy!
I mean, what dad is going to say “My daughter is a manipulative, passive-aggressive, high maintenance diva who will destroy you. Run.”
A man of 20-25 years is supposed to have great insight into a woman’s character/personality, and be sure she is right for him, however he is inherently “unworthy” of her. A woman of the same age is must have her father grill him because she is too emotional to ask herself, yet she is inherently a “blessing/prize” to him.
I just had to get this out.
Please continue with the normal conversation.
May 5, 2009 at 9:18 am
Nicole,
Very insightful. I agree that is a major problem with the courtship model as practiced by the patriocentrists.
I have a son that is almost 24 and I totally KNOW what you are saying. He is a great guy and I have seen the kind of girls you have described.
I think that the girl should have to jump through the same rigorous hoops with the boy’s family as the girl’s family expects him to jump through.
May 5, 2009 at 9:50 am
http://www.truewoman.com/?id=641
Just when you think things might be on the normal side:
“It reminds me of what the first man exclaimed when he saw the first woman. When Adam laid his eyes on her, he broke into an exuberant, spontaneous poem:
“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman (Ishsha), because she was taken out of Man (Ish).” Genesis 2:23 (ESV)
The first man called himself “Ish” and the woman “Ishsha.” This appears to be an extremely clever and profound play on words. The sound of these two Hebrew words is nearly identical—Ishsha merely adds a feminine ending—but the two words have a complementary meaning. Ish comes from the root meaning “strength” while Ishsha comes from the root meaning “soft.”
The implication becomes clearer when we observe the biblical meaning of a man’s “strength.” Strength refers to a man’s manhood— his potency, virility, and procreative power (Ps. 105:36; Prov. 31:3; Gen. 49:3). By contrast, a woman’s “softness” has to do with her pregnability, penetrability, and vulnerability (in a very positive sense). One commentator has suggested English equivalents of “Piercer” and “Pierced One.”
The bodies of male and female reflect this idea. A man’s body is built to move toward the woman. A woman’s body is built to receive the man. But the pattern goes beyond the mere physical difference between men and women to encompass the totality of their essence: The man was created to joyfully and actively initiate and give. The woman was created to joyfully and actively respond and receive. The woman is the “soft” one–the receiver, responder, and relater. The man is the “strong” one with greater capacity to initiate, protect, and provide. Each is a perfect counterpart to the other.”
May 5, 2009 at 9:55 am
http://www.truewoman.com/?id=662
“When Adam saw Eve for the first time, he exclaimed, “She shall be called ‘Woman’ (Ishsha) because she was taken out of Man (Ish).” In an earlier post, we learned that Ishsha means softness/receptivity, while Ish means strength/initiation.”
May 5, 2009 at 10:02 am
Can anyone find any sources where “ish” means “initiation” and ishsha “receptivity/softness”?
I can’t. This is the first time I have heard of this.
May 5, 2009 at 10:04 am
please don’t tell me it’s unbiblical for a woman to initiate…
May 5, 2009 at 10:07 am
please don’t tell me it’s unbiblical and unfeminine for the woman to initiate!
May 5, 2009 at 10:08 am
Now now Corrie, don’t you think it’s bad enough to be sick while pregnant without posting something to make me puke?
May 5, 2009 at 10:12 am
Hey where did my comment go?
I have several diapers full of yellow or brown runny stuff that my boys have provided…just saying that it adequately describes what that article is to a tee…
Just sayin.
Made me want to puke.
May 5, 2009 at 10:18 am
288-
Claire-
She wasn’t writing about the homeschooling movement, but about politics, domestic terrorism and a couple of Department of Homeland Security reports that have come out recently. Yes, from a Liberal POV.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/04/far-rights-first-100-days-shifting-into.html
She’s written before about a paper by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (“that’s the CIA with a maple leaf on its hat”) which I will link to in another post, hopefully so this doesn’t get stuck in moderation.
Comparing her almost-checklist to the recent Child Catcher of Vulgaria screeds, I have to wonder if Doug Phillips has finally gone ’round the proverbial bend. No, I don’t think he’s dangerous. But I’m trying to figure out if he’s covered 4 steps out of 9, or 5.
May 5, 2009 at 10:21 am
One more try, since I think my comment was just eaten as well.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/02/are-they-crazy-dangerous-or-just-plain.html
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008_02_03_dneiwert_archive.html
May 5, 2009 at 10:22 am
*sigh* The other two articles are in moderation.
May 5, 2009 at 10:28 am
Oops, didn’t realize there was a part 3
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/02/crazy-dangerous-last-running-up-to-edge.html
May 5, 2009 at 10:50 am
Okay, when all else fails, look at the scripture used to back up someone’s assertion:
“The implication becomes clearer when we observe the biblical meaning of a man’s “strength.” Strength refers to a man’s manhood— his potency, virility, and procreative power (Ps. 105:36; Prov. 31:3; Gen. 49:3).”
Psa 105:36 He smote also all the firstborn in their land, the chief of all their strength.
The word for strength is ‘own. “specially of virile and genital power”, “first fruits of strength”, firstborn.
The lexicon says it is “probably” from the same root word as “aven’” which means to “pant or to exert oneself, usually in vain”
Gen 49:3 Reuben, thou [art] my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power:
Same thing with Gen 49:3, the word for strength is ‘own.
Pro 31:3 Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.
The word for strength here is chayil which simply means strength. The root word is khul which means to twist, whirl, dance, writhe, fear, tremble, travail……
So, I have no idea where Kassian is coming from when she says that “ish” means strength or initiative. I have yet to find a lexicon that proves this to be true. Ish simply means man/male.
May 5, 2009 at 10:53 am
Sorry Mrs. W! I felt a bit urpy and I am not even pregnant!
Momgodin, yes, since you are a woman, you are the “piercee” and you are to be only “soft” in your “softspot” and to be a receptive participant, waiting for initiation of the one who “pierces” you.
May 5, 2009 at 11:34 am
Ugh that’s like the pastor that did our marriage counesling telling my husband to have fun ravishing his wife on his honeymoon…my husband didn’t want to ravish me. He wanted to lovingly have sex. He waited till I was ready to try.
May 5, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Mrs W,
Well, what I want to know was if you were sweetly terrified and gently alarmed when your “priest” came into perform his priestly duties? Did you know that all the angels were watching in hushed anticipation and reveling in the terrified look on your face?
I have no idea how “piercer” and “piercee” are gotten out of “iysh” and “‘ishshah”.
Ish means man. And “sha” is the feminine ending. She was called the woman (‘ishshah) because she was taken out of the man (‘iysh). I think that is the significance of those two words because this is what the Bible says.
I find nothing about her being the “piercee” or that this word indicates that she is soft and receptive and that man is strong and the initiator/giver.
Yes, women have soft skin. Both the husband and wife are told to be receptive to the sex act (1 Cor. 7). Both are told to be givers (ie., servants). Both are told to be initiators of love and not to wait for someone to initiate (love your neighbor as yourself).
But, to get this much out of those Hebrew words is really stretching, imho. I have yet to find a source that defines these words in those terms.
Not to mention that the sword-piercing imagery is a bit icky and not at all something that most people want to think about when they are making love. Swords and piercing and intimacy really don’t belong in the same sentence much less the same category.
May 5, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Corrie, neither of us certainly thought that my husband was a priest, praise God! We still don’t. LOL. Although we HAVE been told that. I don’t know what look was on my face…ha!
Anyhow, sometimes it is SUCH a blessing to be KJV only, but not only KJV only, but to believe that the English is all we need and we don’t need to go back to Greek and Hebrew. Whether others agree with it or not, at least I don’t have to battle through “the Hebrew REALLY means…” nonsense. Otherwise, I might have been hoodwinked earlier about some of this stuff.
I emailed that stuff to my husband at work and he wanted to puke too.
May 5, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Corrie,
who’s weird fantasy was that again? (sorry…I have some-timers)
Was it a Vision Forum fella?
(yeah, and I’m nauseous too, ladies.) :p
May 5, 2009 at 2:25 pm
http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/a-valentine-reflection/
“On the threshold of wedding nights stands a smiling angel with his finger on his lips.
The soul enters into contemplation before that sanctuary where the celebration of love takes place.
There should be flashes of light athwart such houses. The joy which they contain ought to make its escape through the stones of the walls in brilliancy, and vaguely illuminate the gloom. It is impossible that this sacred and fatal festival should not give off a celestial radiance to the infinite. Love is the sublime crucible wherein the fusion of the man and the woman takes place; the being one, the being triple, the being final, the human trinity proceeds from it. This birth of two souls into one, ought to be an emotion for the gloom. The lover is the priest; the ravished virgin is terrified. Something of that joy ascends to God. Where true marriage is, that is to say, where there is love, the ideal enters in. A nuptial bed makes a nook of dawn amid the shadows. If it were given to the eye of the flesh to scan the formidable and charming visions of the upper life, it is probable that we should behold the forms of night, the winged unknowns, the blue passers of the invisible, bend down, a throng of sombre heads, around the luminous house, satisfied, showering benedictions, pointing out to each other the virgin wife gently alarmed, sweetly terrified, and bearing the reflection of human bliss upon their divine countenances. If at that supreme hour, the wedded pair, dazzled with voluptuousness and believing themselves alone, were to listen, they would hear in their chamber a confused rustling of wings. Perfect happiness implies a mutual understanding with the angels. That dark little chamber has all heaven for its ceiling. When two mouths, rendered sacred by love, approach to create, it is impossible that there should not be, above that ineffable kiss, a quivering throughout the immense mystery of stars.
Victor Hugo – Les Miserables”
May 5, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Here are some other links talking about ishah meaning soft or in one case ‘weak’. One is a John MacArthur article from 1999. I also found it referenced in a book by Arthur Bell, whoever he is, on page 258 you can find it on Google books.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/90-228.htm
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=45#P496_93911
http://www.balashon.com/2008/10/ish-and-isha.html
I presume this is where Mary Kassian has got it from? I dunno there are quite a few sites that mention it, one attributes the idea to a Dr Charles Ryrie. Also on bible-truth.org.
I couldn’t possibly comment on the correctness of this, I just like to Google stuff.
May 5, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I think my comment went into moderation due to a shed load of links.
May 5, 2009 at 4:14 pm
The word is “איש” — Iysh — and the prophet Hosea uses it in telling of two types of husbands — the “Baal” type (“Baal” means “lord, master, deity, or owner”) and the “Ishi” type (“Ishi” means man or male, contrasting and complementing woman or female — in other words, “spouse” or “husband”), which is what God desires to be to His bride, Israel:
“Hsa 2:16And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, [that] thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.
Hsa 2:17 For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.
The same word is used to describe Adam as the husband of Eve:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her HUSBAND with her; and he did eat.
May 5, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Annie C, those articles are spot-on.
May 5, 2009 at 6:39 pm
thanks (lol, I think!)for that link, Corrie.
Mr. Hugo has quite an imagination.
I’m so thankful Dan didn’t need the help of hallucenogenic drugs to heighten his experience on our wedding night.
We just made a baby.
May 5, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I took some time off, but the current Hebrew discussion intrigues me. I am always bothered by people who try to manipulate the “original,” because what most are trying to do is add their own “meaning” to it. They hope that most of the people listening aren’t smart enough to go and look it up (the internet does have a few Hebrew lexicons, doesn’t it?), and take the pastor (or writer) at his (or her) word that this is in fact what the Hebrew means.
I love being one of those people who knows how to look these things up and call people on their reinventions, because that’s really what it comes down to.
I think that for some people, going back to the original for study purposes is a really great thing. I’m a scholar, so I like to do this kind of thing. For the average reader who just wants to read the English (whichever version), these manipulative tactics by false teachers are really damaging. I’m not trying to sound haughty, because I think I might. I mean to say that not everyone finds pleasure in studying the Hebrew, but some of us do. I think that there are many ways that we worship God, and Bible studies are just one of those ways.
May 5, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Nicole, my dad did tell my husband he shouldn’t marry me.
Yep.
May 5, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Sarah,
Thanks for the links. They were interesting. Still can’t find where the root of this word means “soft” in the Hebrew lexicons. The writers claim this but give no reference as to what source they are deriving this claim. The Hebrew word for “soft” isn’t a root word for the word used for woman. I will keep on reading those links to see if I can find why they make this claim and based on what.
I still have to wonder what man as the “piercer” and woman as the “piercee” have to do with those Hebrew words. Better yet, how this gives us a picture of Christ and the Church when Jesus, Himself, was the one who was pierced.
May 5, 2009 at 9:44 pm
http://www.jewfaq.org/root.htm
This is interesting.
“A substantial amount of rabbinical interpretation of the Bible is derived from the relation between root words. For example, the rabbis concluded that G-d created women with greater intuition and understanding than men, because man was “formed” (yitzer, Gen. 2:7) while woman was “built” (yiben, Gen. 2:22). The root of “built,” Beit-Nun-Hei, is very similar to the word “binah” (Beit-Yod-Nun-Hei), meaning understanding, insight or intuition.”
May 5, 2009 at 9:49 pm
http://www.ldswomenofgod.com/blog/?p=98
Another interesting look at these two Hebrew words.
May 6, 2009 at 8:03 am
I would like to read a healthy marriage book. Do you have a good suggestion?
I heard a comment recently about bedtimes/waketimes and newlyweds. If one of the couple is a morning person and the other a night owl, where is a compromise reached? How is it reached? Is the woman to “get converted” to the man’s way? (Am I asking the wrong question??? Am I stuck in perfectionism?)
Would patrios say “go with the man’s way”? Would complementaries say “come to an agreement”?
What does Jesus say???
I have read marriage books (that talk in generalities and theories) and the Bible, but for the nitty gritty, I get stuck in the “how.” Does each couple have to “write their own book,” so to speak?
My conscience (Holy Spirit?) says one thing and then dh or another source says another. How do I stay true to God’s word and will for my life?
May 6, 2009 at 8:18 am
Just wanted to note that we are on comment moderation again in case you all wondered what happened to your comments!
We have a couple of spammers who just don’t quite get what we are trying to accomplish here and what the rules are.
I am enjoying the discussion, btw, though have been too busy to write much….
May 6, 2009 at 8:34 am
Rae (Karen aka thatmom here)
You are asking good questions about marriage. If it is any consolation, after 34 plus years we are still working through some things. But that is the beauty of what a marriage should be, continuously growing as Christians, side by side, practicing the one anothers of the faith.
I think one of the problems with looking for a marriage book for the “how’s” is that just as soon as you begin to practice one of them as outlined in the book, you find out that it isn’t the right “how” for you and your husband.
My friend, Deanne, tells the story of how she had thought that being a great wife meant baking homemade bread so she put a lot of energy into it only to discover that her husband didn’t see it as a priority at all and didn’t want her to bake bread!
In earlier years, I would have listed a bunch of books to help but now have come to see that seeking to place my husband first, as he does me, and to practice ALL the one anothers of Scripture in ways that they relate to our own relationship is the key to a healthy marriage. I would encourage you to make a list of the “one anothers” of Scripture and then sit back and evaluate your own marriage and your own husband.
Begin asking yourself questions about that “one another” and how it would apply to how you relate to him. For example, “serve one another.” As yourself what you could do to serve him today. Does he take a lunch to work? Bake something delicious to slip inside his lunch box. Does he need clean running clothes when he gets home from work? Be sure they are ready and waiting for him. What about “show hospitality to one another?” What can you do to welcome him home tonight? “Exhort one another?” As you read your Bible today, select one or two things that the Lord impressed on you as you read and share them with him. “Bear one another’s burdens?” Is there some particular struggle he is having right now? Is he having to work long hours? Does he have a boss that drives him crazy? Take time to listen to him and ask questions to show you are interested in him. Let him know that his struggles and burdens are yours as well.
I think this is the counsel the Lord gives us for relationships with our children, too.
As for the going to bed at the same time thing…is it that important? If you are talking about a sexual relationship, does that include having to go to sleep at the same time? I am not certain this is that important unless it is really important for one of you. Is it a big deal?
May 6, 2009 at 8:35 am
Rae, I’m not a marriage expert but I am a morning person married to a night person. (For 25 happy years, btw) At first I couldn’t undestand why he couldn’t just get up in the morning, but I finally figured out that he just didn’t work that way and so we learned to adjust. I didn’t become a night owl. He didn’t become a morning person. We learned to work it out between us. I have occasionally stayed up past my bedtime when he had something on his mind and wanted to talk. He has occasionally had to deal with things early in the morning when I needed that before getting on with the day.
We also are both people who need time to ourselves — so I get up early, have my coffee and quiet time in the morning. He stays up late and has his alone time at night — often his most productive work time. We find times to connect when we’re both awake — afternoon, early evening, weekends.
I found your question interesting because frankly it never occurred to me that I should “get converted” to his schedule. We just learned what works for us, and I’m sure you will too.
May 6, 2009 at 8:55 am
“My conscience (Holy Spirit?) says one thing and then dh or another source says another. How do I stay true to God’s word and will for my life?”
Rae, this is the question we all have for all of life. I remember hearing this phrase years ago and it has been a source of great comfort and encouragement for me “God’s will is never contrary to His word.” We can trust the Word of God. We are promised that it provides all we need “for life and godliness.” Will we sin? Absolutely! We sin because we are sinners in this life but we are being renewed day by day until the Lord chooses to take us home to heaven where we will no longer struggle with our sin nature.
I know that for me one of the greatest struggles I have had has been to expect from my husband or even other people things that can only come from the Lord. Sometimes this wrong thinking is even encouraged in some books on marriage. The idea, for example that the husband is the prophet (who speaks for God) the priest (who mediates with God on your behalf) or the king (who sovereignly rules) is taught. But Christ alone is our prophet, priest, and king. Placing these unbiblical expectations on a husband is only setting yourself up for problems. During those times when I have struggled with this, here is my life verse:
“Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee. My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion forever.” Psalm 73: 25-26
May 6, 2009 at 10:17 am
sorry to interrupt this great topic, but can anyone give me a quote for Doug Phillips on “Militant Fecundity”. I think he removed his opinions from his blog, replaced them with a dead-end link.
thanks, ladies!
May 6, 2009 at 12:03 pm
This at Ethics Daily, Bob Allen, Aug 6 2008:
In 2003 Phillips wrote an article comparing the “life of the mother” argument with convicted murderer Paul Hill’s flawed justification of killing a doctor who performed abortions in order to save unborn lives. Both arguments, he said, “are terribly guilty of borrowing from pragmatic, non-biblical arguments, and twisting the Scriptures to justify a desired result.”
“First, a baby is not a willful aggressor,” Phillips wrote. “This ends the debate on justifiable homicide. A baby neither intends the harm, nor acts aggressively against its mother. (In fact, if ‘blame’ is to be passed, it should rest on the mother, not the baby, since it was the mother’s body which produced the circumstances in which the baby has found himself.) The Bible makes no provision for executing an innocent party (one which lacks intent to harm) in order to help another.
“Second, while the unborn baby in the case of an ectopic pregnancy may pose a threat which could materialize into a harm to the mother, the threat is not imminent in the classic sense, nor is it conclusive that the baby’s presence necessarily will cause harm. All that is known is that it might cause harm. Consequently, the murder of the baby takes place in anticipation of a statistical possibility. Here again, the biblical requirements for justifiable homicide are not met.”
In another article Phillips described a woman who would abort to save her own life with an analogy about a mother in a lifeboat with food and water enough for only one throwing her child overboard.
“Shall we bless a mother who kills her own child to save herself?” he asked. “Are we proud of such a woman? Shall we sing of her virtues? Perhaps we should just chalk-up her decision to feed her son to the sharks as ‘an unfortunate, but necessary evil.’ After all, she was just acting in self-defense. It was either the mother or the child. One would live and the other would die. Who could blame Mama for wanting to fight for her life, even if it meant that her son would be torn to pieces in the darkness of night?”
“In point of fact, this woman’s behavior is utterly despicable,” he answered the hypothetical question. “Susie is a criminal. Her behavior is indefensible. To murder another is wrong, but for a mother to murder her own child as an act of self-preservation is a crime of unspeakable ignominy.”
May 6, 2009 at 12:05 pm
https://ethics.bondwaresite.com/news.php?viewStory=12978
Link to excerpt above
May 6, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Rae,
When my husband and I got married, I worked early mornings, and he worked nights. So on our honeymoon, I was conked out by 10, literally could not stay awake, and my husband would kiss me goodnight and hit the midnight buffet! When I woke in the morning, I would have some time to myself for a quiet time and to read up on our destination, something that actually provided me with the trivia that won us some expeditions when we got there.
I’m one that is able to adapt to my family’s schedules and can be a morning person one month and a night person the next. Oh yeah, it’s a bit rough to change from one to the other, but I consider myself lucky I’m not one of those people who is “hardwired” for one of the other. If you find that you and your husband are “hardwired”, then there is probably not much use trying to change that. It would seem that God made you each that way for a reason.
That being said, it’s important for you both to be willing to serve the other and consider them more important than yourself (which could mean even something like giving up sleep occasionally), and if you both do that, then you won’t have too many problems. It’s when one spouse is willing or asking the other to always be the one doing that. Then you’re going to run into problems…
The healthiest book I have ever read on marriage (and I’ve read almost too many for someone my age), isBoundaries in Marriage by Henry Cloud and John Townsend. It’s a bit different than the “usual” Christian marriage book, but in a GREAT way; it literally turned my marriage around and, while not even close to perfect, we actually have one of the healthiest marriages I know of (you have no idea how I thank God for that blessing!). Like Karen was saying, when we serve one another, consider their love languages and personal preferences, we are living out Christ’s heart for us and treating each other with mutual respect, which is how I believe He created us to; basically respecting each other’s boundaries. I’m not being very articulate here, but in short, don’t feel pressured to conform to any plan other than what works for you guys.
May 6, 2009 at 12:27 pm
original articles:
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2003/09/558.aspx
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/life/why_the_life_of_the_mother_is.aspx
May 6, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I am a longtime lurking reader and, like some others who have participated here, I am a secular feminist. Although I am what I think you would term a non-believer, I hope that you will allow me to express my appreciation for the depth and breadth of the discussions held here over the past few years. IMHO, they are a welcome and needed response to some of what is presented elsewhere on the web on behalf of conservative Christianity. I have learned a lot from you ladies, and you’ve given me much to consider.
My introduction the patriocentric world first came when I came across Doug’s blog several years ago and was both fascinated & puzzled by what seemed to me to be a sub-culture rather than a religious viewpoint. Ironically, the first entry of his blog that I happened to read was a recounting of one of the “first kiss” weddings that he loves to attend and then blog about. As you might imagine, as a secular feminist, I was utterly mystified by all of it! Mind you, I am married myself and happily so, for nearly 30 years, but I could not fathom what was going on! From Doug and the VF websites, I found my way to the others who are his allies – and business partners – and then those who disagree with him and have been following many of them since then.
I am about half way through Quiverfull and have been interested to read the thoughtful critiques of the book here and at ThatMom. IMHO, Doug’s response to the book – still ongoing, judging by today’s blog entry – is aimed almost exclusively at his followers and sycophants. When I read his first response, really a rant, I found it almost incoherent with rage and panic. Upon reflection, I realized that however flawed her book may be, Kathryn Joyce has, in Shakespeare’s words, inflicted “A hit, a very palpable hit” upon the whole patriocentric empire and business model. Her work has forced open the doors & windows of VF and other centers of this movement enough to let the sunshine stream inside, and to let even those of us who are way outside Christian patriocentric circles see what’s happening in there.
I apologize for the length of my comment and promise to go back into general lurkdom! I may have some more to say when I finish Quiverfull. In the meantime, I do, though, have a final informational note to Momgodin:
Doug Phillips’ mention of militant fecundity originally provided a link to Scott Brown’s old blog for an entry in May 2007. When Scott switched over to his new website last year, he did not include links to any archives before 2008. The Wayback Machine has a link to the entry for May 24 2007. If you do a search on scottbrownonline dot com on the Wayback Machine you’ll get the text of the entry but the photo (which showed a Peter and a very pregnant Kelly Bradrick)is not visible.
May 6, 2009 at 1:48 pm
“original articles:
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2003/09/558.aspx
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/life/why_the_life_of_the_mother_is.aspx”
The plain fact is that if a woman carrying a tubal pregnancy does nothing, she will likely die, and by doing nothing in such a situation, she also dooms her unborn child to certain death.
The only ethical solution in such a case is for the woman’s doctor to attempt to transplant the pregnancy from the fallopian tube into the womb.
To date this operation has always resulted in the death of the fetus, however, there is always the tiny chance that such an operation might one day be successful, whereas doing nothing will always result in the loss of a tubal pregnancy — a pregnancy cannot survive in the fallopian tube past 3-4 months, and usually terminates spontaneously well before that, with the resultant rupture of the tube often claiming the life of the mother, and ALWAYS killing the baby.
The fact that Phillips does not address this fact or recommend this solution shows that his motive is pure misogyny, masked as concern for the unborn.
May 6, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I forgot to add: my “best book” on marriage is The Five Love Languages, by Gary Chapman. I read this after we had been married for 10+ years and it made SO MANY things about my husband make sense, that had never made sense to me before. I have learned to understand his language (acts of service) and to appreciate that when he washes my car or does the yard work, he is saying “I love you” even though it’s not in my language (words of affirmation). I have also learned that writing him notes or cards is not as effective in communicating my love to him as doing something that needs doing: clearing out last year’s files, or spending the afternoon on hold with the insurance company, so he doesn’t have to. Great concept and very practical.
May 6, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Just wanted to make sure everyone saw this honor that I received this morning.
http://news.cnnbcvideo.com/?nid=sLkiZb3FlYqItih7Al_vijQwMzE2NA–&referred_by=15444637-MRw295x&p=moveon
May 6, 2009 at 2:51 pm
thanks, sarah & sara!
appreciate it.
May 6, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Cynthia, I agree. His rhetoric is dangerous, heartless, graceless and unfounded in any medical understanding of ectopic pregnancy.
May 6, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Sara, I am so glad you came out of lurking and shared with us! Your encouragement came just at the right time! Please feel free to share anytime.
May 6, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Cynthia, you might recall that Samaritan Ministries published Doug’s articles on ectopic pregnancy in their newsletter last summer. I have long wondered if they will cover the medical expenses of a woman who has surgery after an ectopic pregnancy. I have asked twie but received no answer. Shruggggg
May 6, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Welcome Sara!
Karen,
ROFLOL! That was hysterical. I liked the woman talking about her torso full of refuse and looking for a retainer! What an honor! You deserve it!
EMR,
I liked the Love Languages book a lot, too. It also helped me understand myself and helped me communicate more clearly with my family members. My language is acts of service, too. I don’t care if I get gifts or nice cards but people doing the laundry and mopping the floors and cleaning the bathrooms would absolutely thrill me for my Mother’s Day gift. That and a day out ALL BY MY LONESOME!!!!!
May 6, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Now these are some REAL women!
May 6, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Thanks for your comments, ladies. I know I have the Love Languages book and think I have the Boundaries one, too. But, maybe I shouldn’t read them, as Karen has brought up that my answers might not be in a book.
Thank you for the “one anothers” mention, Karen.
I sometimes think my dh expects things from me that he can only get from the Lord… And since my dh is wise (in other areas only?), I think that whatever he says must be right and God calls the wife to submit so there ya go. My brain can get in a big quandrary. If I didn’t see wisdom in my dh, it wouldn’t be as hard, but there would probably be even MORE conflict in me… having to follow an unsmart man… How do I know what to sift out and what to keep?
I read a conservative board, and they seem to shrink from the word “boundaries.” I have been searching for another board with another viewpoint for the Christian woman.
The bedtime issue was not for me. It is one I heard recently and came across as, “I have changed her to my sleeping habits.” It just made me feel so… yucky. Where is compromise? Or should there be compromise?
I worry about going down the road of submission with the whole FLDS issue or patrio stuff as the end. How do you guard against this, ladies? Is this site a sounding board for you? What if dh doesn’t get it? Do you have faith that God won’t take you down his road, too, that He will protect you if you keep your mind sharp enough, etc.?
One lady said about a totally different issue, “What if we get snowed by our pastor?” She asked in a small group setting. Someone said that there was such a variety of people at the church with different views that it would be hard for the man to lead the whole lot down the wrong path. I have noticed with marriage issues, though, that women (maybe men, too) are NOT encouraged to talk about the “bad stuff.” It’s like we are putting our mate down, even by bringing stuff up. How do things get resolved???
I thought of another example. I used to go to the movies a lot before marriage. It was an enjoyable experience. After I got married, dh let on that going to the movies was a bad thing (how he was raised, other issues). I have since been “brainwashed” (???) into thinking that going to the movies is a bad thing and that I disappoint dh when I want to go. (The book entitled “You Can Be the Wife of a Happy Husband” comes to mind. I think this is a farce with some men. They are prone to the darker side of life, no matter what an outside person does.) I feel like part of “me” is gone… is this what becoming one means? It seems like I’m becoming him.
And then HOW DO WE PASS ON HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS TO OUR CHILDREN?????!!!!!!
(Boy, I have a lot in me that’s been waiting to get out!)
May 6, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I second emr’s endorsement of The Five Love Languages. Actually, it’s probably the second book/concept that has solidified my marriage.
Karen, that video is a hoot.
May 6, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Doug Phillips makes the Liberal blogs again
http://www.feministing.com/archives/015249.html
May 6, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I am no medical expert, but ectopic pregnancies will ALWAYS cause harm to someone! Particularly tubal pregnancies. Now, other ectopic pregnancies (outside the womb) have been known to be sustained and delivered successfully, but a tubal pregnancy will always cause harm, and the baby will never survive. The fact that a pastor can act as if he knows this is not true shows that he has no knowledge of the facts. How sad for the mother who dies because of a tubal pregnancy in his church.
May 6, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Karen!
I am deeply humbled and convicted by that video. Thank you for sharing.
It is obvious that way back before feminism destroyed America, women knew how to properly serve their men potato salad and why they appreciated it so much more.
I feel inspired to write a book exhorting all women to return to the old paths and embrace our God-given flexibility!
May 6, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Rae, I’m concerned that you seem to feel that your husband is the only person who matters in this marriage. Yes, God led you to him for a reason. But God also led him to YOU for a reason! You bring valuable gifts to this relationship too. Who was it that said “If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary”?
I hope that you will read the books that have been mentioned –
May 6, 2009 at 8:02 pm
“BTW, I really like JR Corry’s reviews”
Aw, thanks so much Kathleen! *blushes*
May 6, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Karen,
That potato salad video was so great! It reminded me of when I dust! Hee, hee!
And what would be liquid potato salad, as opposed to solid potato salad?
May 6, 2009 at 9:04 pm
“Did the MCO article prompt Michael Pearl in some way? Or is it just that he finally got one too many letters from VF folk that disturbed him?”
Such a great question!! I firmly believe it’s the latter for Pearl; he’s always been honest about his beliefs, and I disagree that he’s an idiot or believes that women are doormats. They do have some strange teachings, but they’re much straighter arrows than the twisted patrios. Mr. Pearl spoke out against patriocentrism months before the QF book (God bless it!!!!!) and the most recent stenches of the VF came out.
Ladies, I am THRILLED about all this revelation!! I didn’t know so much was occuring, but it looks like the Phillips cult is finally just starting to unravel.
May 6, 2009 at 11:39 pm
“A pejorative moniker from Phillips is a badge of honor.”
I could not agree with this more, Cindy K.
Everything about Mr. Phillips’ “ministry” and the tactics he uses to promote it reeks to high heaven. I would be worried if he DIDN’T take issue with my views or lifestyle.
But every time I feel literally sick to my stomach over the rot at the heart of Phillips, Wilson, Botkin, et. al’s teachings…I feel sicker yet to imagine the thousands of people who flock to their conferences, order their books and videos, and jealously defend them.
Should we feel pity and alarm for the patriocentric followers…or should we fear them? Who exactly is doing the leading here, the head or the tail?
I know, on an intellectual level, that many people are only trying to seek God’s will and misguidedly being pulled in.
But I can’t help but feel ill over it, you know? I can’t help but feel there’s something deeply wrong with people who respond so positively to organized systems of human bondage, to hierarchies that pit gender against gender and debase all involved.
What I’m saying is: If so many people are responding so much to the hyperpats, mustn’t there already have been a button there to push?
And, if so, where did it come from?
(My guess is a combination of humanity’s fallen nature and cultural roots within a mainstream society that reeks of latent misogyny–the same society our secular feminist sisters are constantly struggling to defeat. The Dougs and Botkins come along and put a Christian gloss on it, and Christians already rooted in misogynistic American society lap it up, unaware this “Christian Patriarchy” system is the very same patriarchy “the World” has given us for 5 thousand years).
May 7, 2009 at 5:58 am
momgodin, I had no idea that potato salad could be appreciated on such a spiritual level! Thank you for sharing. I feel a deep need for a potato salad pun but don’t want to get under anyone’s skin!
May 7, 2009 at 5:59 am
I heartily agree with the recommendations for the love languages books. I had a similar experience when reading them for the first time a few years ago and learning so much about what makes my family members tick!
May 7, 2009 at 6:42 am
Emily, such an insightful post! (#350)
“Should we feel pity and alarm for the patriocentric followers…or should we fear them? Who exactly is doing the leading here, the head or the tail? I know, on an intellectual level, that many people are only trying to seek God’s will and misguidedly being pulled in.
But I can’t help but feel ill over it, you know? I can’t help but feel there’s something deeply wrong with people who respond so positively to organized systems of human bondage, to hierarchies that pit gender against gender and debase all involved. ”
I agree that those who are drawn to certain extreme forms of practicing their faith often do so out of tremendous need. I also am reminded that those who spiritually abuse have most likely been abused themselves. It certainly does give us an extra measure of compassion toward those who fall prey to these sorts of teachings, doesn’t it.
I can’t help but think about those who choose to place themselves in the upper echelon of ptriocentricity. Much of it reminds me of the lack of empathy of the southern slave holder. Here is one example: How often have we heard of young women who have been kept at home and who choose to leave, only to be excommunicated from their families, being told that because of it, they cannot be Christians? So off they go and dive headfirst into bad choices because that is the voodoo that was placed on them. Where is the compassion and sense of duty as a parent? And then church or support group leaders agree and even encourage the shunning. It is like a slave family being torn apart when some are sold off. Where is the empathy, the human compassion? And for what? For a man made system that is neither prescribed or described in the Word of God?
May 7, 2009 at 7:45 am
“My guess is a combination of humanity’s fallen nature and cultural roots within a mainstream society that reeks of latent misogyny–the same society our secular feminist sisters are constantly struggling to defeat.”
This is so true. A couple weeks ago I watched The Monstrous Regiment of Women film by the the Gunn family, the 2008 winner of Doug Phillips’ film festival. My husband had never watched it before but did so this time and we have had some pretty great discussions since them. What keeps coming back to us is that whole message of the film, that women have only one function and calling in life and it has been defined by the patrios. Anything outside of that is depicted as sinful living and is done so gratuitously, imo. If you ask yourself who the intended audience is for the film, that defines the problem with the content. Since this is intended for evangelical Christians, the intent is to dicredit Christians who aren’t in patriocentric circles. The same is true for books like Passionate Housewives/ The audience isn’t secular feminists, it is conservative, evangelical stay at home moms and they are warned to steer clear of teachings that don’t line up with the patrio worldview. Once you identify the audience, it all makes sense. And that is why we can identify with those who have struggled as secular feminists. Just think back about those issues that the suffragettes dealt with.
You know, come to think of it, isn’t it interesting the Doug Phillips and some others within the movement railed so strongly against Sarah Palin in part because she is a member of Feminists for Life? Without considering the wonderful work that group does, they brushed them aside and heartily railed tagainst hem because they aren’t patrios. So, so sad.
May 7, 2009 at 7:48 am
BTW, I have a bumper sticker on my car from Feminists for Life and I have watched the faces of people who look at it. It says “Women Deserve Better Than Abortion.” Their website has some great reading, especially in the area of history when it comes to our first wave sisters who stood for good things for the family.
http://www.feministsforlife.org/
May 7, 2009 at 7:53 am
“How often have we heard of young women who have been kept at home and who choose to leave, only to be excommunicated from their families, being told that because of it, they cannot be Christians? So off they go and dive headfirst into bad choices because that is the voodoo that was placed on them. Where is the compassion and sense of duty as a parent? And then church or support group leaders agree and even encourage the shunning.”
Karen, I can’t tell you how much this has resonated with me. The other day I found this post on Lady Lydia’s blog about how patriocentric parents should treat adult children:
http://guardthehome.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-want-to-live-my-own-life.html
It is so scary and so upsetting. A woman writes a couple of lines to Lydia. Lydia does not know them or their situation personally. The woman’s daughter is in sin. Lydia has NO HESITATION in telling her to shun her daughter. I am just so shocked and upset by all this.
Now, I hardly need to say that I think couples SHOULD NOT live together if they are not married. They are sinning and they should get married! I absolutely feel for poor ‘Mrs C’. Her situation is a serious and upsetting one and she is right to be concerned and upset about her daughter.
But I cannot believe (and I know this is strong language, but I really think it’s appropriate) the stupidity, the IGNORANCE, of Lydia’s comments. SHE DOES NOT KNOW THIS LADY OR HER DAUGHTER! She has no idea about their life or their relationship. And here she is, freely telling this lady to cut her own child out of her life, to emotionally blackmail her (‘I won’t be at your wedding’).
Just one example of Lydia’s ignorance: Her insistance that the boyfriend secretly despises the daughter. ‘If he respected her he would marry her’. Look. I went to a secular university and I have many friends who are non-Christians. Some of them do not believe in abstinence before marriage and some of them have lived with boyfriends (or girlfriends). It’s not because they secretly despise each other. They just have totally different morals to Christians. Don’t get me wrong – these friends are SINNING! And if I were asked to give my opinion, I would tell them to get married (Ha- I am always telling people to get married though! I am a troublesome matchmaker!!). But they do genuinely love and respect each other. They have just been brought up watching ‘Friends’ and programmes like that, and they don’t view living together outside of marriage as disrespectful.
So Lydia is very wrong and mistaken, and could well be hurting poor Mrs C, by telling her this boyfriend is a bad person who is mistreating her daughter. The boyfriend could well truly love the daughter – but he is not saved and his morals are not God’s morals. He may well not have been raised to view marriage highly (but still view love highly, and women highly). And I have to say, the fact that the young couple are praised as hardworking, that they have been together for some years, and that the boyfriend does not come to the parents’ house because he knows he upsets them (explained in a comment), all suggest that he is, though sinning grievously, probably not a bad, cruel, or disrespectful person.
[Mrs c]Thanks SO much for your kind advice, it really helped me validate my feelings.Sadly, this has been the case, i have never visited her apartment, in the 1 1/2 years she has been living there, and she very rarely visits home, and always alone, the boyfriend “knows” something is up.Ive tried the talking part, but she’s a passive-agressive, she will yes you to death, and go about her business, really no emapthy for me or her fathers feelings, never mind her younger siblings!It’s hard to teach the younger ones about living in sin, when big sis is right in the thick of it, as though WE are the bad guys for disapproving.It doesent seem to matter to her that we disapprove. It seems as though shes willing to give up her family. Thanks again, and i will incorporate your wisdom into my teaching, Yours in Christ, Liz
I really feel for this woman. I am reminded of the dilemma of a family friend, whose daughter became pregnant out of wedlock (she has since married). How was the mother supposed to convey to her other children that Sister had sinned, and was wrong to do so, and having children when you are not married is a sin, and still a) express to the children the importance of being pro-life and how Sister had not committed the sin of abortion b)not turn the children against Sister, or worse, c) her baby? It’s such a difficult line to walk.
But I know for sure what the solution is NOT. It’s not to interfere in peoples’ lives, proscribing drastic action, when you know them only through a few lines on a blog comment. It’s not to usurp the proper place of a PASTOR and a counsellor, because you are an old busybody who likes telling people how they should behave in situtations you have never been in yourself.
It’s exactly what you described above Karen. Parents are too controlling, so the children rebel and go completely the other way into sin. And the patriocentric solution? Tear the family apart.
May 7, 2009 at 8:13 am
>> emr Says:
>> May 6, 2009 at 7:11 pm
>> Rae, I’m concerned that you seem to feel that your husband is the only person who matters in this marriage. Yes, God led you to him for a reason. But God also led him to YOU for a reason! You bring valuable gifts to this relationship too. Who was it that said “If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary”?
Thank you for reminding me of my value.
I’m also asking these questions because it seems like I fall into the p. camp without ever reading their stuff or going to their churches, etc.
May 7, 2009 at 8:19 am
Claire, I just wanted to note that I edited out the Lady Lydia article and left the link. Given the most recent litigious nature of the patriocentrists, I thought it prudent. If Lady Lydia removes her post, let me know. I saved it off line for anyone to read.
May 7, 2009 at 8:23 am
That’s probably very wise Karen. I only quoted a portion, not the entire post, which I think makes it ok to use under ‘fair use’. But it’s definitely better to be safe than sorry.
May 7, 2009 at 8:33 am
Claire, just add to that story the ecclesiocentric aspect of the situation. If that girl was/is a Christian, a shunning of her as such would certainly be part of the equation. While I agree that church discipline is often necessary, I find myself asking what has gone on in that home for a Christian girl to plunge headlong into this relationship? While I am not condoning her behavior in the least, you are correct that for Lady Lydia to give this counsel not knowing them personally is horrifying. She could very well be giving license to abuse in that home. And aren’t unrepentant sins against the daughter also worthy of consideration, possibly even church discipline?
Here is what I have witnessed repeatedly and perhaps nothing makes me any angrier….
Someone does something that someone in authority doesn’t like. It may be actual sin or it may be just a difference of opinion. It may be a difference of opinion that escalates into sin. So the one in authority, feeling the need to control the situation, begins subtle or not-so-subtle ways of discipline. It continues to escalate until the person is considered to be not a Christian at all because she won’t comply with the rules. Sometimes it is sin, sometimes it is a difference of opinion called sin because the authority is challenged. (This can even happen in the form of asking questions.) Eventually, and there is always an eventually, people will either break or bolt. At that point, the authority has now pushed the person headlong into bad choices.
In the situation you described, this mom is now setting her daughter up for further failure and heartache. What if she gets pregnant and the guy leaves her? This mom has just set her up to abort a child. You know, I have spoken with several young women who aborted their babies because they were terrified of what would happen to their parents’ reputations. And statistics tell you that 80 to 90 percent of those who leave an abortion clinic tell you that if ONLY ONE PERSON has said they would help, they would not have aborted. Lady Lydia, by telling the mom to worry about her own reputation, has reinforced those fears in any daughter who gets this sort of lecture from her mom. I, too, am outraged at this.
Each situation is so different and NEVER can I see closing the door on the relationship with a child who is struggling in sin. Lady Lydia said that we are to pull someone out of the pit rather than get in the pit and wallow with them. The real truth is that, like Christian, in Pilgrim’s Progress, we have all been in some pit or another. Our calling as believers is to come alongside the pit, the Slough of Despond, as Bunyon described it, and to show our dear brothers and sisters how to climb out. Lady Lydia has taken it upon herself to suggest that this mom place even more burdens on the back of a daughter struggling to keep from drowning in the pit.
Lord have mercy on us all.
May 7, 2009 at 8:44 am
Will the “Boundaries” book help me alone or are you supposed to read it with the person you are putting boundaries on for it to work right?
May 7, 2009 at 9:09 am
Rae,
Scripture tells us that we are to exhort and admonish one another. We cannot make someone else one another us. We can only do these things ourselves. We can, however, admonish, that is, go to the other person and tell them our concerns, admonishing them to do the right thing. You can go to your husband and admonish him to one another you! But I think you need to tell him these things in a way that he will listen to you. Sometimes husbands aren’t even aware of our needs and even if they are, how to meet them. Usually what happens if we don’t admonish, the anger and resentment begin to build and we let it all out at the wrong time. Here is my example. I might really need help doing something, I need to have him listen to my concerns or some other way that I am feeling burdened. But he might not realize that he isn’t bearing my burdens and I need to talk to him. Communication is the key.
May 7, 2009 at 10:03 am
From the perspective of a daughter who was nearly shunned and considered to be all of those things although I was not sexually promiscuous before marriage,”living in sin” or anything of that nature (my “mistake” was moving out,out of obedience to God, and for SURVIVAL), I can say THANK GOD that HE does not shun us when we are at our “worst” points. It is here that His grace is made apparent.
This is a very hot button for me so I will refrain from anything more.
May 7, 2009 at 10:34 am
Emmy said,”But I can’t help but feel ill over it, you know? I can’t help but feel there’s something deeply wrong with people who respond so positively to organized systems of human bondage, to hierarchies that pit gender against gender and debase all involved.”
This grieves me also.
Why are Americans surrendering their freedom? Is it because…if you don’t use it, you’ll lose it? IOW, they don’t realize they’re losing freedom because for years the government has assumed more and more of their responsibilities. Additionally, the pursuit of a single successful career allows people little opportunity to discover the variety of other talents they possess, or time to develop and use them.
So they don’t even notice that excessive regulation is a loss of their liberty. It essentially prevents you from marketing (sharing) your gifts/abilities with the public.
But such is no great loss to a people who arent even aware or haven’t been taught that they possess any unique abilites.
And it is the same in the church!
It seems that most Christians are unaware of any spiritual gifts they possess, yet the God has promised we have them.
I have often thought that we have a generation raised in Churchianty- an efficient,micro-managed organization designed for immediate (apparent) results, but unfortunately yields long term dependence- immaturity.
Such people, not familiar with using their own spiritual gifts as revealed by God, depend upon being told where they are to minister, and what they are to do and to think. They have surrendered their liberty readily because they never used it in the first place.
It’s the fault of the leadership. The fruit of their excessive authority is a generation of weakness. Jesus said of the Gentiles “they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you.”
It grieves me to see that it IS so among us. Christians leaders exercise authority on believers just like the Gentiles do, instead of teaching us by example how to heed the Holy Spirit.
I guess ya can’t teach what ya don’t know. :p
May 7, 2009 at 11:26 am
Cynthia,
Your comment #312 was such a blessing, and I’ve read somewhere else where you’ve written it before.
Before I came to know the Lord as my First Love, I thought of Him as a harsh lord or ruler and someone to be feared only. No loving relationship involved at all. I knew He was God, I knew He was Creator of all things and I knew of His life, death and resurrection. All head knowledge. Then, when I realized He did it because He loved me and saved me and to let me enter into an everlasting love with Him — everything changed for me.
That definition you shared is, in my experience, the only way I could possibly be in love with my Savior Jesus, and not as some “lord high executioner”, or baal god. Hosea paints an unfathomable love God has for His Bride.
May 7, 2009 at 11:45 am
And along those same thoughts — being the kind of person I am, I don’t think I would have ever fallen in love with a man that demanded obedience and servitude to his lordship in our marriage. It just does not compute in my mind. So either God made me wrong, or my rebellion has completely blinded me :p
My husband and I are beginning to “get” the one-anothering in marriage, as it is a life-long process.
Also, I often find myself very glad that my husband and I grew up in “the world” and not in some Christian circles with very rigidly defined “roles” prescribed by man’s definitions. It helped shaped who we are now. Would my husband have found me an attractive mate if I was anyone other than who he fell in love with?
May 7, 2009 at 11:55 am
Lady Lydia’s advice here stuns me.
I am stunned like a bird flown into a wall.
She used the word “terrorists” no less than four time to describe adult children who do not believe or worship as their parents do.
What an affront. Such cruelty. TERRORISM? Really? Does she imagine that adult children have set out to destroy the homes and lives of their loving parents?
I pose a question to Lady Lydia: Do you genuinely care whether or not this woman’s child eventually comes to Christ (assuming, as you do now, that she personally feels she does not know CHrist; I know many socially liberal Christians who focus more on Jesus’ ministry than on Paul’s teachings on marriage)? ‘Cause your advice to this mother is atheist-producing behavior. Why indeed should this 23-year old woman feel any attraction to Christianity if she associates it with a mother who would shun the child of her own body when the latter reaches different conclusions about life?
I feel strongly that evangelization is a path that Believers have to make to unBelievers; Believers, choosing to believe, have the burden and the charge (as set out by the Holy Spirit) to take on that burden. Lady Lydia’s advice reminds me of some of the 19th century European missionaries who charged into other people’s countries and began issuing orders, snatching away the peoples’ clothes and forcing them to wear European dress because “the natives are not modest.” Why on EARTH should the local people have chosen the missionaries’ ways and paths after seeing this behavior? The burden was on the missionaries to MODEL why they believed, and to do so in kindness and HUMILITY (and to not alienate the people they claimed to want to win for Christ.)
I admit I do not understand at all the petulant and embattled stance of many self-proclaimed “Conservative Christians” in the U.S. Do they or DON’T they want or care at all about more people loving Christ and wanting to serve him?
But perhaps this is because my family is from a country in which there are severe limitations on Christians and their worship. Because we have no power to demand anything of the general society, we must live the best we can, humbly and kindly, letting people see the fruit of our spirits. That is how you reach people who believe differently, not by shunning them, shaming them, browbeating them, and (shudder) branding them “terrorists.”
The only fruit I see in this tossing to the wolves of children who believe differently from onesself is rotten fruit.
May 7, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Rae,
One thing that helped me is this: My husband is not God, he is human. He may be wise. So was Solomon, and he had a “few” issues. God may speak to your husband, but He also speaks to you. The foundation for Protestant thought is the idea of the priesthood of all believers, we all have equal access to God.
There are very few verses that specifically speak of husbands and wives. People make whole book empires based on 7-8 verses.
You will not be married to your husband in heaven. He is your brother in Christ right now and will be in heaven. You are my sister in Christ right now and will be in heaven.
For right now, FORGET submission. Toss out the word. IT IS LOADED. People have soo many ideas on what it means, what is doesn’t. There are hundreds of lists based on this 1 word! This ONE word out of the ENTIRE canon of Scripture!
Read Romans 12:9-21, and all of 1 Corinthians 13. Treat your husband with respect, honor, love, and patience as your brother in Christ. He should treat you with the same as you are his sister in Christ.
In Matthew 25:35-36 “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”
May 7, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Rae,
One more thing.
Work on being comfortable with only you and God, then you will be able to see anyone else that comes into your life as a blessing. You will be able to weigh what anyone teaches against what God has revealed in Scripture and what He has revealed to you.
Just you and God.
Not you, God and your husband.
YOU will stand before God Himself and give an account for your life.
YOU will answer for YOURSELF.
For YOUR actions.
Not your husband.
Not the ladies on this blog.
There will be no one to stand up and say “Well, she didn’t go to the movies!” No one to say “She baked her own bread!”
Tell your husband, in all kindness and with respect, that perhaps he may be expecting you to fill places only God can.
Healthy relationships are based on MUTUAL respect, honesty, and humility.
If he ignores you because you are a woman, remember this:
-a woman was the first to hear the Messiah was coming (Mary)
-and women were first to see the Messiah resurrected.
-Women were first to tell the Gospel to the disciples,
May 7, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I don’t want to interrupt this great discussion, but have just read about this book on another wonderful blog, Holy Experience, and it sounds very good for mothers who struggle with their parenting and families not being “what they should be”, especially when success is practically guaranteed by following a (patriocentric) formula. The book is called “Parenting Is Your Highest Calling: And Eight Other Myths That Trap Us in Worry and Guilt”.
According to the author, Leslie Leyland Fields, our highest calling is to love the Lord with our heart, soul, mind and strength. “Our greatest and most constant temptation as parents is to unseat the Sovereign from his throne and replace him with our family.”
She refers to Reb Bradley’s “Solving the Crisis in Homeschooling” and says, “I am learning to mistrust claims of single biblical model for parenting…
Godly parenting begins not in the rules we or other people make for our children but in pursuing a genuine relationship with God.” (p.114)
She uses a lot of biblical examples in the book, as well as real-life stories and gentle humor.
The nine myths of parenting are:
1. Having Children Makes You Happy and Fulfilled.
2. Nurturing Your Children Is Natural
3. Parenting Is your Highest Calling
4. Good Parenting Leads to Happy Children
5. If You Find Parenting Difficult, You Must Not Be Following the Right Plan
6. You Represent Jesus to Your Children
7. You Will Always Feel Unconditional love for Your Children
8. Successful Parents Produce Godly Children
9. God Approves of Only One Family Design
This looks like a very encouraging book to read–it looks like the author is willing to speak by Skype (she lives in Alaska) to groups who are studying the book, too. My kids are grown, but I may get this book and loan it out. Karen, I thought about putting this on your blog with your “grace in parenting” posts, but didn’t want it to get lost.
May 7, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Thank you, Karen and Nicole.
May 7, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Nicole,
>> One thing that helped me is this: My husband is not God, he is human. He may be wise. So was Solomon, and he had a “few” issues.
Thank you for reminding me of Solomon!
May 7, 2009 at 12:56 pm
I found this site this morning:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/giftedforleadership/2007/02/minding_your_mind.html
What do you think? Do you have many IRL women thinkers around you or are they mostly on the Internet? Do you like to read books? I know Karen does. Do you ever go to women’s conferences?
The p’s seem to present the man getting the answers from God and the woman going along. Am I interpreting this correctly?
May 7, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Rae,
In answer to your question about the Boundaries book, I read it by myself, and as much as I would like my husband to be into that kind of thing with me, it was truly a good thing that I had time to digest it on my own and here’s why; the concepts in it are the practical, nitty-gritty “how-to’s” of the “one anothering” that Karen speaks of, and no matter how well we think we are doing in this category, there is always going to be something that is convicting to us! I’m so glad I had time to deal with that on my own first.
Okay, I’m about to get painfully honest here. A friend gave “Boundaries in Marriage” to me at a truly stressful time in our marriage. Given these stresses (some of them were the same ones you mention: different standards with the tension that brings and feeling like I was losing myself) and my relative naivete concerning marriage (we’d been married 3 years at the time), I fell into the classic “He’s the one that is causing all the problems; he doesn’t get his responsibility to this marriage!”.
Well, then I read Boundaries… and realized that, because of the whole “submission” baggage plus lack of proper boundary/relational skills, I was actually contributing to the problem just as much, if not more, than my husband!!! Talk about a paradigm change. Here I thought that because I was doing things the “Biblical” way (i.e., submission, which translated into not being upfront about how I was feeling about things, but letting my silent resentment speak for me) that I was the one doing it right, only to find that I had no clue about how to uphold personal boundaries (both respecting other people’s autonomy and not giving up the rights to my own), and THAT was the greatest cause of issues in our marriage. Now, while it wasn’t easy to relearn those skills and become familiar with this new paradigm I had entered, let me tell you, that my marriage is like night and day from what it was then. It took my husband some time to adjust to my new “boundaries”, but like yours, he is a WISE and GOOD man, and is grateful to have a wife who doesn’t allow herself to be a doormat but instead has some gumption and the freedom to have differing opinions. There was also a LOT of prayer that went into the situation, and God was SO good to rearrange our life to relieve many of the stresses that were adding to the situation.
So, I would pray about it; like Karen said, books can be more of a hindrance that a help sometimes. But I do HIGHLY recommend reading Boundaries in Marriage, especially considering that it sounds like we have a lot of the same mentalities that led us to the same situations. Reading it was an absolute turning point for me; it literally changed my life, though I know that sounds dramatic. And of course since God likes to work in our lives in ways we could never dreamed or imagined, I read it right before I encountered this site and learned so much from the ladies here on the Visionary Daughters threads from the summer of 07. So first, I learned the practical ways of how God created us to interact, and then God led me to those threads where I learned the theological backing for it. I highly recommend reading those threads when you get a chance (its about a lot more than submission, but it does cover that).
Also, I’ve found that we don’t have to be in or even be familiar with patriarchy to have those submission issues creep into our mentalities; all it takes is the submission verse taken out of the context God intended for it to be in, and it’s a sure recipe for disaster. And unfortunately, that is rampant in conservative Christianity today.
Anyway, I hope that answered your question! I’ll be praying for you; I know where you’re at, and I ESPECIALLY am with you in seeking to give our children a healthy example to follow!!!
Much Love,
Alisa
May 7, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Kathy…ordering that book now. It sounds really really good.
May 7, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Alisa, really good and godly advice! You always really bless me!
May 7, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Wow wish I had the cash to order the Boundaries book. Wonder if the library has it…otherwise I’ll wait a couple of months.
May 7, 2009 at 2:28 pm
I wanted to note that people are accusing me of removing comments from this blog within the last few days and it is true. I have been asked by a commenter to remove certain quotes and, as I have always done, am happy to do so. WordPress, sadly, doesn’t give people the option to delete our own comments. So, for those who are concerned that there is some sinister reason for this, have no fear.
I will also tell you that I have denied comments either by those who have repeatedly come here only for the purpose of stirring up strife. In my book, there is a huge difference between having and expressing a different opinion and purposely trying to drop comments to insight regular contributors. So, if you wonder why your comments aren’t getting through, that is why.
May 7, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Thank you, Alisa!!!
Mrs W, I found mine on sale a couple of years ago and packed it away for later. I guess now is later. I pulled it out this morning.
Sounds up my alley, Alisa. Thank you for letting me know that it can help me/us even if dh doesn’t read it.
May 7, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Great advice there, Nicole. I had to go through all those steps as well.
And that is a great article you linked to, Rae.
And Karen… thank you. You’re so sweet.
May 7, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Rae, just so you will know you aren’t alone. It has been my experience that men rarely read books like this. Men write them but men don’t read them. Anyone else have an opinion on that?
May 7, 2009 at 8:15 pm
milleniumwoman said:
”
“Rae, just so you will know you aren’t alone. It has been my experience that men rarely read books like this. Men write them but men don’t read them. Anyone else have an opinion on that?
Liberal, secular men generally don’t read them either:) It’s a guy thing that transcends all religious & political boundaries!
Sticking my head back into lurkdom…
May 7, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Claire, I have been thinking about the Lady Lydia article all day.
I have a friend who is in a similar situation with her son. He and his girlfriend are living together and won’t marry yet because she is in school and can’t get enough financial aid to finish unless she stays single.
My friend and her husband are both believers and are really disappointed in this situation since they didn’t raise him to live this way. But they also realize that they would have no godly influence in their lives if they cut him off. So they have them both participate in family things and they have been to their home to dinner. BUT, every single time they are together with their son, they take him aside and remind him that they are expecting them to get married, that how he is living is not right.
I think they are handling this the only way that they can. And if it were a daughter I think it would be even more important to not close any relationship doors. I have been impressed with the wisdom they have shown though I know it is a painful and embarrassing situation for them. I admire them for how they are handling this and I expect there will be a good outcome.
May 7, 2009 at 9:07 pm
That Lydia thing has been hovering over me today too. That woman, like almost all the patrio wives, has shown a shocking lack of compassion, empathy, Biblical knowledge, and intelligence. Consider the fact that she went to the WWF blog months ago complaining about one of their articles, which jokingly said that she’d probably shun the Virgin Mary. Lydia told them they didn’t know her or anything about her, therefore had no right to say that. Yet, look how she’s advising that mother to treat her daughter: she doesn’t know the daughter or anything about the daughter either! And what is she saying to do? Shun her! Not only does she accuse the WWF ladies of doing what she’s doing herself, but she fulfills their jesting character prophecy to a tee. I don’t know what it is about these people; they damn themselves so more effectively than others ever could, and they never see the holes they dig for themselves.
May 7, 2009 at 11:07 pm
A book I really found helpful (recommended to me by the principal of my Christian school as I arranged to have my wedding at the church that hosted the school) was “His Needs, Her Needs” by Willard Harley.
It is very practical.
And I still really like “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage” by Maurice Lamm, though it is not a Christian book.
May 7, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Hey, I’ve got a prayer request!
Please pray for three women who are all in various stages of coming out of patriocentricity with whom I’ve had correspondence over the past week or so. They are all in the process of figuring things out and making decisions about how they want to respond and change. (Do I stay and fight, go and heal, tell people, change my behavior or dress, when do I go, etc…)
Please pray for me as I work with them all, too. I am amazed at how the Holy Spirit does do things and how topics are brought up. I want the right words from the Holy Spirit, there in my mouth, in due season. They are headed into a season of work and study and grieving and healing, and I want to get them pointed in the right direction in the right way. I pray also that the Holy Spirit is extra sweet to them, if He could be any more sweeter than He already is.
Thanks, everybody.
May 7, 2009 at 11:24 pm
My apologies to moms doing grammar…
Is “any more sweeter” proper to say? It might be redundant!
May 8, 2009 at 8:34 am
John Holzmann has the next part of his commentary on the recordings of the Homeschooling Leadership Summit now online. In this one he gets to the heart of Doug Phillips’ message to fathers. His comments and concerns are right on.
http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/05/chec-mens-leadership-summit-part-v.html
May 8, 2009 at 8:35 am
I should note that I think we could have written Doug’s speech and manifesto. No surprises.
May 8, 2009 at 8:45 am
Rae, I couldn’t help but think of your comment #373 as I read through the account of Doug Phillips’ presentation. In it he talks about building a “man’s library for sons.” Doug also has a detailed article on his blog about this and I was really amused that he used as his model John Quincy Adam’s personal library. JGA’s mom was Abigail Adams, one of the strongest and articulate proponents for women’s rights and suffrage. She also homeschooled JQA. Where does Doug think the man got his desire for learning and reading? Oh my! BTW, that article you linked to in that comment was right on. I grow so weary of Bible study topics that are “for women.” I would guess that half of the Bereans were women!”
May 8, 2009 at 9:36 am
I have never read the Boundaries book, but I think this is the best description of the misinterpretation of “biblical submission” being taught to women:
Alisa said,
“Here I thought that because I was doing things the “Biblical” way (i.e., submission, which translated into not being upfront about how I was feeling about things, but letting my silent resentment speak for me) that I was the one doing it right, only to find that I had no clue about how to uphold personal boundaries (both respecting other people’s autonomy and not giving up the rights to my own)…”
This ruins more families! Thanks for that Alisa, as I need to zero in this when I talk to ladies.
I’m also wading through that fascinating Visionary Daughters thread.
I didn’t realize how long this was all going on. I’m a newcomer!
I’m also learning (from that thread) how sensitive women are and guess I better take better care with my sarcasm.
Wondering: How can the patrios be so sensitive to criticism (when defending their convictions), yet be so insensitive as to shun their own children over those convictions?
May 8, 2009 at 10:08 am
Momgodin wrote:
Wondering: How can the patrios be so sensitive to criticism (when defending their convictions), yet be so insensitive as to shun their own children over those convictions?
Because they are not relying on God’s truth as the standard. They have created their own version of truth which derives from them personally. It is their own ideas that establish the truth. When you reject their truth, it is personal to them, so they react so strongly. They have a personal investment in it.
If this information were truly in the Bible and it was a central, cogent, firm theme, when the criticisms come, it would not be personal. You reject “God created the heavens and the earth,” or “There is none righteous, no not one,” or “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” when I bear witness to the Word, it does not hurt when that it rejected. You have rejected the Word, not me personally. If you reject the integrity of the Word of God, you are not rejecting my personal integrity, as this is separate.
I believe their doctrine is existentialistic — it is based in WHAT THEY THINK AND ESTABLISH AND SAY that the Word says, putting more stock in their man made paradigm about the Word rather than the Word of God itself. When the doctrine is criticized, it feels personal to them. James Sire said that for existentialists (truth and meaning are determined by a person’s internal esteem of the truth rather than external truthfulness), truth becomes “inextricably bound to the knower.”
Is it “the Truth” or “my truth” ???
May 8, 2009 at 10:19 am
Momgodin,
Because they are playground bullies. The certainly know how to serve up heaping, helpings of criticism and condemnation to all who don’t toe-the-line when it comes to their extra-biblical teachings but when someone finally stands up to them, holds them accountable for their “do as I say not as I do” behavior, then they cry to mommy…..or threaten legal action.
When their children don’t follow their paradigm, it is embarrassing to them and their social standing among the other patrios, so the children must be gotten rid of via shunning.
May 8, 2009 at 10:28 am
“I don’t know what it is about these people; they damn themselves so more effectively than others ever could, and they never see the holes they dig for themselves.”
Jennifer,
Amen! You certainly said a mouthful…..So Much More than you could ever imagine.
The patrios are very adept at digging holes, the very holes they, themselves, will fall into one day.
They are digging holes this very moment…..
May 8, 2009 at 10:34 am
“The p’s seem to present the man getting the answers from God and the woman going along. Am I interpreting this correctly?”
Rae,
Just read a quote that says about this very thing.
The man follows God and hears directly from Him while the woman follows man and hears directly from the man. She doesn’t hear directly through God, she hears God through a man.
I will try and dig it up.
Wonder why God bothered giving women the Holy Spirit unless the Holy Spirit is only necessary to keep women under submission and that is the end of His dealings with women?
May 8, 2009 at 10:36 am
Do any of you nurse ladies know which of the red spotty illnesses such as chickenpox or measles (don’t quite look like chickenpox blisters) would show up first on the face and neck? Trying to figure out if my son has caught something nasty or if he has a heap of mosquito bites and a cold.
May 8, 2009 at 11:02 am
“The man follows God and hears directly from Him while the woman follows man and hears directly from the man. She doesn’t hear directly through God, she hears God through a man.”
Have they not read the verse that says there is one mediator between God and man and that is Christ Jesus? Or have they read it and take the word man to be a literal male instead of representing the entire human race both male and female.
Lisa
May 8, 2009 at 11:04 am
“I’m also wading through that fascinating Visionary Daughters thread.
I didn’t realize how long this was all going on. I’m a newcomer!”
Momgodin, we began discussing the Vision Daughters philosophy about two years ago but the actual philosophy has been around homeschooling circles, in various forms for much longer. Recently I came across our state’s ICHE magazine from 2005 that featured several articles on this topic. I think it really began to take off when So Much More was published and Kevin Swanson began talking about it on his daily radio show.
I’m also learning (from that thread) how sensitive women are and guess I better take better care with my sarcasm.
We like to say that we all wear big girl panties around here! If you get a change to look through the “contributors” thread, you will see what kind of name calling we all have endured around here.
May 8, 2009 at 11:08 am
“”Dear Mr. Academy President,” he said he replied, “No, I don’t hold to that position, and, by the way, why in the world would any sane man suggest something like this?” The reason? According to Phillips, because he had read such claims on a number of slanderous websites, “DirtyDogs.com and WhistleblowersOfJehovah and Titus2LesbianFeminists.com, and VeryRighteousWomenOfGraceWhoHaveTheSpiritualGiftOfCriticism.com, and things like that.” –A comment the audience obviously felt was very witty, gauged by their laughter. But, once more, Phillips did not laugh.”
Okay, I am trying to figure out why Philips is so blinded to the plank in his own eye?
It is okay for him to “gossip” about Christian leaders and authors and other public figures and individuals on his blog and on “Mrs. Binoculars” but it isn’t okay for a woman to hold people accountable and point out the wrongs in their teachings and behaviors and beliefs?
What is his website called?
VeryRighteousManofGraceWiththeSpiritualGiftofCriticism.com?
May 8, 2009 at 11:19 am
John Holzmann said this:
“Phillips and his paisanos, in attempting to call the “leaders” of the homeschool movement to full-bore home educational discipleship, are ruling out the possibility that others might be able to be–what I might call–homeschool evangelized. From these guys’ perspective, it seems you must either buy-in wholly to their (what I will call) “extreme” brand of homeschooling, or nothing at all.
This, I am now realizing, is why Sonlight was banned from the CHEC convention.
Of course, we weren’t informed of CHEC’s movement to the place where you must either agree with all of the propositions Swanson and Phillips raise or you will be considered unbiblical. But, I think it has become clear, that is where they are coming from.
How sad for the homeschool movement as a whole.
You either join them, or you’re banned. Either take them as the purveyors of final truth, or keep your mouth shut (or they will be glad to attempt to muzzle you).”
And we must never forget this fact. This is the truth. No matter how “tolerant” some of them would like you to think they are.
How do I know? Personal experience of dealing with these types.
May 8, 2009 at 11:25 am
Mrs. W, did he have a fever first? It could be roseola–a very mild childhood disease. Or could it be a food allergy?
I feel like over the past few days that TW has come back to what it does best (at least in my opinion), with everyone bringing their minds together to analyze the extra-Biblical teachings that are happening on a wide-scale level within Christian circles. This place can be so beneficial to so many women, I believe.
May 8, 2009 at 11:31 am
Joana, thanks for these words. I am so happy to see them. I have been moderating comments and, as much as I hate to do that, have discovered that this is the only way for now of keeping the stick pokers at bay. I have been going through the old archives and seeing a very definite pattern whenever thinking have escalated and I know I should have been more willing to moderate before now.
Please forgive me for not having done so sooner. I, too, am enjoying the conversation. (And to think a couple weeks ago I was ready to hit the delete button on this whole blog!)
May 8, 2009 at 11:45 am
I haven’t had a chance to write about this but in the last post John Holzmann did on Doug’s presentation, the San Antonio Film Festival was mentioned.
I remember a few years ago when Doug had written a piece on the state of Hollywood and his statement that “Hollywood is irredeemable,” a phrase that has stuck with me because it seems so out of sink with the truth of God’s sovereignty and any ideas of having influence as believers. Since then and with his huge emphasis on Christians making their own films, I have come to understand him to believe, as I think is even portrayed in John’s synopsis today, that Christians are to disengage within the culture and create all of our own institutions etc.
That same week that Doug made that declaration about Hollywood, World Magazine ran an article about the number of Christians who work in Hollywood and who are committed to bringing a Biblical worldview to the culture there. It was stated then that there were over 10,000 member of the Christian Screenwriters and Actor’s Guild.
To put a personal twist to this, one of our sons attended the Summit Ministries conference a few years ago and came away with a passion to bring that same worldview into the secular world through sound recording. He will be graduating in a couple months and this week I heard a story from him that shows the incredible influence believers can have. Mom brag alert warning:
In one of his classes, the prof always brings in a name band to record a CD for free with the understanding that the sound engineering students will be doing/learning/putting their skills to the test under his supervision. He gave the 150 students the assignment of writing a one page essay explaining why they should be one of the 12 chosen for the project. He then explained that the band would be choosing the 12 based solely on what they wrote.
My son told me that while he has been in school and listening to what the profs are saying about the world of sound recording, he has seen that one of the greatest needs is for people to be available and dependable, not only top engineers skills and grade wise, but along with that to be people of character who are willing to serve others. So that is what he wrote. The next day, the prof announced the chosen team and our son’s essay was chosen first out of the 150!
What does this say about God honoring those people who seek to serve Him and who put the evangelism of others ahead of building a man made kingdom? I was so humbled as he shared his great news with me. The Lord is using Him to build Christ’s kingdom in an entertainment world that is so full of hurting, lonely, needy people.
May 8, 2009 at 11:53 am
Thatmom, what you just said just suddenly brought a Reader’s Digest article to mind, where Denzel Washington talks about his faith in a very moving, profound way. http://www dot rd dot com/content/printContent.do?contentId=49236
Here’s a quote,
“RD: Do you ever see a conflict in Hollywood, Godless Hollywood, as a spiritual person?
Washington: Well, wait a minute. Stop. That’s broad. Godless Hollywood? What is that? First of all, Hollywood is a part of Los Angeles, not a way of thinking. When you say Godless Hollywood, are you including me? Are you saying everybody in Hollywood is Godless? That’s like saying Godless Reader’s Digest. No such thing, right?”
May 8, 2009 at 11:58 am
That’s wonderful news, Karen! Thanks for sharing–it does a mom’s heart good!
May 8, 2009 at 12:02 pm
That same week that Doug made that declaration about Hollywood, World Magazine ran an article about the number of Christians who work in Hollywood and who are committed to bringing a Biblical worldview to the culture there.
A friend of mine founded an organization called Camp Blaze (www.campblaze.org) that has a number of family support programs. When one of their children decided to become an actor and moved to Hollywood, they relocated from the east coast to Los Angeles and are working on a mission there – to purchase an apartment building where aspiring actors, etc., can live in a safe Christian community, take workshops, sharpen their iron, etc. How cool is that?
May 8, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Light,
Way cool!
May 8, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Joana, think how insulting it must be to Christians who are diligently working to bring light and truth to those they work with?
This makes me wonder how many other institutions/businesses they think ought to be created to replace others/ What about the godless power plant? What about the godless grocery stores? What about the godless car companies? Can you imagine what would happen if all Christians abandoned these places?
May 8, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Light, I remember you sharing that with me once. How awesome!
May 8, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Some of the members of a rather influential family in my neck of the woods regularly participate (and boasts) in the SAICFF with Doug Phillips. The statements Doug made about Hollywood were miserable and shows his uncaring heart for the people who don’t measure up to his standards. Does he actually believe there only to be sin and greed in Hollywood and not anywhere else?
Anyway, I did my own simple research and found several articles about the actual Christians actors that are working with the unsaved in Hollywood, and who knows how many non-famous behind-the-scenes people there are that operate there?
Some names some might be familiar with are: Zach Levi (NBC’s “Chuck”), the Kristin Chenewith from “Wicked” and the more recognizable Patricia Heaton, who played “Debra” on “Everybody Loves Raymond”. She has given her testimony several times in the secular press and produces several things such as “Thou Shalt Laugh” that has aired on Christian television and most notable she co-produced the film about William Wilberforce, “Amazing Grace”. These people are working with the “unwashed” humanity in Hollywood. ::rolls eyes::
Marginialization makes me irritated. Just to promote themselves and boast in themselves. Ick.
Here’s a great quote from Hollywood:
“I may not be a smart man … but I know what love is.” – F.G.
May 8, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Check this out: http://americannaussie.blogspot.com/2009/05/warning-potentially-volatile-subject.html
I have been so depressed lately.
May 8, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Ladies, I do believe in submission, and I do believe that the husband makes the final decisions. My husband is a good man. We are both young and don’t know a lot yet.
I have been suffering some depression lately.
Ok so when we have a decision to make, my husband always SAYS that he “values my input” blah blah blah. We discuss things, we argue about things, we fight. When it comes down to it, he never listens to me and makes the “final decision”.
Now, I’m ok with the concept of my husband making the final decision even if I disagree with it. But, I don’t appreciate it when he tells me he values my input, and “takes it into consideration” when, get this ladies…NOT ONCE in almost THREE years of marriage has he EVER made a decision that went along with my ideas. I just think that you know, occasionally, he would go with my idea. I feel like he thinks I have no intelligence whatsoever.
May 8, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Sorry ladies I deleted the thing I linked to on my blog. It would bring more grief than it’s worth from the crowd that believes this crap. But here it is for you:
”
This is one thing that seriously irks me. In conservative Christian circles, we are SO caught up with the role of the woman, that if the married man sins, we STILL blame his wife. If he had an affair, it HAS TO BE because his WIFE didn’t give him enough sex. Otherwise, why else would he have had an affair? I mean, this is a ridiculous line of thinking, but many married women have bought into it totally. They honestly think that if they don’t give their husbands sex every time the urge strikes him, he’ll have an affair. The church has taught them that.
It’s interesting to me that sex in the first place was NOT created for pleasure. Yes, it can be pleasurable, but that is not it’s PRIMARY function. The main and primary function of sex, as taught in Genesis (the FIRST book of the Bible) is that we “be fruitful and multiply”. It’s main function is REPRODUCTION. The fact that it feels good is a gift from God.
I have heard so much “marriage isn’t supposed to make you happy, it’s supposed to make you holy” but then if a woman can’t have sex every single night she is blamed for taking pleasure away from her husband. It seems like marriage for the woman is about sacrifice, and for the man it’s about pleasure.
The conservative church will also tell you that even though you as a woman work 7 days a week without time off, and you’ve been working your butt off with the kids, that when your husband gets in from his 5 day a week 8 hour shift job, that YOU, who NEVER get time off, are supposed to serve him hand and foot so that HE can relax because he “deserves” time off for all the “hard” work he’s been doing ALL day. Oh please. Work that he gets PAID to do. He earns the money, he gets to say how it’s spent, and too bad if you who work more than him don’t agree. His lesser amount of work is worth FAR more than anything we as a woman can do at home, because he sees dollars from his work.
So then he makes the money, and spends it how HE sees fit, and if you buy any “extras” that paycheck, they are extras for HIM, not you. You are insignificant because you don’t earn money. You have no say over finances whatsoever. After all, you’re just a stupid, emotional woman and might spend money the wrong way if you actually had some freedom with it.
The marriage falls on hard times. It’s the woman’s fault. She isn’t submissive enough. If she would just be submissive and stop being contentious, all the marriage problems would dissolve into thin air. Yeah, right. Yet this is what the conservative church teaches, each and every day. I hear WOMEN parroting this stuff to other women. It’s bad enough that a man would say it, let alone another woman.
Just remember women, everything is your fault, even when it’s not. At least that way you’ll know your place. You are the family doormat after all. “
May 8, 2009 at 3:30 pm
(((hugs))) for Mrs. W.
Take him into the labor & delivery room with you, dear. That should get you some respect!
I had a thought this morning, after listening to 1 Cor 7:14,16- “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband…For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?”
Why then, would you shun son or daughter?
Why deprive them of your godly influence?
For what knowest thou, O Mother, whether thou shalt save thy child?
May 8, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Mrs. W., I don’t mean to scare you or anything … but it sounds like there might be an evangelical feminist in you struggling to come out.
May 8, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Argh this comment moderation is very annoying! Oh well.
Post 402 was about me and my husband, but post 403 was just random musings because I’m sick of churches teaching patriocentric rubbish.
I home birth and have had my husband right with me for both. He even got into the pool with me for the first one!
One other thing I want to know is why on earth everyone expects the wife to change first regardless of the husband. I am just worn out from trying to change. I don’t think I can make it.
May 8, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Mrs. W – {{{hugs}}}
If the depression is lingering, get some help, ok? Would your husband be willing to go to some counseling with you, so that the two of you could work together on these issues? Or possibly a marriage retreat (I think you must have at least one still-little one so I don’t know if you are ready to be away from them yet)?
May 8, 2009 at 5:37 pm
My husband truly wants to do the right thing. We tried marriage counseling through our church. HA! They are patriocentric and they were the ones telling us a lot of this stuff. It just didn’t fit well for us and now we are starting to see why.
I have two little ones and one on the way. My natural doctor has given me some great depression stuff I can take while pregnant. Hopefully things will get better.
May 8, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Mrs. W, I know you have many little ones and it is probably difficult but do you and your husband have any time that you regularly spend alone not being mom and dad but being sweethearts? You haven’t been married very long and I personally think it takes really about 15 to 20 years to really begin to become one. My husband and I were talking about this the other night, that the concept of becoming one as husband and wife really is a process, not just a statement that “is” once you marry. You are both still newlyweds and should expect that there are still many rough edges that will need to be worked out. I think you need to figure out how you two can be just the two of you sometimes.
Just my thoughts for starters…
May 8, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Yeah if babysitters weren’t so expensive…lol. Grandma lives 1/2 an hour away but doesn’t like to babysit grandkids very often lol. Coz she still has children at home.
May 8, 2009 at 5:58 pm
“One other thing I want to know is why on earth everyone expects the wife to change first regardless of the husband. I am just worn out from trying to change. I don’t think I can make it.”
Mrs W,
the most important relationship in your life is Jesus Christ. Not pleasing your husband nor your kids. Pleasing God. You are called by God to be a great theologian. You are to KNOW your Savior personally and intimately.
Your pat/comp church will NOT teach you this. they will focus on your ‘role’ which is nothing but acting a part that will wear you out and turn into a doctrine of works. They will teach you that obeying God means living out your ‘role’ as they teach it to be. A Talmud of sorts.
When you seek Christ alone, you will be seen as rebellious by these groups. But you will be a most excellent partner in marriage (of equal value in all respects) and mother.
Put away all the books and get serious about study and prayer. Take away all the presuppositions of what you have been taught as interpretation. Read it prayerfully that ONLY the Holy Spirit will teach you. Download a good interlinear and access the LXX and several translations online and overtime, you will figure it out. So much of what we have all been taught is man made and extra biblical.
Start with Genesis 1-3. So much of what we have been taught is NOT in there. It was added in. It is extra biblical.
Remember that Genesis 3:16 really teaches that because of the fall, Eve would TURN away from God and TURN TOWARD their husbands and he would rule over them.
Do you realize how long women have been taught to live OUT the consequences of the fall as obeying the Gospel? As some sort of command?
This verse is FOR YOU TOO:
26I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him. 1 John 2
If you are saved YOU HAVE HIS ANOINTING and the Holy Spirit teaches you through the Word. Praise God! Our High Priest is Jesus Christ! We have no earthly priests!
I pray that the Lord will bless you and keep you in HIM always.
May 9, 2009 at 7:18 am
I wanted to talk about something that John Holzmann mentioned in his article on Phillips yesterday. Here is the quote:
“At this point, Phillips told the story of an email he received from the headmaster of a Christian school who said he had heard that Phillips believed “if your wife doesn’t agree with you . . . she should be executed….Do you still hold to this position? And could you share with me your biblical passages for supporting the execution of your wife?”
The men in attendance laughed heartily at the apparent foolishness of this headmaster.
Phillips did not laugh. “Dear Mr. Academy President,” he said he replied, “No, I don’t hold to that position, and, by the way, why in the world would any sane man suggest something like this?”
Since many of us here have read lots of commentary on patriocentricity around the net, have any of you ever read or heard anyone say that they believe disobedient wives should be put to death? Have we ever talked on this blog about hearing that somewhere? I have no recollection of this whatsoever. I DO remember sharing that one time my husband and I were talking with a church elder about divorce, remarriage, and what the proper response for a Christian should be if one spouse commits adultery. I was a little confused by what the man was saying so I asked, “So, if your wife committed adultery, what would you do?” And his reply shocked us: “I would pray that God would take her life.”
I think Phillips, once again, embellished a story to try to paint himself as the reasonable fellow. I may be wrong, but I don’t ever remember reading this anywhere.
Anyone?
May 9, 2009 at 7:19 am
And then he said this:
“The reason? According to Phillips, because he had read such claims on a number of slanderous websites, “DirtyDogs.com and WhistleblowersOfJehovah and Titus2LesbianFeminists.com, and VeryRighteousWomenOfGraceWhoHaveTheSpiritualGiftOfCriticism.com, and things like that.” –A comment the audience obviously felt was very witty, gauged by their laughter. But, once more, Phillips did not laugh.”
Is not that statement from Phillips slanderous itself toward those of us who have sought to honestly and sincerely challenge his teachings? Titus 2 lesbians? Dirty Dogs? (according to Passionate Housewives we are dirty dogs…must mean something, I don’t get it.)
Molly Ally made a list of names we had been called back on the contributor’s page:
(from comment #27)
-sly
-dangerous
-enticing
-feeding on a woman’s desire to be in control
-claiming to be based on Christianity (but not)
-arbitrarily stretching/chopping Scripture
-revising basic doctrine
-reconstructing religious history
-diametrically opposed to Scripture
-burdening the Christian wife
-legitimizing sin
-false teachers
-speaking swelling words of emptiness
-alluring through lusts of the flesh
-tickling ears
-slaves of corruption
-dogs returning to vomit
-pigs returning to mire.
Add to that Doug Phillips comments about Christian women who believe women can attend college or work outside the home without being in violation of Scripture:
“these mad-cow disease-infected sacred bovines of modern feminism have left the dung fields of their secular temple culture and have migrated in herds to the living rooms of our Christian community. There they dwell—mooing, snorting, and wreaking havoc on the peace of the Body of Christ.” (Doug’s Blog 09-01-07)
May 9, 2009 at 10:40 am
Do these “Teachers” ever read the rest of 1 Peter 3??
“Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:
Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.
For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.
And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?
But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.”
May 9, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I have wonderful memories of visiting my grandparents’ best friends’ small dairy farm. I would, often in a dress, take off my red flip flops and wade out into the cow pasture to pick the prettiest wildflowers. Thinking of it now, I can feel the softness of some of those cow plops as as I would step on them, feeling their warmth and that soft stuff squish up through my feet. It was all part of the experience of picking those flowers, as it was that very dung that fed those flowers and allowed them to grow. I never saw them grow anywhere else. The memories are strong and vivid, thinking of the contrast between the soft mud and the cold stream I would wash my feet in before putting my flip flops back on.
So those who oppose the patriocentrics are like pigs who return to the mire, dogs turned to their vomit, and slaves of corruption? That does not apply to me, as it was these odd gender views that pushed me right out of the Gothardesque church, and I never converted to them. I suppose then, since I have only taken a more conservative view than the denomination in which I was raised, my dung encrusted feet never even made the living room into which I was never invited. I’ve been standing out in the foyer the whole time.
The Assemblies of God are the dung field of the secular temple culture from whence I came, then? I learned well what they taught me, as they had taught, for some 60 years before I was born. I guess you can take the girl out of the egal church but you can’t take the egal church out of the mad cow disease infected bovine, eh? I brought my organic filth into the pristine home of patriarchy?
Funny. Change the gender agenda to issues of speaking in tongues and charismata, and things are pretty similar. Though those who don’t speak in tongues and don’t manifest other charismata were not necessarily “contaminated” with something, they were not “living room quality” Christians, either. They were called “dead churches.”
What is really the difference between these groups? Just how they characterize their gnosticism, from my vantage.
May 9, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Looks like I’ve been missing out on some great discussions here lately. I’m impressed by the searches for truth by Rae and MrsW especially.
As far as the Lady Lydia rebellious-child advice, wow! We’re seeing interesting fruit as the first wave of patrio kids reaches adulthood, and it’s got them running scared. Wasn’t this supposed to be a fool-proof method of raising Godly seed?
Whatever and whomever doesn’t reflect the parents positively must be stomped out and hidden. The bad-apple older kids aren’t only removed from the basket, they’re ground to applesauce.
How awful to live in such fear, really. If patrios are so confident in their methods, why do they find it necessary to remove all rebellious adult-child tainting from their homes? Are their patrio methods so fragile that the youngsters would be that easily influenced by a way-ward adult sibling?
Are the patrio parents rebellious if they aren’t following their own parents’ directives? (I imagine there are some very lovely grandparents quietly shaking their heads at their children’s patrio lifestyles.)
Do patrio parents believe that they actually have the power to change how their adult children live? Do they not see that they may be causing scars and resentments that will never heal? Are they willing to risk a lifetime of estrangement, all for pride and fear? I find it terribly sad.
Recently I caught a re-run of a “Kids by the Dozen” episode featuring a large family called the Jeubs. Mama Jeub had two children out of wedlock as a teenager and then met her savior-husband (little ‘s’) and birthed a dozen more. Oldest daughter reached adulthood and wanted to partake in terrorist-like activities such as dating and not attending her parents’ church.
They banished her entirely–a full shunning–so as not to influence the other children. A couple years later, daughter had her own out-of-wedlock baby. The TV show spurred a slight reconcilation but the damage and resentment remain, especially toward her hard-line adopted dad.
May 9, 2009 at 7:46 pm
I wrote some thoughts about John Holzmann’s review of Doug’s speech at the Homeschooling Leadership Conference. I have read over it several times, each time becoming more alarmed.
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/details-of-the-homeschooling-leadership-summit-agenda/
May 9, 2009 at 8:48 pm
“What about the godless power plant? What about the godless grocery stores? What about the godless car companies? Can you imagine what would happen if all Christians abandoned these places?”
And just imagine what would happen if all Christians suddenly refused to be associated with lawyers and politicians…
May 9, 2009 at 8:56 pm
“Change the gender agenda to issues of speaking in tongues and charismata, and things are pretty similar. Though those who don’t speak in tongues and don’t manifest other charismata were not necessarily “contaminated” with something, they were not “living room quality” Christians, either.”
A lot of the more conservative Mennonites here in central PA feel the very same way about Christians whose womenfolk don’t cover 24/7, or who do “worldly” things like attend baseball games or drive the wrong color of car.
May 9, 2009 at 9:00 pm
From the CHEC conference brochure: “Chris and Wendy Jeub are the parents and primary disciplers of 15 children.They have been featured on the TLC program Kids by the Dozen and are actively involved in many ministries and homeschooling programs throughout Colorado. You will find their wealth of knowledge for managing a home indispensible”.
Hmmm, no mention of banishment. I am sad for them.
May 10, 2009 at 12:33 am
“What about the godless power plant? What about the godless grocery stores? What about the godless car companies? Can you imagine what would happen if all Christians abandoned these places?”
What about those who only buy cars from the car lot run by the fellow who boldly and loudly proclaims himself a Christian? What about those who only shop at stores where the management censors/edits the news stand so as not to show any godless/valuless media? What about those who only shop at Christian bookstores, or only buy clothing and gifts from online Christian sources?
I honestly think it would be a shorter list to find the godless places they do still associate with. Power plant/utilities and perhaps, rarely, hospital come to mind…
May 10, 2009 at 2:00 pm
“What about those who only buy cars from the car lot run by the fellow who boldly and loudly proclaims himself a Christian?”
They prove that they can be “taken in” by any money-grubbing scheisster who crys, “Lord, Lord”.
I wonder what Jesus would say about advertising your Christianity for commercial purposes?
May 10, 2009 at 8:20 pm
I’m hoping you all could pray for my extended family right now. My brother is struggling with some issues, and my parents are having a lot of spiritual attacks right now. My mom has been having a lot of health issues this year, and in combination with some things that cropped up this past week, their dog had to be put to sleep. She was 18 years old, so they’ve had her since I was a child. Anyway, if you could please send up prayers for my family, I would greatly appreciate it.
Mrs W, I am praying for you, and my heart is deeply saddened for you. I want you to know that marriage is supposed to be great and beautiful. You should be enjoying your husband, and if there is something keeping the two of you from enjoying one another (aside from the kids;-0), that is the thing that needs to be removed. If that means that you need to begin coming to compromises more, then you need to stand up for yourself. Becoming a wife doesn’t mean becoming a doormat. You are a person. You are one FLESH, not one PERSON. You will never become one PERSON, as you both have personal needs and wants, and you both must come to a personal saving decision.
I’ve had to listen to a lot of worship music this week to help me not break down. Here’s a great song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfiacfoxSwc
And if you are interested in buying an awesome worship cd, there is a new CD called “CompassionArt” and it is just incredible.
Sorry for the advertising, but worshipping God through music is something that reminds me of how great HE is in spite of everything in our lives.
(((HUGS)))
May 10, 2009 at 9:27 pm
“They prove that they can be “taken in” by any money-grubbing scheisster who crys, “Lord, Lord”.
I wonder what Jesus would say about advertising your Christianity for commercial purposes?”
Cynthia,
LOL!
I NEEDED to laugh tonight! Thank you!
BTW, you are absolutely right.
May 10, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Mrs W,
I just want you to know that I am praying for you and that I can relate to a lot of what you said. I am slugging my way through my own valley and just wanted you to know that I truly empathize with you and that I will be praying.
May 10, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Abby,
Thank you for the recommendation on worship music. I really appreciate that and your words of wisdom. I will be praying for your family.
May 11, 2009 at 6:50 am
Abby, I will be praying for your family. Isn’t it interesting how so many things seem to happen at once?
I want to thank you for sharing the suggestions for music. I watched the video that goes along with the CompassionArt CD and it was amazing, too.
That CD has many of my favorite and I can’t wait to listen to it.
Are you all familiar with Rhapsody? It is an online service for listening to music. For a few dollars a month, depending on your choice of plans, you can access hundreds of thousands of songs in any genre you would want. You can’t upload them to an Ipod for free but you can listen to your heart’s content from the computer. It is an amazing resource.
May 11, 2009 at 6:59 am
Cynthia, in our area there used to be a booklet that was published annually as a resource for Christians to find other Christians who owned businesses. Christian businesses could advertise for a fee and then the booklets were free to anyone.
The assumption was that you would get a harder working and more honest person if you did business with a Christian. It should be that way but it isn’t always the case.
I remember one man my husband worked with who needed major work done in his home and day after day my husband heard about the laziness of the workers, the poor quality of the work etc. My husband was later horrified to learn that the business owner and workers were Christians we knew personally. My husband realized at that point that it damaged his own testimony to the man because he then lumped all Christians together. THEN, add to it the fact that those workers were also homeschoolers!
If I have a guy coming to my house to pour concrete or install an air conditioner or whatever, I want a recommendation or two from a former customer. Whether or not he is a believer is of no consequence to me. And perhaps I can share the Gospel in some way with the worker who isn’t a believer.
May 11, 2009 at 9:48 am
We have a similar directory in our area. I can’t help but feel they are trading on the name of Christ. I am self-employed, and my worst clients are the ones who loudly profess their Christianity. I consider it a red flag and will often decline to take them on as a client, because in my experience some serious ethical problems (theirs) will come up when I’m working with them.
May 11, 2009 at 10:26 am
When I read that Doug Phillips received “Xenophon’s Persian Expedition” when he was six years old, I began to doubt the way the Lord had led me all these years…
But yesterday, as I pondered my sons’ and daughters’ characters, I count all this earth’s knowledge dung, but that they may know Christ and the power of his resurrection.
In the last year, one of my sons has ground up his banjo hand at the factory, been in two auto accidents, had his house deal fall through, suffered persecution for his faith at work, suffered at the hands of “Christian” businessmen, was laid off from his job, suffered the unfortunate loss of the envelope containing his income tax money…In all this he bore patiently, not blaming others or charging God foolishly, and seeing God reward his patience and his prayers. He is currently engaged to a Christian-homeschooled banjo playing beautician, and was just called back to his former job. PTL! This young lady has seen him suffer adversity, and knows what manner of man she is marrying.
Give me a meek man who fears God and loves his woman as his equal over these so called child prodigies we’re supposed to be impressed with.
May 11, 2009 at 10:31 am
“Cynthia, in our area there used to be a booklet that was published annually as a resource for Christians to find other Christians who owned businesses. Christian businesses could advertise for a fee and then the booklets were free to anyone.”
Yeah, I’m familiar with those.
As it is, if the owner of a certain business is a Christian and I happen to be aware of that fact (through church contacts, etc), I might be more inclined to give him my trade than otherwise, but I’m very uncomfortable with people (especially car salesmen!) who use the name of God as an advertising gimmick.
May 11, 2009 at 10:42 am
#422- On the internet listening topic–my daughter-in-law clued us in to Pandora Radio (pandora dot com), where you can create your own free internet radio stations (Bebo Norman, Jars of Clay, etc., etc…) and tweak them to add different songs and artists as you wish by giving songs thumbs up or thumbs down. You can even have a station based around a song: i.e. “Carol of the Bells” for Christmas songs, then make it as Christian or as secular as you want. This is what we have on most of the time at home or when traveling–we love it!
I had heard about the CompassionArt work, will have to get the album. Music does wonders for my soul, truly helps my dh and me to draw near and worship the Lord.
May 11, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Who else heard “virtuous woman” sermons in church yesterday for mothers day? How come we don’t hear sermons about the men as supposedly “hard hitting” on fathers day?
May 11, 2009 at 5:11 pm
“You are one FLESH, not one PERSON. You will never become one PERSON, as you both have personal needs and wants, and you both must come to a personal saving decision.”
This very concept Abby speaks of literally saved my whole marriage mentality recently. I went to a marriage conference where the general idea they conveyed behind the term “one flesh” was that of your personhood; that you become, like she said, “one person”.
Now let me tell you, if I had bought into this, it would have sent me into a terminal marital depression, because there is no way that my husband and I will ever be alike and “one person”. We never would live up to the “Christian” ideal of marriage. We are SO different. We have almost NO common interests. There was a list in our booklet of things that are found in a healthy marriage, and we had nearly all the item listed except the “common interests” item.
So I sat there and pulled out my Bible, and looked at the verse in Genesis that they used to back up this idea they were unwittingly falling into. It says FLESH. Just like Abby said. One FLESH; our actual physical bodies. Not our personalities (though the longer you are married, I think this DOES happen, but this is not what the verse is saying!). Can I tell you how FREEING this was as I let that truth sink in?? How absolutely beautiful it is to recognize that I can let my husband be who God made him to be, and not have to try to push him and myself into being something that we will never look like?
Afterwards, we talked about this and actually agreed… now let me tell you, this doesn’t happen with every issue (and that’s okay!!! It’s feels so good to know that it’s okay to disagree sometimes!), but if there is only going to be one issue and one interest we have in common, I’m EXTREMELY grateful it’s one as fundamental as this one. Because of this, I am free to be who God made me to be, to follow as He leads, and to enjoy the beautiful blessing of a husband strong and wise enough to recognize that we are blessed to each have this mentality towards each other. Thank the Lord, Who knows what I need better than I ever could!
May 11, 2009 at 5:25 pm
“Abby, I will be praying for your family. Isn’t it interesting how so many things seem to happen at once?”
Oh dear, isn’t that the truth! It sounds like Momgodin’s son has had a time of that lately as well!
I just had a weekend where my entire set of philosophies I feel like God has led my into regarding grace verses the Law and how that translates into child raising and evangelism and interaction within the Body has been under fire and put to the test. I don’t think they have changed at all, but the application is being refined, and my ability to not take personally disagreement and lack of understanding of my approach to grace is being sorely tried (read: people who thrive in the more conservative Christian cookie cutter culture with all it’s formulas not liking their neat world with all it’s pat answers rocked; and I wasn’t even the one rocking it, but I was the one having to defend it and try to elicit a smidgeon of understanding and compassion!). Then, I was thrown into situations where I couldn’t even live out some of the practical applications of it. Boy, I was wondering what God was up to! Still am, actually. I pray I’m moldable for whatever He’s trying to do!
Then, I return to find that one of my dear friends is in the emergency room, in fact I was wondering if you guys would join me in praying for her. Thanks!
May 11, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Mrs W,
Yesterday I heard a wonderful sermon, based on Proverbs 1, that basically taught that both mother and father are PRIMARY in the raising, nurturing and teaching of their children and that they are PARTNERS. The mother doesn’t take the back-seat in teaching her children. Timothy and King Lemuel were two examples. Children are told to not forsake the LAW of their mother. Interesting concept and one that I have never heard expounded upon in any patriocentric sermon/presentation/book.
But, I have been in many churches where the patriocentric paradigm is of utmost importance and every Mother’s Day the mothers would be pounced upon. I wish I still had one booklet that the pastor passed out, one he had written himself. Boy oh boy! It was something else. The chapter on sex (women were told to have purple on their beds like the Proverbs 31 woman!) gave me more of a glimpse into his own personal fantasies than anything I could apply to my own life. It seems that certain people think that their own preferences and fantasies translate to all marriages? It gets a little icky, if you know what I mean?
No such thing on Father’s Day, though. The Father’s Day sermons, in these sorts of churches, were always very encouraging while the sermons to the women were heavy on the rebuke/condemnation side.
So, yesterday, was refreshing and encouraging for me since I heard a sermon speaking the truth about the role of mother in her child’s life. It is very important and the importance is on the role she plays in instructing her children in godliness and teaching them the Scriptures. That includes sons, btw! Some patriocentrists believe that a mother’s job in instructing her son ends when he turns 13. How silly and how unbiblical. How many famous men were inspired by their godly mother’s teachings and instructions? Many.
My son is almost 24 years old and each year that goes by, our hearts are knit closer together. I am so very proud of him and I thank God for him. My influence, as a mother, has not ended nor will it because that is not God’s will as shown by Scripture.
May 11, 2009 at 6:29 pm
I remember one man my husband worked with who needed major work done in his home and day after day my husband heard about the laziness of the workers, the poor quality of the work etc. My husband was later horrified to learn that the business owner and workers were Christians we knew personally. My husband realized at that point that it damaged his own testimony to the man because he then lumped all Christians together.
Speaking as an outsider, I can safely say that yes, it does.
But it’s not just work, it’s a great many things.
May 11, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Annie, would you be willing to share further? You can e-mail me if you wish.
May 11, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Alisa, momgodin, Abby, praying for you and yours.
May 11, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Our church is comp, but they are equal opportunity as to Mother’s Day and Father’s Day–last year the dads got the hard-hitting sermon, and I don’t remember the last time the moms got “zapped”. Yesterday it wasn’t even a Mother’s Day theme, it was about Christ and how good He is (imagine that).
Prayers are going up for the requests here–God is good, all the time!
May 12, 2009 at 12:00 am
Alisa, momgodin, Abby, praying for you and yours.
Same here….
May 12, 2009 at 12:25 am
Thank you, Karen.
I appreciate praying friends!
I have often witnessed with the spirit of several ladies here, and remembered them upon my pillow at night.
Our prayers are earnest when we empathize.
And earnest prayers availeth much!
May 12, 2009 at 11:39 am
At what point does the Christian wife stop taking on the problems of the marriage and pray for her dh to change?
May 12, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Karen -
It’s more a question of where to stop finding examples.
Doug Phillips & the Patriocentrics and the idea that women should not be educated or vote.
Ted Haggard and his condemnation of “sodomy”, before being discovered with a male prostitute.
Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell blaming 9/11 on, well, everyone. (link here) and saying that God allowed that to happen.
Pope Benedict II, and the case of the girl in Brazil (link here) when the Vatican excommunicated every adult involved except the rapist.
Also Pope Benedict II claiming that condom use will make the AIDS problem in Africa worse, not better, thereby undermining efforts to help fight the disease. (link here)
Fred Phelps and the Westborogh Baptist Church, picketing at soldiers funerals, claiming that God was killing them for our supposed sins.
Was it the Pearls or the Ezzos who came up with the idea of using pluming line to beat your children in order to train them? Most consider that child abuse.
The sheer number of priests and ministers who have been able to get away with sexual abuse over the years because “a man of God would never do anything like that”. (See links here and here and here
Commercials like this
Deeply dumb jokes like this
And to get it down to the personal, all the christian kids in the schools where I taught beating on the Jewish or other non-Christian kids for not accepting Jesus. One was the son of a fellow teacher, I had to help patch him up more than once.
And all of these people, all of them, call themselves “Christian.” Yes, these are only a few examples. But eventually you start seeing a pattern of some of the most abhorrent behavior or comments by those who claim the strongest religious belief. Things like this, just like the Christian businessmen who do the worst work or give the most bent deals, undermine the testimony of every other Christian one encounters.
May 12, 2009 at 12:42 pm
On, and the Child catcher of the Year thing is still going around.
http://killingthebuddha.com/ktblog/2009-vulgaria-child-catcher-of-the-year/
May 12, 2009 at 1:42 pm
thanks everyone for praying. Continue to pray, as there are still things going on that are very difficult.
Rae, I think that it’s okay to pray every day for your husband to change, starting when you are dating! As long as you are also praying that you would change, too. I think my husband has a lot of things that I *wish* he wouldn’t be like, but there are things about myself that are flawed, and I constantly pray that we would both become more Christlike.
One of the things that I have had to pray about a lot lately is that one of us would change our mind about kids. He is “done” now that we have two, and he’s happy with where we are. I, on the other hand, would love to have more, and I think that there is no point in trying to argue with him or convince him to want more, the only thing I can do is ask God to change his heart, or to change mine to be content with two.
I think we women tend to take on the burdens no matter what, I think it’s probably a “mom” instinct in some way, but we just tend to try to take everyone’s problems on ourselves, and it’s just wrong to try to do that. A marriage is a partnership, and if the woman is having problems, it is not okay for her to sit on those problems and not want to burden her husband. I think that not allowing others to help us can even be sinful, because it’s prideful and stubborn to say “I don’t want or need your help dealing with this.”
But our ultimate duty is to God, and it is more important to sacrifice our pride and give God our troubles. Our husbands can never take His place in our lives, nor are they our interceders (unless, of course, they want to pray for us!).
May 12, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Annie C.,
Loved Joyce’s acceptance speech! LOL
“I hate to take the credit for merely documenting the work that Phillips and co. have done, but I’m loath to turn down an award. So thank you Vision Forum. An award like this from an institution like yours is cause for pride, indeed.”
I agree.
I also accept, with pride, the title “Titus2LesbianFeminists” or whatever he nicknamed us and others who dare to not check our brains at the door and to dare to compare all things taught, like the noble Bereans, to Scripture.
After all, Jesus was called a glutton and a wine-bibber and He was accused of having His power from the devil.
Why shouldn’t I glory in the titles of “white-washed feminist” or “lesbian” or whatever the patriocentrists like to hurl at those who disagree with their own manmade philosophies?
May 12, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Kathy,
The church I go to would be considered conservative and comp but rigidly defined “gender roles” is not their main focus like the patriocentrist/FIC churches I have attended, in the past. That is just one of MANY different teachings that the Bible offers. It isn’t their soapbox and one doesn’t have to endure a constant stream of propaganda and fear-mongering. I think that is what makes the difference, imho.
May 12, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Things like this, just like the Christian businessmen who do the worst work or give the most bent deals, undermine the testimony of every other Christian one encounters.
Annie, some things never change… Jesus ran up against people like that in His day too, and because He stood up to them and pointed out their hypocrisy, they eventually kiled Him.
Get a load of this:
1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
May 13, 2009 at 11:34 am
I was wondering… can anyone tell me how and when those ubiquitous abbreviations, DH, DD, DS, DSL, and DIL got started? They seem to have had their orogin in Christian mom circles, online.
Not that there’s anything wrong with them, I guess, but they come off sounding so prissy, sometimes…. I wonder what was wrong with plain old husband, son, daughter, etc?
May 13, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Cynthia Gee -
Honestly, my first thought to that was “2,000 years and they still haven’t gotten their own house in order.”
And this sort of thing doesn’t help.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/top10/article/0,30583,1855948_1861760_1862212,00.html
May 13, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Cynthia,
I came late to the abbreviations party, so don’t know the origins but just use it to save time, and I thought using “dear” in front would be a nice thing–maybe it does sound a little prissy… At least I assumed it was dear, maybe delightful, maybe ?
And what is DSL–I thought that was high speed internet?
May 14, 2009 at 11:19 am
Annie C.,
That is just awful. Why wouldn’t they want to keep a database for pedophiles and those convicted of molestation and other sexual misconduct? Isn’t the protection of our children in our churches more important than some self-proclaimed “autonomy”?
It makes me sick. Just another example of the worldly concept of “authority” trumping the biblical concept.
May 14, 2009 at 11:25 am
Cynthia,
About the abbreviations….yes, that is where I first came across these…in Christian mom email groups in the mid-nineties. I never used them because I would rather just speak straight. IMHO, a lot of times it comes off sounding showy and trite. That is just me, though.
May 14, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Holy Kidnapping, Batman!
http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/Stop%20Holy%20Kidnapping.htm
Talk amongst yourselves….I am all verklempt.
May 14, 2009 at 12:23 pm
And, Lady Lydia, on “holy kidnapping”…
http://www.biblicalexaminer.org/kidnappers.html
Mind you, these are ADULT daughters we are talking about. An adult woman can choose where she wants to live.
Haven’t these people ever heard about submission to authority? Funny, how the only authority they submit to is their own?
May 14, 2009 at 12:24 pm
DSL- dear son-in-law
May 14, 2009 at 1:18 pm
“These type of ministers work together to GET A GIRL in each other’s home’s for CHEAP maid service.”
And staying at home to wait on your father is…?
May 14, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Corrie, wow, wow, wow!!!
May 14, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Annie C, your links this week have blown me away.
Why would the SBC NOT keep such a data base? Unreal. I remember how many Hyles-Anderson preacher boys were found to be pedophiles. Does no one learn from their mistakes?
May 14, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Rae said “At what point does the Christian wife stop taking on the problems of the marriage and pray for her dh to change?”
Rae, I think we can only take responsibility for things that ARE our responsibility. You have to weigh very carefully what those things are according to Scripture.
There is nothing wrong in praying for someone to change. In fact, I believe we are supposed to do just that. And to do so without ceasing! I think we can pray that the Lord will use us as instruments of change, too. We are commanded to exhort and admonish believing husbands when necessary, too.
May 14, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Cynthia -
I have to disagree. From where I sit it looks like the world is calling for a database, and the Baptists are using their religion to justify protecting each other at the expense of the children.
As examples, the Baptists cite Matthew 22:21 and the independence of the different churches in the New Testament as the biblical basis for their autonomy. The Roman Catholics cite Matthew 16:18 and I think Acts 1:15-26 as the biblical basis for their authority. And haven’t we discussed independent preachers citing some bible verse about not attacking a holy man? All variants of why they don’t have to answer to wordly authority, why they are above such things.
When you stop thinking “Well, such-and-such denomination isn’t really Christian because they do/don’t do ____” and start looking at the whole of every denomination that calls itself “Christian”, you start seeing a pattern of abuse and immorality. It’s always biblicaly justified, the bible is usually used to shut down dissent and accusations, and usually the bible is used to blame or attack the victim.
(If you’re about to turn around and cry Pharisee, I’ll have to turn back and ask why an omniscient, omnipotent God has allowed this to go on for 2,000 years in His name.)
When I step back and look at the whole of the pattern, I see a very system that is corrupt at it’s roots. The minute you say “some are saved/elect/children of God” that makes some better than others. And those others worth so much less that it’s easy for them to be targets of abuse. And the moment you say “just believe in me and you will be saved forever/rewarded in Heaven/cannot lose your salvation” you set up a system where what you do in this life, on this planet, no longer matters.
“Who cares if I rape that girl, she’s not really a Christian, and besides all women are corrupt. And I’m saved, so I’m going to heaven anyway. Even if I’m worried all I have to do is repent and ask for forgiveness after and I’m good to go. Anyway, she won’t say anything, not even her parents would believe her over a Minister of God, in fact, they’ll punish her for not obeying authority. And the elders of the church will defend me from investigation under Matthew 22:21/that bible verse about God’s elect.”
Now for the record, I am not calling all Christians evil or corrupt. I believe the vast majority are good people trying to do the right thing in this world. But I believe the original question was “Does the negative behavior of some affect how the testimony of others is seen by the nonbeliever.” And my answer would be, at least for me, yes. Specifically the actions of those in authority and the workings of the system of the whole. At this point, when I see individual Christians doing good in the world, behaving morally and being decent people, I believe it’s in spite of their religion, not because of it.
May 14, 2009 at 4:09 pm
““These type of ministers work together to GET A GIRL in each other’s home’s for CHEAP maid service.”
And staying at home to wait on your father is…?”
Catherine,
Exactly.
I was going to comment on this same thing and say that it looks like it looks like a problem of “thou dost protest too much”.
Or, if people prefer psychological terms- it is a case of projection.
I am also stunned that it appears Lady Lydia is accusing Bill Gothard and some other pastors of kidnapping. Really?
I can totally understand why some of these adult women want to leave the prisons that others call “home”.
May 14, 2009 at 4:16 pm
“the bible is usually used to shut down dissent and accusations, and usually the bible is used to blame or attack the victim. ”
Annie,
I can really relate to this in many ways. Having had a personal experience with sexual victimization in the church and having bible verses used to silence the problem and guilt the victim, it is a painful thing.
I see unaccountable Christian “leaders” playing footloose and fancy-free with the Scriptures, turning and twisting them to suit their own selfish ambitions and personal situations. They take Titus 2 on women as literal as one can take it, no exceptions, but when it comes to Titus 1 we are not allowed to examine a self-proclaimed leader in light of these admonitions nor are we to take them literally. Their personal lives, according to them, are off limits, while the Scripture makes it clear that their personal lives are PROOF of whether or not they are even qualified to be elders.
“Qualifications for Elders
5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, [3] and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, [4] as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound [5] doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. 11 They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. 12 One of the Cretans, [6] a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” [7] 13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.”
May 14, 2009 at 4:26 pm
“For some time now, I have been trying to warn others of Gothard. Those who are committed to Gothardism have been quite distressed at me. They seem to boarder on believing that Gotherd can do no wrong. I have documented everything I have said, yet they, generally, have refused to allow even documentation to change their minds.”
Uh huh….been there, done that.
“Though they have rejected past warnings, this warning is even more important. For here we see Gothard actively destroying families, probably in the name of “greater good.”"
Pot calling the kettle black?
“PARENTS: This warning is not only concerning Gothard’s ATI, it is also a warning about any pastor who does not support the father’s God given place of responsibility, protection and, yes, even authority over his unmarried daughters.”
Really? Where do we see such authority in the Bible?
“The heretical teaching that a church can replace the parents in the lives of the daughters is playing a large part in the modern destruction of the family.”
Oh, but Jesus said that he has not come to bring peace but division and set mother against daughter and son against father and so on.
Jesus’ mother and brothers were the ones who did the will of God.
Do they not understand these things?
Jesus had many women traveling with Him about the countryside along with His male disciples and there was no fatherly “authority” or husband to protect these women. Why didn’t Jesus tell them to go back to their fathers and husbands where they belonged?
May 14, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Corrie -
Well, it certainly sounds like someone was aware of the problem, even then.
I submit that the inherent system encourages corruption. Or perhaps better to say, encourages the corrupt to join and aspire to leadership positions within it.
May 14, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Seems the widowed HUSBAND of Lydia OF Purple WHO likes to WRITE in run-on SENTENCES with RANDOM caps except for Honorable Husband as Head of Household WHICH always must begin with CAPS…
Can’t go on like that. I’m outa breath. Whew.
Anyway, seems like the guy’s fretting over his quiver of daughters evacuating the farm and puppy mill for normal-neighborly Christian sympathizers, including their pastors. I can practically hear lord Daddy panting over the injustice of his shrinking workforce. Doesn’t matter if they’re 37, you hear? They’re HIS, doggoneit!
Funny how Lydia of Purple widower and Lady Lydia share a name. And an accusation of rebellious daughter kidnapping, apparently.
May 14, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Okay, here’s something I would love to hear y’all’s thoughts on. My father (a pastor for 35 years) mentioned this to me when my husband & I worked at a Christian children’s home about 20 years ago.
Have you ever thought about how many of the great leaders of the Bible were removed from their families as small children or young people? Think about Joseph, Moses, Samuel, Esther, and Daniel. In every one of those cases, God used a setting that would seem hostile to prepare those people for great service to Him. I mean, Moses was educated in the most pagan society we can imagine. Yet it was also the society with the most advanced writing and literature of its time. God prepared him not only to lead, but to write the books of the law. Samuel was in a religious setting, but not a Godly one. Esther and Daniel were in a foreign culture that had destroyed their home, and yet God used them greatly.
Now, I don’t think this means that the home is irrelevant. But I do think it should keep us from worshipping the home and family as some seem to do. The Godly influence of home and parents in some of these cases was only for a few years, and yet God honored and blessed it.
I’m also encouraged by the story of Noah, who raised a believing family in a completely Godless culture. No church, no homeschool co-op, no Christian friends or businesses, nobody else but him and his family. If God could help him in that setting, He can surely guide me, surrounded as I am with church family and Christian friends.
May 14, 2009 at 11:28 pm
emr,
I have often thought about Joseph’s experience in terms of family. I watched the Ten Commandments when it was on TV at Easter, and I wondered that if Moses had been his son whether he would have allowed him to be raised as a presumptive son of Egypt, though he was being trained in the ways of the Lord by his mother, his nurse. What right did the State of Egypt have to take a member of the covenant community?
Your question also reminds me of something I’ve read several times in the agrarian literature. The die-hard Christian agrarians insist that it is basically not possible to live an effective or adequate Christian life if one lives in a city. I guess we should just torch the cities and everyone who lives in them then? The Word of God is not effective enough to compensate for urban life, according to these folks. Ye can do all things through Christ, unless you are in a city.
It stands in stark contrast to the many inter-city ministries and missionaries that I heard over the course of my life. I grew up not too far from NYC and Teen Challenge’s facility in Pennsylvania, so we always had a steady flow of young people coming through our church, particularly during the “Cross and the Switchblade” film in the ’70s. I also remember someone say how much opportunity there is for ministry, for where sin abounds, grace does much more abound. God loves the cities because there are so many lost people there that He is bringing into His Kingdom.
The paradigm is all about man’s control and creating an environment that causes people to pull away from the lost and the hurting that need ministry and that need to see a testimony of God’s love. I am reminded again of Swanson’s radio show where he talked about being a separatist because the government is just too contaminated. If you work within the system and do what can be done, you will get infected with disease. Touch not, taste not.
BTW, John Holtzmann put up a review of another of Swanson’s presentations at CHEC a day or so ago… Another “Our Way or the Highway to What Is a Less Biblical Place.” And I ask again whether “less Biblical” is anything like “less pregnant.”
May 14, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Geoff Botkin is touring New Zealand everyone. He is getting ready to make his retreat and apparently took a group of men there with him including Matt Chancey. (Chancey is apparently not relocating there but came to spread their gospel of cultic homeschooling and to support the cause.)
The person that got in contact with me was completely turned off by their presentation, appalled by what she described in her understanding that they taught that daughters were “engaged” to their father until they were given in marriage. (That was her paraphrase of her understanding of their message.) As a result of hearing this group of Vision Forumites and Botkin, she is completely cured her of her affection for Vision Forum and even Voddie Baucham whom she used to like, drawn in by his speaking style.
She also reported that they offered the example that one of the Botkin girls did have a would be suitor whom they required to do all kinds of Scriptural study and such, something sounding much like the Scott Brown business described by Peter Bradrick in the “Return of the Daughters” video. It was this NZealander’s impression that the Botkin daughter turned out to be not that interested, so the young man was turned away in heartache. She also expressed that Geoff seemed to frame it and communicate that he was relieved. (The girls were not there, and it was the manly man version of one of the daughter’s experience.)
She said that she traveled quite a distance to attend this special meeting, as she is interested in homeschooling and is drawn in by the facade of Victoriana and the photo shopped faces (as I do love aspects of the outward appearance of some of it all myself). But then the layers start peeling off. She anticipated a greater interest, but only a handfull of people showed up at the gathering she attended.
May 14, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Holy kidnapper? Sign me up! I’ve never been more serious. I’ll personally help any adult girl who needs a place to go to seek freedom from parental abuse. I’m absolutely serious.
I’ve seen that “Holy Kidnapping” article before, but not that Gothard was one of them! First his letter to the Pearl’s, and now this… it’s crazy that VF adherent’s can make Gothard and the Pearls’ look normal. And for all our disagreements, the latter two are earning more of my respect all the time for at least drawing the line somewhere and actually combatting the abuse going on in these VF-like homes. May God use them to set the captives free…
May 15, 2009 at 10:30 am
“Their answer is, “TO GET YOUR DAUGHTER BACK, You will do ‘thus and so’ as we say, or she will stay with us.” In white America we call that, BLACKMAIL. Biblically it is Witchcraft against the 5th Commandment. “They” usurp authority over your daughter against your God given parental will. “They” then usurp custody over your daughter and even instruct her as to which bed she is to sleep in at night. Some are so stupid to believe the father should still foot the financial bills for this child they have stole against her parents will.
”
This is a quote from Holy Kidnapping…so creepy, I don’t know where to start….
First off, “white America”? What does that mean or refer to?
Second, what is the comment about instructing daughters which bed they are to sleep in at night? That sounds “off”. As in, “it is wrong for you to sleep in your father’s bed”? Or?
May 15, 2009 at 11:08 am
Debbie,
LOL! It is funny how it all seems to revolve around “Lord Daddy” and his supposed ownership over his adult daughters. I can totally understand why a grown woman would want to gain her freedom as quickly as possible if she had a ranting lunatic for a father who constantly reminds her of his alleged God-given ownership over her life and body.
Alisa,
I hear you. But, this would make you a “self-appointed dirty do-gooder(s)” and “parasite” according to the writer of the article.
I will say that in my own experience that many of these girls ARE escaping abusive and/or oppressive environments where sexual abuse has been a reality for them.
And then you add the whole thought that CPS should be abolished???!!!! Yeah, that is quite convenient.
This is how I see it: the daughters finally get up enough courage to tell someone about the abuse and/or oppression they have been suffering and these parents don’t like that their daughters are exposing their dirty laundry. These parents are accountable to no one and they like it that way and once the light of day is shed on the “inner-workings” of their home they don’t like the accountability factor.
More quotes from the article:
“BEWARE, if you hear of a girl in a minister’s home that is not his own child – see if you can contact the natural God given parents to see if INDEED THEIR CHILD is there with their HONEST BLESSING, instead of against their REAL HEART’S will. Not their reluctant I’m going along with it because our daughter is so rebellious we can’t do any thing with her anyway. And if we don’t let her go to this Godly home she may end up in REAL sin. If she left the parents home without their express consent, the parent’s will is probably being usurped or manipulated. This daughter is in real sin, but it is white washed.
She is in REAL SIN and probably even worse because she now thinks she is doing God service in her rebellion, so is hindered from finding true repentance towards honoring her father and her mother. It’s called being self-deceived. And after this sin is white washed with the help of others, which are enabling her rebellion against her God given father or mother, this only feeds and encourages this kind of rebellion which is sin. Which is witchcraft according to 1 Samuel 15:23a.”
Not only is this incoherent but it is unbiblical. It is not witchcraft/rebellion for an adult woman to leave her parent’s home. She can honor her parents without having to remain in her parent’s home. But, then, I am a white-washedfeminist-titus2lesbian.
Scary stuff. These are the kinds of things that are going to cause the watching world to be highly suspicious of homeschoolers. They advocate abolishing the CPS system and locking up adult daughters until if/when they can pass them off as property to another man to be ruled just like Dear Old Daddy did.
May 15, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Not only is this incoherent
No kidding. I can’t believe how poorly written, spelled, and punctuated that piece is. Talk about a hot mess. This guy homeschooled his family?
The ministers and their wives that do this, run ruff shod over Exodus 20;12,
Ruff shod?! Are you sure this isn’t a joke?
If it’s not meant to be, it is one nonetheless. A parent’s job is to raise the child; once that is done, she is free to make her own choices. I can’t believe that needs to be said.
May 15, 2009 at 12:13 pm
My nephew married a girl from a large quiverfull family, who spent her jr/sr years living with the principal’s family, because her father pulled her (and her sibs) out of the church school, and well, that just couldn’t be God’s will!
I actually was given a set of tapes from that church, in which he was preaching against big families that don’t let their kids participate. I let my mom hear it, it was so offensive. He might have even been preaching against that particular family! I remember thinking at the time…why’d my sil think I’d enjoy this nut?
Anyway, her family no longer speaks to her, didn’t go to their wedding, bcz she sided with the “church” over family.
I’ve asked her about her family and her dad, and, why she left them.(was dad controlling? abusive? her mom?)
The only reason given was that the father was a “church hopper”.?? (Well, that’s not a sin!) However, in IFBdom it sure is. As well as wearing pants. They’re very big on loyalty to church and pastoral authority.
So I can see how a proud, independent father would be marked “not in the will of God” for not getting with the program.
But you would think a pastor would want to keep a family together not provide such a solution just so she could continue to attend their church and school.
May 15, 2009 at 1:23 pm
This seems like a good time to mention the Botkin conference that’s taking place in July:
http://visionarydaughters.com/2009/05/announcing-the-columbus-ohio-crossroads-conference
Here’s what they say they will be discussing:
* How Christian families can be triumphant in any 21st Century culture
* What does a father-led family look like?
* What children wish their parents would teach them.
* How to tell if your church might ruin your family.
* Why do churches have a hard time defining spiritual maturity?
* What weak churches need that strong churches have.
* The most dangerous sin traps for young adults.
* What is the best way for children to recognize their gifts and become all they can be?
* What to do when your children lead a double life.
* Does the Bible say anything about dating?
* What is courtship supposed to look like?
* What does a lost son, or daughter, look like?
* How to tell when your children are headed for spiritual shipwreck.
* What does a well-educated young adult look like?
* What does the Bible mean by “godly seed”?
* What is going to happen to the American economy and life in the city?
* Why Christians can have hope in the midst of economic depression and judgment.
* What the average dad can do about a weak church or a confused church.
* What does it look like when brothers and sisters love and serve one another?
* Why is it hard for girls to find the balance between flirting and shunning?
* What responsibilities do young women have toward young men? Is it possible for teenagers of the opposite sex to be “just friends”?
* Is college necessary in the 21st century?
* What should be the definition of success for the 21st Century?
* Will today’s home schoolers be more spiritually mature than their parents, or less? And does it matter?
* Why all children must make the honoring of their parents a life priority, and how it looks to honor one’s parents.
Interesting emphasis on what godly living ‘looks’ like, isn’t there? I will say to the MacDonalds’ credit, when they were describing courtship, they at least said that they were in favour of principles, not an exact pattern, and just sharing how living the principles looked for them. The Botkins seem to have no hesitation in saying that godly behaviour always looks a certain way.
And I cannot believe this family considers themselves experts on ‘courtship’ when they have FIVE adult children in their twenties (some close to thirty) who are not married. Practise it before you preach it!
(As I said before, I only recently realised Anna Sofia is the same age, or almost, as myself. The Botkin adult children aren’t kids, they aren’t teenagers, and if they are touring, preaching, and making money from things, I think it’s perfectly appropriate to point out that they don’t seem to be holding to their own principles.)
May 15, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Momgodin,
Yes, “church-hopping”, wearing pants and going to the church school are big issues in “IFBdom”.
I don’t know the exact details concerning the “holy kidnapping” story but my concerns are more with adult daughters being held in their homes, not having any freedoms and not allowed to follow God’s will for their OWN lives. And, their only job is to revolve around their earthly father, serve him and please him (ie., wearing the colors of clothes that gives him personal pleasure). I have also known, personally, too many cases of sexual misconduct in these sorts of homes and that is why I think a major homeschool leader advocating for the abolishment of the CPS system to be totally incomprehensible.
There will be more and more cases in the coming years coming to light about HOMEschooled girls being forced to stay at home and secluded and isolated and not being allowed the freedoms and basic rights that adults in this country are afforded. This will not reflect well on the homeschooling community.
The situation you described sounds bad and having gone to an IFB church, I can totally understand what you have described.
May 15, 2009 at 6:41 pm
emr,
That’s incredibly interesting. If I’d heard that before I’d forgotten it. It just goes to show that God transcends “His appointed chain of command” or circumstances to have His way in a life. So encouraging.
I’d even go so far as to say that it was these people’s different childhood that was used to prepare them for how God used them in their adulthood…
May 16, 2009 at 6:50 am
I finally made it through both of those articles and had a few thoughts.
I agree that this article was not well written and often confusing. I, too, saw that phrase about “which bed the daughter is sleeping in” and it freaked me out, too. What did that mean? I read it in context about 5 times and still didn’t get it. Or many of the phrases that were odd to me.
I also find it highly unlikely that there are very many people who would take the risks people take when they help girls out in these situations simply for extra help around the house. I have known families who brought in siblings of one of the parents to do this, all in a mutually agreeable fashion and it has worked out great. But for people to have as their motivation for helping to get their own benefits out of it, I highly doubt that happens very often.
I also was thinking about how the final goal is to see reconciliation between the daughter and her parents in these sorts of situations. What a tall order! But somehow not only should the daughter be aided and brought to wholeness, coming out of such spiritual abuse, but also her parents. I cannot imagine the sense of loss and hopelessness and helplessness they must feel. And just think about how blinded they are. Remember Lady Lydia’s counsel to the mother in this situation. It all goes completely against any inclination toward grace or mercy that a mother feels toward a child. How blinded by false teaching is someone who would take the drastic measures suggested to address problems with an adult child? How can these parents be helped and taught, even deprogrammed?
May 16, 2009 at 6:56 am
In just a brief glance at the list of topics that will be discussed at the Botkin conference, it is apparent that promotion of FIC only churches will be a priority.
Also,it strikes me as interesting that he is focusing on the raising of young adults. Shouldn’t our job be basically done by the time our children are the ages of the Botkin girls? While I believe we should be life-long counselors for our children, this looks like ways to keep raising grown children. Scratching my head…
May 16, 2009 at 6:59 am
momgodin,
You bring up such an interesting aspect…in some churches, usually IFB churches, it is all about pastoral authority. In the nouveau reformed groups, it is all about ecclesiocentricity, the total rule of elders over every aspect of life, no questions asked. When it is wedded with patriocentricity, it becomes truly dangerous to the spiritual health of everyone, especially women and children.
While there is a place for church authority, where is the priesthood of the believer, the key teachings of the reformation?
May 16, 2009 at 11:20 am
Claire sayid, “Interesting emphasis on what godly living ‘looks’ like, isn’t there?’
One of the books (Pass HW?) said that *we* the readers, have written to them “Sure, but what does that look like?” I dunno. I never ask that question. That’s because I do have the Holy Spirit within me and he does show me what it looks like in my life, and I don’t look like anyone else!
Just like when I read a book, my imagination is always BETTER than the movie, y’know? In fact, I don’t like to SEE a movie before I read the book because it puts a preconceived notion in my head. I like to read with a clean slate and draw my own conclusions.
It’s fine if someone wants to show me what God looks like in their life, but still, my Spirit will be the one to witness with that….or not!
May 16, 2009 at 11:45 am
There’s something else I am troubled about, and my husband mentioned it so I’ll ask.
What is this message about “manly friendships” Doug keeps putting out there?
Do they have a doctrine on that, too?
Reminds me of a boys club, or that scene in the Stepford Wives. When my hubby saw that he said, “what kind of men would rather be with a bunch of men??!” I don’t know. I’m not married to that kind of guy, so it’s strange to me.
If I wanted to be a conspiracy theorist, I’d link it to… secret societies.
I’m suspicious because I don’t trust them.
I don’t trust them because apparently, they don’t trust women! lol.
Wondering if they seek some mysterious, spiritual bond (David and Jonathan?) that surpasses the love of women?
May 16, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Here seems to be a notice of Geoff Botkin’s meetings in New Zealand that Cindy was referring to. Note it begins with the “V” word, in huge letters on the website.
Visionary
Meeting
Thursday, 16 April
2009
The Three
Greatest
Issues
Facing
the Men
of
New
Zealand
Venue: Mt Baptist Church,
cnr Ranch Rd & Tui St.,
Mt Maunganui
Cost: Free, Voluntary Donation
Time: 7:00pm
Speaker: Geoffrey Botkin
Contact: Evan & Heather Jones,
aboverubies@xtra.co.nz,
ph. (07) 575-5787
Geoffrey Botkin
Writer, Director, & Producer
Geoffrey Botkin
A group of 15 Christian home educating fathers is coming from the USA to investigate New Zealand as a possible place to which to re-locate their families.
They are eager to meet with other men living in New Zealand to learn about the country, employment and entrepreneurial opportunities, financial institutions, health and welfare issues, how home education works here and what the home education community is like.
Four public meetings are planned in order to facilitate this, and each meeting is also featuring a formal talk by either Geoff or son Isaac Botkin. These should be of particular interest and benefit to New Zealand Christian home educating fathers, as well as mums, to enhance and encourage their own vision for what home education can and will do for their families, the Church and society as a whole.
The Botkin family lived near Snells Beach and then in Christchurch for six years, making it their business to meet and get to know as many leaders as they could in the Church, the media, economics, politics, home education, etc. Do strive to come to whichever of their meetings you are able.
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Veteran producer and IT pioneer Geoffrey Botkin serves as an advisor to the Western Conservatory of the Arts and Sciences. He has written and directed some of the most controversial and widely watched public affairs films of the last twenty years, reaching viewers across the U.S., Russia, Europe, and Australasia. He has produced or executive-produced more than one-hundred documentary films, television productions, and other media projects.
In addition to time spent as CEO of an experimental international print/broadcast/Internet media conglomerate, Mr. Botkin has invested many years into the training of young media professionals, primarily at Deerwood Studios in the U.S. and the Family Television Network of New Zealand.
Mr. Botkin has lectured on philosophy and history at Hillsdale College, on politics at the Heritage Foundation, and on theology at worldview conferences in the U.S. and New Zealand. With his wife and seven children, he is currently researching the future of the feature motion picture.
“This talk
will be
dynamite!”
— Craig Smith
http://hef.org.nz/2009/greatest-issues-facing-the-men-of-new-zealand-16-april-geoff-botkin/
May 16, 2009 at 5:28 pm
:confused:
Is this a Boys Club meeting?
Does this Vision include women?
Why are only men facing these great issues?
May 16, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Geoffrey Botkin is now an IT pioneer too?
Oh brother.
Did he invent the internet, too? Al Gore just took all of the credit for it?
This guy is a Jim McCotter cultist. Unbelievable.
May 16, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Kathy,
I just learned from the person who contacted me from NZ that Craig and Barbara Smith are the “pioneers” of the homeschooling movement in NZ (Craig is quoted in that blurb about Botkin’s Visionary meeting), and they are “Reformed.”
McCotter’s views about eschatology or his stand on Calvinism was not well known. He came across to many people as dispensational, and all anyone really talked about in the Great Commission when McCotter was there was getting saved, reaching the world and submission to authority through their stringent system of legalism. I find it interesting that Botkin has taken up a reformed approach, as this was not a central issue in his cult of origin. I was told by a representative of the GCMI (Botkin’s cult of origin) that they do not emphasize eschatology or either Dispenationalism or Calvinism or any other theology along these lines. That makes this association with another Reformed group curious for me.
Here’s another link about the Columbus meeting that someone sent to me:
http://foundationfellowshipchurch.org/?p=15
May 16, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Millenniumwoman said: “I, too, saw that phrase about “which bed the daughter is sleeping in” and it freaked me out, too. What did that mean?”
Yes, there is something very, very wrong here. Why this question? Why phrase it like this unless something of ick was up?
and: “I also find it highly unlikely that there are very many people who would take the risks people take when they help girls out in these situations simply for extra help around the house.”
Absolutely, this makes no sense. Except when you put on your patrio hat for a minute (don’t do it for too long or your head will surely explode), you’ll see:
1. Patrios believe that adult daughters are so helpless and ignorant that they are easily snowed into “kidnapping” in the first place.
2. They can’t come up with any other motivation for these “kidnappings” because Patrioland is perfection, ya know. And because it wasn’t a kidnapping at all, but a lifeline. The daughters were probably thrilled to get away.
3. Their accusation about the “kidnappers” seeking household help is projection on their part. That’s their real motivation for keeping their young (and not so young) women at home.
4. The daughters are considered Daddy’s property and not So Much More. To borrow at Botkin question of “What does this look like?” The answer: slavery.
We should set up defection booths outside Vision Forum and Botkin seminars. We could post signs, “Return, Visionary Daughters, to the normal world!”
May 16, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Next fascinating link from the Liberal side of the tracks:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/05/16/purity_myth/index.html?source=rss&aim=/mwt/feature
The virginity fetish
Why is our culture so obsessed with girls’ chastity? Author Jessica Valenti talks about how purity balls and “barely legal” porn both feed the same idea: That a woman’s worth is between her legs.
Warning for language, cleaned up quote:
Which suggests that the purity movement is kind of … impure.
Oh, super impure! Oh my g*d, are you kidding? Purity balls? I remember watching a video of one with my dad and he was like, “I cannot watch this.” He got really visibly upset. There are just no boundaries at these events — or with the whole “dating your daughter” trend.
What’s that?
Focus on the Family started this mini-campaign to get fathers to “date their daughters” to show them good male role models, I guess. But really the point was taking your daughter out on dates so she knows what to expect when she goes out on real dates — as if a girl’s father is a stand-in until a future sexual partner comes along. The idea that fathers can’t interact with their daughters without talking about sex or modeling a romantic relationship is a really disturbing one.
I agree with her, but was it Focus on the Family or the Patrios? Or is the line just that kind of blurry there? I suspect the last but I could be wrong…
Also, please note that while I haven’t read this book I have read/listened to a number of interviews. She is not advocating for young women to have sex, nor is she saying that virginity is bad. The message she’s carrying is that young women ought to be valued for something other than their virginity/sexuality.
And here is another questions, it seems to me that in the Patrio world, a girl becomes “bad” as soon as she starts thinking about sex. It’s something they want to protect her from right up until her wedding day.
From the Boundless.org e-zine:
http://www.boundless.org/2005/answers/a0001543.cfm
Quote:
It’s wise to be aware of the need to discuss expectations about your honeymoon, and specifically sex, with your fiancé, as well as to wonder about the timing and content of those conversations prior to the wedding. But don’t have the conversation too soon or you’ll only create opportunities for temptation. It’s amazing how erotic just talking about sex can be.
I would also recommend not having the conversation alone. At a minimum you should talk with your fiancé about expectations during your premarital counseling. That’s a common topic covered by most pastors before the wedding. If what you’re able to cover with your pastor seems inadequate, you could talk separately with a same-sex mentor about specific questions or concerns you have.
A candid conversation with an older married woman you trust would be helpful a few weeks before the wedding. You really don’t need much time to prepare. And your fiancé will need even less. He should have a similar talk with a man he trusts (ideally you would be talking to married spouses) a few days before the wedding. Any sooner than that will just leave him tempted to fantasize.
Am I wrong with that one? Does just thinking about it before marriage make you a fallen woman?
May 17, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Ladies Against Feminism has just posted another example of jaw-droppingly ignorant advice. Apparently, unmarried stay-at-home daughters are qualified to teach WIVES how to relate to their HUSBANDS.
This makes me so angry. You can have a great relationship with your father – that does not mean you are qualified to advise married women. I am the oldest child of a very big family, but I (sadly) have no children of my own yet and I would NEVER dream of giving mothers parenting advice. Yes I have been around children a lot but I am not a mother and Scripture says that teachers should have years of experience.
http://ahthelife.blogspot.com/2009/05/she-sawed-his-legs-off.html
According to their article, wives shouldn’t advise their own husbands but it’s perfectly okay for women who have no experience of marriage to advise married women how to behave!
“If it seems like you’re not making progress toward your family’s goals whether they are spiritual, with the kids, with your finances, don’t start verbalizing the fact. He may be thinking over the matter and hasn’t figured out the solution or approach. A thousand suggestions aren’t necessary either.”
As an entrepreneurial couple, this made my husband and I laugh our heads off too:
“To be quite honest while there may be room for multiple dreams and goals in one family, but there really can only be one captain navigating the course to get there and to accomplish them. Paddling the opposite direction of the captain of the canoe without his permission will be noticed and he may very well stoke harder on his intended course. If you have a legitimate reason to request an alternate route do so. Often yojung women just take to paddling thinking that they’ll get somewhere. I have noticed however that when a MAN makes a decision a huge amount of progress is made for his whole family. His desire to leap tall buildings in a single bound is your asset here. Instead consider spending your time developing your communication skills. Learn how to speak reverently and cut to the chase. Learn when, why, and how to make an appeal. If he knows your intentions and they are trust worthy, then he won’t be threatened by what you do.”
Um, if your husband doesn’t automatically consider you absolutely trustworthy, you have MAJOR marriage problems. If he doesn’t respect your input as inherently intelligent and trustworthy, you need to be talking to a pastor because you have bigger problems than a disagreement over business.
But what utter ignorance of how so many businesses, big and small, are run. Ladies Against Feminism often uses the ‘CEO’ metaphor for marriage and I roll my eyes every time I see it.
The idea is that ‘Hey, every business only has ONE CEO so if you go about trying to make decisions equally you will scupper your business/marriage’. Well, I have news for LAF. We have a keen interest in technology companies in particular and we are always keen to learn how successful businesses started out and are run. Guess what? Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple – they were ALL started by TWO OR MORE founders who had an EQUAL voice in how the business developed. So much for that metaphor!
In the real world, communication and respect means that two people can run a business very successfully. My husband and I have an equal voice in our business decisions. When we’re considering taking on a new product, changing our suppliers or our shipping methods, we discuss it thoroughly, weigh up the alternatives, and come to a decision mutually. We respect our individual strengths – he knows I do most of the shipping, so defers to my preference on that. I trust he is far more knowledgeable about the technology than I am, so I follow his lead on new products. My husband also has a business with his best friend, and they manage their decisions on an obviously slightly more formal basis, but on the same principles.
LAF and these two ‘daughters at home’ know pretty much as much about business as they do about successful marriages. I am all for husbands and wives communicating properly – OF COURSE a family should all be ‘paddling the same way’. But the idea that the rudder can only be held by one person is ridiculous. A truly successful partnership is built on communication, respect and cooperation – and that goes for marriages and businesses!
May 17, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Claire, I read that post and I am amazed. They really have all the answers, don’t they?
May 17, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Claire, that article reminded me of the Advanced Seminar sponsored by Bill Gothard. the main speaker throughout the week-long seminar was Jim Sammons, himself a businessman. As I remember to, there was much good advice from someone who had been there when it comes to wifely support for a husband. I will never forget one of his strong admonition was that men NEED to listen to the cautions of their wives.
I also couldn’t help but think of the “exhort one another, admonish one another” commands, which apply to husbands and wives. If a wife sees something that calls for caution, why should she not speak up? What if the husband’s “vision” involves risking things like a home she owns jointly? Or a business she also co-owns? I can think of many situations I personally know of where the husband has put the entire family at risk and thanks to a discerning wife who was honest and womanly enough to speak up, disaster was averted. Sadly, I also know of women who remained silent, refraining from “cutting his legs off” and it was the beginning of ruination of a family’s livelihood.
You also address something else we have tried to speak to previously and that is the whole idea of older woman/young woman teaching. I believe that is one side of the coin, the one anothers are another. The hypocritical concern I have is that this group admonishing married women is the same group who lives and breathes Titus 2. The bottom line is that the rules are usually skewed in whatever direction entitles the patriocentric woman to speak!
May 17, 2009 at 4:17 pm
#484 Annie C,
I never understood that “purity ball” thing. My parents are strong Christians and always told me that virginity was a matter of self-respect. My body is the home for my soul, and just as I don’t go baring my soul to everyone, I shouldn’t go baring my body to just anyone.
Lately, Boundless has been getting a more patriocentric bend to it. It used to be just conservative, but now writers seem to come from the patrio side. Sad thing too, because it used to have such a great range of authors and opinions. So yes, I would agree that the line has been blurred. Especially since the patrio writers have done a great job of passing themselves off as just “conservative”, whatever that means.
As for thinking about it, I just understood that to mean don’t fantasize in detail about having sex with someone. Thinking “I would like to have sex” is okay, but using someone else as a means to your own pleasure (i.e. as a sex object/fantasy) is inappropriate.
Basically it all comes down to how one defines lust. Is it just a healthy sexual desire or rather as an all-consuming drive that is disrespectful and makes the other an object? I would go with the latter.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
May 17, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Oh, I can’t resist adding this little ditty from “the Music Man:”
Marian: I can’t help my concern that the ladies of River City keep ignoring all my council and advice.
Mrs. Paroo: But darlin’, when a woman has a husband and you’ve got none, why should she take advice from you? Even if you can quote Balzac and Shakespeare and all them other high-falutin’ Greeks??
Marian:
Momma, if you don’t mind my sayin’ so,
You have a bad habit of changin’ ev’ry subject–
Mrs. Paroo:
Well, I haven’t changed the subject!
I was talking about that stranger–
Marian:
What stranger?
Mrs. Paroo:
With the suitcase who may be your very last chance.
Marian: Mama!
Do you think that I’d allow a common masher–
Now, really Mama!
I have my standards where men are concerned,
And I have no intention–
Mrs. Paroo:
I know all about your standards
And if you don’t mind my sayin’ so
There’s not a man alive
Who could hope to measure up to that blend’a
Paul Bunyan, Saint Pat and Noah Webster
You’ve got concocted for yourself outta your Irish imagination,
Your Iowa stubbornness, and your liberry fulla’ books!
It really is that simple. Older women are to teach the younger women to love their husbands, to love their children, and to be keepers of the home. Young unmarried women do NOT give advice to wives! Embarrassing.
May 17, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Focus on the Family started this mini-campaign to get fathers to “date their daughters” to show them good male role models, I guess. But really the point was taking your daughter out on dates so she knows what to expect when she goes out on real dates — as if a girl’s father is a stand-in until a future sexual partner comes along.
What a mean thing to say. A dad wanting to spend time with his daughter so she has a role model in the future when she is dating–why on earth would anyone think this is a bad thing? There is NOTHING sexual about a guy being a good dad to a teenager.
Please take what I am going to say in the way I mean it, which is in all honesty: A lot of you are very sheltered. I don’t think some of you have any idea how many teenaged girls are hurting and totally longing for any kind of relationship with their fathers.
As a mom with kids in public schools, the kids who are friends with mine, who hang out here–their stories break my heart. They stop by at dinner time and are stunned, literally, that either myself or my husband has actually cooked a meal and want to share it with our children.
The girls, especially–I would give anything if they could have the sort of dad who would commit himself to her and take her on “dates”.
Also, I would hardly qualify Salon as an objective source. I like reading it, but if you don’t put a sarcastic spin on your article, don’t expect it to be published.
May 17, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Psst..Abby–date night?
http://www.westernconservatory.com/ohio-crossroads/index.php
I am seriously thinking about going. I would like to hear what is said and make my own opinion.
May 17, 2009 at 8:48 pm
ah, the life! lol.
9 Don’t do his job for him. Don’t save him from his struggles. Struggles are designed to be a character building process. Don’t baby him.
15 Show him deference in a group conversation…Make sure to look at him reassuringly.
Y’know…most of their ideas sound like BABY-ING the man. I have too much respect for my husband to “pretend” to him, or flatter him. He wants my REAL opinion, not ‘what he’d like to hear’.
1.My husband doesn’t want his ears tickled! 2.Flattery is deceitful.
A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; they flatter with their tongue.
To deliver thee from the strange woman, which flattereth with her words;
To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange womam.
That they may keep thee from the strange woman, from the stranger which flattereth with her words.
With her much fair speech..with the flattering of her lips…For our exhortation was not of deceit… nor in guile:
[E]ven so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God..For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness: Nor of men sought we glory.”
But it is true, they’re just “girls” so they’re relying heavily on the opinion of their father, who apparently blames women for men’s failures. And who has taught them that
“8 Every man is born wanting to lead… ”
and also
“12 Men are battling a world that…doesn’t see your man’s willingness to be used of God to do great things.”
I guess that makes us “losers” in the patrio book.:p
We’re just thrilled when God uses us *at all*. It may never appear “great” in the eyes of man, yet we know that spiritual things are of eternal value, and only in the will of God will we find true fulfillment.
“And seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them not…”
May 17, 2009 at 8:55 pm
“4. The daughters are considered Daddy’s property and not So Much More. To borrow at Botkin question of “What does this look like?” The answer: slavery.”
Or Saudi Arabia.
Moslems and most other monotheistic non-Christians still live under the patriarchal system of the Old Testament, but we Christians have a new model to emulate.
When Abraham sought a bride for Isaac, he sent his servant out to find a worthy young woman, and when Bethuel found Rebekah, he asked her father for her hand, according to the customs of men.
By contrast, in the New Testament, God sought a mother for Jesus, and He sent His angel out to find a worthy young woman. BUT, when the angel found Mary, he did not ask her father whether she would bear the Savior of the world.
The angel asked Mary herself.
What does that tell us about the customs of the Kingdom of Heaven?
May 17, 2009 at 9:51 pm
I cut and pasted the above…should have been “counsel” instead of “council!” LOL
May 18, 2009 at 1:17 am
Is that ahthelife blog for real? (See link in comment #485. Because it reads like a caricature.
The daughters’ profile says they are “professional daughters” who retired from the work force in 1998. One appears well into her 30′s.
Their interests include aprons, hopechests, honoring parents and curly hair.
Among their favorite movies are “A Lifetime of Childhood Faith” and “Return of the Daughters.”
And finally, their favorite books include Elsie Dinsmore and So Much More.
May 18, 2009 at 9:55 am
Lots of subjects flying around!
Date night with daddy: I personally think there is nothing wrong with promoting father-daughter time, just as there’s nothing wrong with promoting any individual parent-child time. It has more to do with the motive than the “implications.” If a father wants to take his daughter out to dinner to share a fun, quiet evening without the rest of the family interrupting, I think it’s great. I think we all have something in the back of our minds that red-flags father-daughter relationships as perverse, because we live in that kind of culture. It should never be forced, and if a daughter is being abused, we should not tell her to go ahead and go out with daddy alone, but this isn’t the case in most situations.
I have an awesome relationship with my dad. My mom and I tend to fight if we spend too much time together, but my dad and I can have long conversations without much disagreement. This has been the case since I was a young teen. I loved having time alone to talk to my dad, because I could talk about anything and it was a safe situation. Any girl would be lucky to have this with their father. I want it for my daughter as well (of course, I’d also like to be able to get along with her easily!).
Single women giving marriage advice:
This is a complete joke! I would never take marriage advice from a single. I honestly don’t think I’d take dating advice from a single person, unless they were engaged or had some really good dating experiences to draw from.
And I think that the “Baby your husband” thing is something that crops up a lot in those types of blogs. I remember reading an old magazine article that was being passed around about how to make your husband happy, and it was a lot of the same stuff. It’s not really about “babying” him, it’s really more about taming the beast. If you keep him appeased, he won’t get angry. It’s the same thing that young wives learn when their husbands are abusive. If we are afraid of our husbands, then WE have a serious problem!
As far as the whole “CEO” argument goes, the CEO can be fired, he is not the sole control of the company. He is supported by a board of trustees, and he doesn’t really make many decisions, he’s more of a figure-head (like Queen Elizabeth), less of a decision-maker. That kind of tears the whole argument apart, doesn’t it? Also, a CEO works FOR the company, the company doesn’t work for him. Without a company, he wouldn’t have a job, it’s not the other way around. Without a wife, a husband wouldn’t be head of anything. He should respect that, and understand that it could all be lost in a moment for any number of reasons. His wife doesn’t exist for himself, and the marriage wouldn’t be there without her.
I really hate the way they assume that men are one way and women are another. I have never met a man who fits that mold, and really never met a woman who does! Even the women who promote it aren’t exactly what they say are the best qualities in a woman.
May 18, 2009 at 9:59 am
Marcia–I wish! I couldn’t do it, because we are headed to Egypt a few days later, and the whole first half of July is booked solid! I hope you do go and get some info on the whole thing. Crazy that they are coming to Columbus. I don’t know that many people from the city would be interested, but I’m sure it would make a great cultural experience! Too bad they aren’t doing it downtown, the Short North would make a great venue…
May 18, 2009 at 10:13 am
(Off Topic)
referring to this Barbra WaWa interview,
one of the IFB preachers on our forum said:
and for others, a jail cell.
“Sometimes… a stinging cheek is what it takes for a woman to realize she has gone to far.”
I said,
Verily, hitting your wife is what it takes for some men to realize that they’ve gone too far!
his opinion confirms Cindy K’s latest link:
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=11650
May 18, 2009 at 10:17 am
May 18, 2009 at 10:28 am
Debbie, I read that and thought the same thing. BTW, what in the world is a “professional daughter”?
Their interests and favorite movies read like a list I’d expect from a 10-year-old child.
To me, it is so sad to see grown women, who have been created and gifted by God, abdicate all of that potential to stay home and serve daddy. In fact, it makes me kind of ill.
May 18, 2009 at 10:37 am
Debbie, from perusing the blog, it looks for real. The daughters are named Kelly and Andrea Reins, and their family was apparently influenced by the Moores (filmmakers who made the Widow’s Might), according to this post made in March 2009.
“You’re old and the window of opportunity is closing.” Yep that’s true. We’re called to be diligent toward marrying young; to be fruitful and multiply. Our family was lost for many years until one day when the Lord saw fit to use the Moore family to lead us to Christ, teach us about the roles of men and women, homeschooling, and much more all in one fell swoop. Since then we’ve sought the wisdom of the Lord, for direction for our lives, we’ve still made some mistakes but continue according to our faith with the hopes that He will help us redeem the time.
They seem to have moved from Alaska to Texas, and I see no mention of their mother in their blog. They do sewing and graphic design, among other things.
As you can see, these are facts, easily obtained from the internet. I did not snoop into their lives and I am not making a disparaging observation of their lifestyle. (Just to ward off future comments.)
May 18, 2009 at 11:41 am
That clip from Sean Connery is appalling. To think that to many women from my generation he is some sort of icon.
May 18, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Dating Dad?
I have five daughters who play scrabble or 7 up/7 down (cards) with their dad every night.
They would rather go camping, fishing, or motorcycle riding with their father than go on a “date”. After all, a date is for the purpose of getting to know one another better- for the purpose of determining compatibility, is it not?
May 18, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Dating Dad? In our home, Dad always took turns taking the kids with him on errands or to do special things. In nice weather the did a lot of hiking. When our daughter started really loving classical music and started playing instruments, he would take her to concerts. Never did we think of it as “dating” and the kids expressed to us that they wanted mom and dad to go on dates, which we have done regularly for most of the years we have been married. They thought of “dating” as what people do when they are special to each other in that way. To me, much of this stuff is contrived and artificial. Why can’t we just enjoy each other’s company in our families, no matter the gender? What is is called when brothers and sisters go out together? Please tell me that isn’t called dating, too!
May 18, 2009 at 3:02 pm
One more link with info about Botkin’s NZ meetings:
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/newzealand/672573/
Greetings
Geoff Botkin who lived in New Zealand with his wife and seven children for seven years is visiting New Zealand for a week commencing 14 April 2009. Travelling with Geoff and his two sons, Isaac and David, are 14 men who, along with their families, are considering immigrating to New Zealand. This is a fact finding tour for these men. They will be making all sorts of inquires related to moving to New Zealand as they travel around. They will also be taking back the information they have learned to many other families who are considering leaving the USA. (emphasis mine)
One of the objectives for this group of people is to meet other like minded Christian Home Educators and the Movers and Shakers of the Home Education movement in New Zealand.
Below you will find the meetings that we have set up for this group to be able to meet as many Home Educators as possible and at the same time to be able to have a little more in-depth time with some Key Home Educators.
Topics included:
Social and Family Policy in New Zealand: Craig Smith
New Zealand’s Future Role in the History of Christianity: Geoffrey Botkin
The Importance of Second Generation Home Schooling: Isaac Botkin
Trends in American Courtship and Marriage: Geoffrey Botkin
The Three Greatest Issues Facing the Men of New Zealand: Geoffrey Botkin
Four Things Fathers Must Teach Their Sons and Daughters About Our Times: G. Botkin
How Men Can Strengthen Their Families in the 21st Century, And Why This is Important: Geoffrey Botkin
May 18, 2009 at 6:00 pm
“Geoff Botkin, who lived in New Zealand with his wife and seven children for SEVEN years..” ??
I understand the Botkins emigrated to NZ in 2000. The following year, Geoff’s partner abandoned him and in Feb of ’02 Geoff himself resigned his NZ media group CEO position.
He’s been in the US with his family for years. How can they say they’ve been living in NZ for seven years?? :confused:
(I’m sure it makes it sound like they’ve actually established themselves–IF they are inviting Americans to join them.)
It will be interesting to see what kind of a reception the Americans receive in NZ, after the Botkins abandoned their Great Commission media ministry there.
May 18, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Somebody needs to warn New Zealand.
May 18, 2009 at 9:41 pm
It just goes on and on – Isaac Botkin, who is nearly thirty, unmarried, and has no children, gave a speech in New Zealand about ‘The Importance of Second Generation Home Schooling’.
http://hef.org.nz/2009/hamilton-meeting-the-importance-of-second-generation-home-schooling/
Um? Hello?!?! This man has never homeschooled! There is no second-generation of Botkin homeschoolers. HOW do they get the nerve to stand up and teach about something they HAVEN’T DONE?!?!
And how did NZ become the Promised Land? I know a few Kiwis who are all the loveliest people, and it’s a country I have dreamed about visiting for years and years. (Especially since seeing Lord of the Rings, LOL!) But isn’t it considerably more ‘socialist’ and closer to European countries like England and Sweden than the political culture of the US? Why are patriarchs so attracted to it?
May 18, 2009 at 10:04 pm
The whole New Zealand connection is interesting.
Back about 20 years ago, Bill Gothard began a ministry there and would often joke that perhaps one day all homeschoolers would have to move there and begin a new country that was truly Christian. He still maintains a ministry there. Corrie, do you remember this from your ATI days? I do because I so well remember the Scripture passage Gothard used…”from the rising of the sun to the setting, His name shall be praised.” He went on to explain that NZ is in the time zone that sees the rising of the sun first…it was his rhema for
Also, one of the key homeschooling leaders there has a son who married the daughter of the Rainbow Resource owners. I believe they still live in the US and might even have attended my church at one time or another. Small world, huh? BTW, I haven’t looked at a RR catalog recently but the last I noticed, they didn’t carry any weird patriocentric stuff so I always love doing business with them.
I also remember a number of years ago when a family from NZ was visiting in the US and was traveling across country considering whether or not to move HERE. The reason? They were concerned that spanking was or would become illegal in NZ and it was important for them to be able to spank their children, enough so to move thousands of miles from home.
May 19, 2009 at 12:45 am
momgodin, Karen, whoever I missed -
I agree, hiking, card games, running errands, all that kind of thing sound like wonderful ways of fathers and daughters spending time together. When I was in (boarding) high school we had Father-Daughter week-ends, which usually revolved around sports and activities, class dinners, the science fair, and a concert put on for the dads. All the girls were proud to show off their accomplishments and to spend time doing things with their fathers.
But it was never called “dating” and no one ever brought up anyone’s virginity.
It was all about dads supporting daughters for who they were and what they had/could accomplish, intellectually, athletically, artistically. Not about their sexuality.
May 19, 2009 at 12:55 am
But isn’t it considerably more ’socialist’ and closer to European countries like England and Sweden than the political culture of the US? Why are patriarchs so attracted to it? -Claire
I wonder. According to Whatever Happened to Penny Candy by Richard J. Maybury, New Zealand’s legal system is based on English common law, and is “one of the best” at putting it into practice. It also ranks in the Top Ten of 2009 on the INDEX OF ECONOMIC FREEDOM. My cousin hopes to move there for these reasons.
They were concerned that spanking was or would become illegal in NZ and it was important for them to be able to spank their children, enough so to move thousands of miles from home. – Karen
How sad. My parents followed the Ezzo parenting advice for a few years. It wasn’t so much the physical pain (skinned knees hurt far worse, and their memory didn’t upset me years later), as the emotional pain that damaged me.
Cynthia Gee, I love your comparison between the stories of Rebecca and Mary in comment 493. Never looked at them that way before. How beautiful.
May 19, 2009 at 2:28 am
Ok, I am no fan of Geoff Botkin and how he uses his children. And I have no idea as to the content of Isaac’s talk.
Let me point out, however, it is not unusual for the older children in a large home school family to help teach the younger children. I doubt this is what Isaac means about 2nd generation home schooling, but to say that an oldest child from a large home school family doesn’t know about raising kids is nuts. Especially the girls. The older girls are second generation “parents” to their siblings.
May 19, 2009 at 6:56 am
Just delurking for a moment to give an Australian perspective on the whole NZ thing. NZ is a beautiful country, and I have been there several times. I can’t imagine it have much cultural appeal to patrios, it is more socialist than Australia with universal pensions and health care, for example. It is also very feminist (ok, I think that’s a good thing, but they wouldn’t), being for example, the first country in the world to give women the vote, and having had a woman prime minister. But 2 things occur to me It has an extremely small population (4 million? something of that order) which means a patrio colony could feel more numerically significant. Also, most practically, because it is a fertile country, but also underpopulated, good farmland probably works out a good deal cheaper than some other parts of the world, especially if you pay in American dollars.
But you know what? I suspect the real reason is something so bizarre and irrational we would never guess it …
Scuse any typos, I must get back to essay writing ..
May 19, 2009 at 8:46 am
“But you know what? I suspect the real reason is something so bizarre and irrational we would never guess it …”
Didn’t Mr. Botkin state somewhere that one of his sons would be the president (priminister?) of NZ as part of his 200 year plan?
May 19, 2009 at 8:54 am
And how did NZ become the Promised Land?…..Why are patriarchs so attracted to it?
It’s rural, beautiful, culturally European, and it’s SMALL, in area and population — in other words, it would be easy to take over, in a generation or two.
May 19, 2009 at 10:09 am
“Didn’t Mr. Botkin state somewhere that one of his sons would be the president (priminister?) of NZ as part of his 200 year plan?”
Exactly. New Zealand is a desirable country, from the patrios point of view — undeveloped, fertile, Eurocentric, and underpopulated — in fact, the only problem with New Zealand, to borrow a phrase from Braveheart, is that it is full of New Zealanders.
But, Botkins &Co are banking (literally) on the fact that some influential Kiwis can be turned towards the patrio point of view, whereas other NZs will see the fiscal advantage of working with filthy rich Yank “enterpreneurs”, and will put up with the strange religious beliefs for the sake of gain, at least for a little while, which is all the time the Botkins clan will need to gain a toehold in the country, entrench themselves in the financial and political system, and start to outbreeding the locals.
It’s the same old dominionist game plan, but in the microcosm of New Zealand, and especially, given the Botkin’s connections, and their almost limitless access to financial resources, a goal which could take several hundred years to accomplish anywhere else in the world could be brought to fruition in New Zealand in less than 50 years.
May 19, 2009 at 11:05 am
I feel sorry for the New Zealanders. It makes me want to move to NZ and witness against the man-centered, cultish flack that the Botkins want to promote over there.
May 19, 2009 at 11:11 am
McCotter chose New Zealand as a target in the ’90s to advance his “Media Mandate.” When the Great Commission cult was founded in the midst of all of that interdenominational charismatic renewal stuff when he got saved, the whole idea was to reach the world for Christ before the up and coming flower children of the ’60s generation ended. McCotter saw the best way to do that was through the media. He first started out with newspapers which he used in the “Blitz” recruiting on college campuses in the ’70s.
With the dawn of satellite TV and other media, McCotter saw NZ as a strategic move to establish a center, dominate the media in the smaller, English speaking country and then gradually expand his sphere of influence to advance the Gospel. The trouble with his group is that it was heavily authoritarian and ecclesiocentric and patriarchal to the extent that it drove many college students into mental institutions. This is the gospel that Botkin preaches. Botkin followed McCotter to NZ, but their enterprise failed. They had a newspaper that put out a free issue a couple of times per week, a failing TV station and a magazine that did pretty well. Geoff Botkin resigned from his position and McCotter sold all of the assets not too long thereafter.
They chose New Zealand because McCotter identified it as a good place to begin this Media Mandate takeover of the world’s media for Christ (but it was really for his own cult…). The other reason for NZ is because Botkin has assets and property there. He is already established there. In this sense, Botkin is still very much just following the old cult directive and the original plan of his original cult leader, likely aspiring to become his own version of the Great Commission and the new and improved Jim McCotter. He will accomplish what McCotter set out to do and was unable to do for whatever reason. IT makes perfect sense.
And, yes, in his interview on the 200 year plan on Kevin Swanson’s radio program, Geoff Botkin explains that part of the 200 year plan for one of his sons includes his becoming prime minister when he is 57 or something like that. I have excerpts about this on my blog under “Multigenerational Faithfulness.”
May 19, 2009 at 11:18 am
So let me make this clear:
NZ was chosen by McCotter who saw his Great Commission cult’s teaching of the “Media Mandate” as the best way to advance his cause. The Media Mandate was a strategic means of recruitment. NZ was a foothold to dominate so that the cause could then be advanced throughout the world, presumably and under the guise of preaching the Gospel throughout the world. The trouble is that it is another gospel.
Botkin learned film under the tutelage and because of the influence of his cult leader, Jim McCotter. He is still reading the original script of his cult from decades ago, still following the original plan. McCotter was apparently an horrible businessman, and everything he touched suffered. I think that Botkin believes that he can do a better job, but he is essentially just reading the original plan of his cult, the one that the original cult leader abandoned. NZ was McCotter’s strategy, not Botkin’s. None of these guys come up with original ideas.
May 19, 2009 at 11:25 am
sourcabbage:
Forgive me if you’ve posted in the past and I haven’t noticed. My eyes caught “Ezzo” as that was my parenting method of choice for a few years. Could I ask your age? Could you expand more on how your parents implemented Ezzo philosophies and how it has affected you? I’m hoping the damage to my own kids wasn’t too great.
Heather1028
May 19, 2009 at 12:09 pm
and does NZ have the same political machines we have here in the US? With so many vested interest and groups that have been involved for decades? Would it be easier for them to become a major political force in a few years to a generation?
May 19, 2009 at 5:38 pm
sourcabbage and Heather1028,
Not to hijack the thread, but I’m also very interested in the Ezzo subject. Well, I guess not so much them, as that whole parenting approach and it’s unpleasantries (dare I say, even it’s extra-Scriptural basis?) and the practical alternatives out there. I feel like God has taken me on a personal journey into His heart on the subject and what parenting according to His preferences truly looks like, and then I read “Biblical Parenting” by Crystal Lutton, and her theological basis for no-spanking discipline read nearly word for word like what the thought process the Spirit had been personally taking me down. She also had some excellent practical implementation (though I’m not with her %100 percent on all issues, the degree of “attachment parenting” tenets she agrees with, though it’s really just details where our philosophies differ).
I’m still figuring all this out, how to be a gentle discipline parent, but remaining the parent and not being a push-over. I just personally need to grow in being firm, and I’m starting with letting my “yes be yes” and my “no be no”. However, I’m just still looking for wisdom and insight into this whole approach. I genuinely like and agree with the basis for Crystal Lutton’s 5 steps, but am very open to learning other helpful methods.
And I’m in the same boat as sourcabbage; I’m not particularly enjoying the fruit of Ezzo-like parenting that I grew up in, and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that that is not “God’s Way” into children’s hearts, and after all, the heart is what God is after.
Heather, I know other’s like you who regret going down that path for a time, but nothing is irredeemable when God is in the picture, and I truly believe that if your children see your heart to actually know them for them and to disciple them and “train in the way THEY should go”, then they’ll learn some very important lessons; for starter’s, that their parents are not perfect, but more importantly, that they recognize when they’re not and SEEK GOD to find His way… imagine what a great example that is! I’m so glad I’m free from having to be perfect all the time because “I’m the parent”, but that I’m free to be able to apologize and ask forgiveness from my kids when I need to! (Not that we sin so that grace can abound, but grace, sweet grace, is available even to parents!!!
)
May 19, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Annie C,
First, let me say that I am glad to see you back here posting again. You always bring a good 2 cents into things and inspire good food for thought.
In #521:
You asked about whether it is would be easier for the Botkin crowd to become a major player in NZ than it would be for them to be a major player in the US.
McCotter tried to establish a media presence in the US through his various campus and formal newspaper projects. McCotter was always politically motivated, and it was the Great Commission cult’s lobby group, the “ABGs” that tried to make a presence for themselves in Congress, actually managing to recruit some of the Religious Right. They made their directed attempt to take dominion in Mongomery County, MD at that same time by running 19 different candidates. All of that failed. They could not get a foothold in government, and McCotter was unable to get a foothold in media here.
In NZ, McCotter and Botkin who followed him in the late ’90s became “big fish” in a smaller pond. You stand out easier and have less work to do if you want to convert a crowd when there are only 20 people as opposed to 200 or 2000. NZ media also did not have as much bureaucracy than did the US media.
Not really knowing any more than anyone else does about NZ, at first blush, one can say that in comparison to the US, it is a much smaller pond for many reasons. “First NZ, then the world!” It is pragmatic and we essentially all speak English, though I bet the Brits and the Aussies and the NZlanders might take issue with that!!! I think it is a pragmatic way to eat the elephant by conquering small section of the English speaking world first to then spread on to the rest of it.
What is interesting is this whole idea of a generation. We do not know what tomorrow will bring us, and that is why we need to live today. Too much of patriarchy is “the power of strategic planning,” though some of this is wisdom. Along the way, it becomes semi-Pelegian, and man is trying to rebuild Eden and become a third Adam or maybe the first Adam by means of the Second Adam as a catalyst on the way to achievement. They almost use a business model, the likes of which you used to hear from MBAs in the ’80s (the guys that are now unemployed or have changed lines of work). There is some wisdom in it, wisdom that was borrowed from the world that some say is borrowed capital that came from Christian culture.
I’ve had the rug ripped out from under my life, and my plans for my life turned out to be very different from what I received. It’s the 10th anniversary of a small and limited natural disaster that I survived, and in many ways, I have not yet fully recovered from it. It was followed by many more for a season.
My husband lost his eye a few years ago, and if he built his life and livelihood around a skill that depended on close vision, he would have needed to abandon his plans in order to reform his life. Some skills that he needs, repairing instrumentation in his lab has become difficult, and he cannot do that kind of precision work anymore. I have friends who have had their lives seriously reshaped by tragedy, some for great good. Some still spend their time surviving the tragedy because their function and resources were so drastically altered. We can plan and use wisdom.
My home is a city whose builder and maker is God. That does not mean that I do not soberly observe all that I need to observe in this life, being a good steward. But this world is temporal. Isn’t that Fanny Crosby’s hymn that says “strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow”? Jesus said that today had enough cares of its own.
It is important to live as a good steward, considering where we want to be and what we want to leave behind in this life for those who follow us. I’m not saying that this is not important at all. But what I see these folks doing is putting too much of today up on the altar of what they hope will come tomorrow or what they are banking upon for tomorrow. Some save freezers and save dehydrated manna. Some have a plan for the manna that they will find on the ground 40 years from now. But even the Israelites moved on from their need for manna, something that the Lord supplied for them for that present day. He requires faith of us and I have a problem with striving or presuming to know too much about tomorrow.
May 20, 2009 at 10:04 am
“Back about 20 years ago, Bill Gothard began a ministry there and would often joke that perhaps one day all homeschoolers would have to move there and begin a new country that was truly Christian. He still maintains a ministry there. Corrie, do you remember this from your ATI days? I do because I so well remember the Scripture passage Gothard used…”from the rising of the sun to the setting, His name shall be praised.” He went on to explain that NZ is in the time zone that sees the rising of the sun first…it was his rhema for”
Yep.
May 20, 2009 at 10:12 am
“one of the IFB preachers on our forum said:
“Sometimes… a stinging cheek is what it takes for a woman to realize she has gone to far.””
Momgodin,
Oh MY! Really, an IFB preacher said this?
And, what in the heck is wrong with Sean Connery?
What about an out of control man? What is good for them?
This kind of thinking is beyond my scope of understanding. Really.
Neanderthal comes to mind….
May 20, 2009 at 10:24 am
“7. Understand that men are most often always in “the process of overcoming.” He is in the process of overcoming obstacles within him, whether it’s fear, anger, pride or what have you, and the obstacles between where he and his family are and where he wants to lead them. Sometimes he’ll want to go it alone; probably more so with the inner obstacles. Statements like, “We need to talk about our relationship” strike fear in his heart. Let him deal with it on his own if he so chooses.”
This is a quote from ahthelife blog…advice to married women given by 2 unmarried girls.
I just have to say “huh?”. What in the world kind of marriage is that? Do they know anything about intimacy? How can you have true intimacy if a spouse can’t even ask to talk about the relationship, esp. if there are problems? That strikes fear in their heart? Well, what does that say about his ability to lead if that is true? If that strikes fear in his heart then how is he going to handle anything more “scary” than an overflowing toilet or a mouse in the house?
And aren’t we all in the process of overcoming? Or do they believe women have arrived? Are women allowed to “go it alone” when they are trying to overcome obstacles? I know, for me, that is precisely what I want to do.
I just don’t identify with much of what is written about women on the patriarchalist side of the fence. I also don’t understand why, when they write about men, they make them sound so wimpy and fragile and weak?
May 20, 2009 at 10:26 am
If I lived in New Zealand, I would be afraid.
To have my country targeted by patriarchalists in some plan to take it over in the next several decades? Yikes.
May 20, 2009 at 10:51 am
The whole New Zealand thing reminds me of another cult leader who took his followers to another country…..it involved koolaid and mind control.
May 20, 2009 at 11:00 am
“But what I see these folks doing is putting too much of today up on the altar of what they hope will come tomorrow or what they are banking upon for tomorrow.”
Yup. Remember what happened when the Israelites got into that mindset, and hoarded manna?
“Exd 16:16 This is the thing which the LORD has commanded: ‘Let every man gather it according to each one’s need, one omer for each person, [according to the] number of persons; let every man take for [those] who [are] in his tent.Then the children of Israel did so and gathered, some more, some less. So when they measured [it] by omers, he who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack. Every man had gathered according to each one’s need. And Moses said, “Let no one leave any of it till morning.”
Notwithstanding they did not heed Moses. But some of them left part of it until morning, and it bred worms and stank. And Moses was angry with them.”
May 20, 2009 at 12:25 pm
“If that strikes fear in his heart then how is he going to handle anything more “scary” than an overflowing toilet…?”
LOL! I had to be first to laugh at that.
Unfortunately, I know marriages where they man doesn’t do toilets or diapers or dishes…
Too scary! Not in the job description of “visionary leader” I guess. :p
I thank God for my limited exposure to Gothardites. I remember a girlfriend telling me about her alumni seminar book elaborated on all the times that marital intimacy should be avoided. Immediately, this wall went up in my head. Like, “ignorance is bliss. I don’t wanna hear it!” lol. I told her I didn’t remember THAT being in my red book 30 years ago! But she got her book and lo and behold- it was true! In Leviticus, it says you can’t have sex on Sunday morning before church! What a drag.
I read of their divorce auction a few years later…:(
May 20, 2009 at 2:05 pm
My husband will do diapers…if I beg him enough…someone has apparently told him that it’s not a man’s job to do diapers. He won’t do dishes. He hates them. I do too but apparently that isn’t a consideration because I’m a woman so it’s apparently my job. If only he knew how much I wish I could go out to work and he could stay home with the kids and realize what all I actually do around the house.
I don’t know what to do anymore. I feel lost. I feel like I am inferior because I have a vagina instead of a penis. I feel like God did it on purpose to punish me for something. My husband has apparently no clue or comprehension of WHY on earth I’d think he was superior because of his genitals. I mean seriously, what ELSE is it that qualifies him to never consider me in decisions (he can go on and on about how he DOES, but reality is he DOESN’T…he has not changed one decision in almost three years of marriage based on what I thought or felt). Why won’t men get a clue?
He knows and has been taught that I am to “submit” but he does not know nor has he been taught that he is supposed to love me as Christ loved the church. I am supposed to give him sex, coz apparently (as has been told to us over and over again) it is some great “need” that men have that they just can’t help themselves. However, he does NOTHING about meeting MY needs. I need spiritual leadership and guidance. He never gives me any, unless it’s because he’s mad and he wants to use a Bible verse to get jabs in at me.
Our church marriage counseling was useless. I was given a copy of “Created to be His Help Meet” and told over and over how I was to just submit joyfully blah blah blah. Not ONCE was he told to LOVE me! Any my pastor wonders why I feel like I was “attacked”!
How do I make him understand that I’m dying inside? I know he cares for me, but sometimes it’s hard to see through all his selfishness.
May 20, 2009 at 2:11 pm
We are trying to buy a house. There was one house I fell in love with right away and knew it was “the one”. My husband, however, didn’t think so after finding out some things that were financial. So we looked at other houses. I happily looked at them with him, trying to come up with an alternative.
I still believe the first house is the house for us. My husband is beginning to pursue it again now because he’s found out it might actually be easier to get than he first thought. Now he thinks hes totally awesome for “considering me” when really he just found out it was “easier” than he first thought. He liked the house too.
I am scared that if we buy it, something major will go wrong with it, just because it was the one I loved. I feel like God will do it on purpose to “show me my place”. My husband agrees that might happen and then I might realize “the wisdom of his decisions”. (He’s made some BAD decisions).
Also, why is it that I can ask my husband to do something, and he tells me he’ll get it done by a certain time, and when he doesn’t and a few days later I ask him again, that it’s “nagging” him. If he asks me over and over to do the same thing it’s “reminding” me, but if I do it it’s “nagging”. If I bring it up, all he can say (like a three year old is) well, now you know how it feels (because of course he has no explanation for why it is right for him but wrong for me except that he wants it to be like that.
May 20, 2009 at 2:28 pm
So one night, my pastor preaches about some verses where it says that if the man doesn’t treat his wife right, his prayers will be hindered. Stupid me thought “oh finally, something aimed at the men”. Nope. He went on to tell wives to make sure they weren’t purposely acting like victims just so they could hinder their husbands prayers and therefore manipulate them!
Quite often, when he’s hurt me, my husband will say that what he did “wasn’t sin”, and that “nowhere in the Bible does it say I can’t do that”. Hey buddy, how about the “husbands love your wives clause” seeing as you men love to throw the submission clause our way whenever you think it is appropriate.
May 20, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Blast comment moderation! I’m hurting and I’m trying to have a conversation!!!
May 20, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Talking to myself is not fun…
May 20, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Mrs W.
You are not inferior because of your gender and any man who tells you so has some serious control issues.
If Jesus had felt women to be inferior he would have never let Mary sit at his feet and learn. He would have not had women supporting his ministry and he would have never spoken to the woman at the well.
I am praying for you!
May 20, 2009 at 7:59 pm
((((Mrs. W ))))
If I were you, I’d leave the yellow pages by the phone, open to “Divorce Attorneys” and have the biggest ad circled with bold black marker. (whoops! forgot to put that away…it’s nothing, hon.)
I’d have those little Real Estate mags laying around the house- for another state.
I’d subscribe to NRA and have gun mags sent to the house addressed to ME.
I’d get my OB/GYN to give me a referral to a feminist shrink.
I’d Dye my hair bleach blonde. Buy a wardrobe full of pants and wear them to church. Burn that book in the fireplace. leave it there, half burnt. Oh, there’d be ZERO sex for eternity. Oh, and I’d invite my sister (or my brother, the lawyer) to visit for an indefinite time.
IOW, whatEVER he likes or wants, I’d do the opposite. Kinda like what he’s been doing to you.
I’m hormonal….don’t listen to me.
May 20, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Oh, dear Mrs. W,
I hurt along with you as I read your words. First of all, you are the beloved daughter of a King who adores you! He looks at your heart, not whether you have girl or boy parts. And He would never, ever set you up for failure to “show you your place.”
That’s twisted human talk, no God’s voice.
But mostly, for now, I urge you to find yourself another counselor, immediately! Run as fast as you can from any counselor bearing any whiff of patrio about him or her.
Instead, find a believer, but not a patriocentrist. Hire one who can find truth for your marriage instead of finding all fault on you simply because you’re a woman.
You deserve better than that. Way better.
May 20, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Dear Mrs. W
I’m around, you’re not talking to yourself. I’m here if you want to talk.
On the other hand, I am the feminist/Liberal/atheist who came out of a matriarchal system, so I may not be the most helpful.
——-
This may or may not help. Everyone else might find it interesting.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/
Possible warning for language. I tend to overlook it, and while I recall most if not all of the links were informative the last time I looked at them was back in January during SciFiRaceFail ’09 (don’t ask) so I just don’t remember.
May 20, 2009 at 9:28 pm
(((((Mrs W!)))) I am so sorry you are having a tough time of it. I wish I had some wonderful words of wisdom and comfort for you, but I don’t. I do have one suggestion, though. See if you can get a copy of “Boundaries in Marriage.” I haven’t read it, but I have read the original “Boundaries” book, and it was a huge help to me when my very difficult mother-in-law lived with us for many years. I have heard the marriage book recommended over and over again by others.
May 20, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Mrs. W, (((((((((((HUGS)))))))))))))))))
Remember Molly, who used to post here sometimes?
I believe I remember her telling about how she want through a very similar “low time”, back when she was coming out of the patrio movement.
I think she would really relate to wnat Mrs. W is going though right now..
May 21, 2009 at 1:07 am
Dominionists infiltrating New Zealand’s Catholic Churches???
May 21, 2009 at 1:09 am
One time, I heard two kids at the school table quarrelling. I said, “What’s going on here?”
“He’s bothering me.” “No I’m not. I was just doing ‘this’. That’s not bothering her.”
I told him, “Excuse me. SHE is the best judge of whether or not she is bothered by that. When she told you she was, did you stop?”
“No, because it’s not bothering her and there’s nothing wrong with tapping my pencil like this…”
This kid was punished- not because tapping his pencil was a big sin, but because once he knew it bothered her, *he *didn’t *care *to *stop. (“To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not it is sin.”) and for breaking the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Simply, you should care about what bothers someone you “love”.
Furthermore, to put a stumblingblock before your wife, and cause her to fear and doubt God’s love, grace and power in her life, is indeed sin! To put her in bondage to superstition- so that she fears to choose what she prefers because she may be punished, is unconscionable! It’s emotional abuse! It’s spiritual abuse! And she’s pregnant and vulnerable. Who’s protecting this woman? I’m sorry, this upsets me. It sounds like a future edition of “No Longer Quivering” shudders!
May 21, 2009 at 8:42 am
Cynthia Gee,
Concerning that Joel’s Army stuff in NZ:
Ten or fifteen years ago, ministries like Rodney Howard Browne reported nearly identical posts. I heard this all over the place from the Toronto business. I take it that it was an attempt to get back to the Charismatic Renewal stuff of the ’60s when Episcopalians and Lutherans started spontaneously speaking in tongues. Just because these guys report this stuff does not make it true. In ’96, I sat in a meeting where the ministers said that oil and divine sparkles that were something like glitter was all over the piano and the microphones and such on the platform. I saw no oil or glitter. But I’d been exit counseled a few months before then. I no longer abandoned myself to the hypnotic suggestions of the speakers. My point is that this report is nothing new. I heard a similar report in ’90 about a minister who had just returned from England. He said he was in an old church there and I remember him saying that the Holy Spirit said “I am not finished with this place and will pour out signs and wonders here.” But I am still waiting for this to happen, now approaching 20 years later. The same was true of the Toronto thing. What happened to all of that? Does Rodney Howard Browne even speak anywhere anymore? I have also heard Benny Hinn say such things with my own ears, and what he predicted never came to pass. These people can report anything they want. It does not reflect reality.
Geoff Botkin’s Great Commission Ministries was a spinoff of the Charismatic Renewal, riding in on the wake of it. I am certain though that neither McCotter nor Botkin will have anything to do with the Joel’s Army people. Joel’s Army in New Zealand may be growing, but they are a whole different type of dominionist animal. I grew up in a Joel’s Army type of setting and I ended up on the edges of the Phillips/Botkin type of dominionism. The two do not mix. The types of people and the theology does not mix. Joel’s Army is Arminian and Botkin is Calvinist. The homeschoolers in NZ who are sponsoring Botkin are Calvinists, and I don’t see them acquiescing to Arminianism and speaking in tongues any time soon.
That does not mean that the groups would not find it politically advantageous to pull together at some point, but I don’t see that happening at all. Phillips’ bunch and the elitist Great Commission folks are too separatist at this point. I don’t see that going away. It would take something huge to get the Joel’s Army people and the Vision Forum minded to merge.
May 21, 2009 at 9:12 am
Let me say that my husband is a good man. We are both young, and I know he wants to do what is right, but he is being pulled in so many directions. He’s being told that he needs to treat me in these ways to “be a man” and hey, what man doesn’t want to “be a man”? I want to support him, and show him he’s a man without all this crap. I love him, and I know that deep down, he loves me. He has not a clue how to show it, but he does. I have thought several times that I want to divorce him, but I really don’t. My parents had a great marriage and I saw that modeled growing up. My husband’s parents, on the other hand, have a crappy marriage and that’s all he’s seen. So whether he goes to the church, his parents, his parents church, all he is going to get is bad advice. He needs prayer too. Sometimes I think he is probably hurting just as much as I am. He doesn’t realize it, but he’s being manipulated by everyone around him. (Like I said, what guy doesn’t want to “be a man”). I hurt for him just as much as for myself. The people who give us advice on marriage actually give extremely good advice about most other things, so he trusts them. I trust them too, except on the topic of marriage.
May 21, 2009 at 9:15 am
For the record, I am the one who is worried about buying the house I know deep down is the right one for us lest God just mess it up because it’s what I know is right. My husband was actually supportive when I told him that I “knew” that was the house for us when we walked in. He liked it too, he just didn’t want to come up with the extra money it required above other ones. He’s lost and hurting too, so when I made the comment about how scared I was, he actually was very kind when he agreed with me, because he has no idea either! He’s cried before when we’ve argued saying that he doesn’t understand how to be married and he can’t understand why I want him to do something he doesn’t know how to do. My advice was to go to someone and LEARN lol.
May 21, 2009 at 9:50 am
I found Annies “finally feminist” link very interesting.
and combined it with Irwin Lutzer and Dr. Laura! lol.
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/1403933-post1.html
May 21, 2009 at 9:56 am
I just went and pulled up some old stuff from the Great Commission cult where Botkin started out.
If you read this, it sounds like the letter that you’d want Vision Forum to write at some point, but the author of the letter grossly understates their practices and teachings, though at least they own up to them in some respect and repent.
For instance, they address their non-dating policy. It is my hope that the readers here who read this will understand: Vision Forum and the courtship stuff did not start in homeschooling in the ’80s and ’90s. Much of this ideology came out of the cultic submission doctrines of the Shepherding Discipleship Movement of the late ’60s and ’70s. Groups like the Great Commission attest to that.
For instance, in the group Geoff Botkin and his brother Gregory were recruited into in the mid ’70s on the campus of OU in Norman, the group followed a strict no-dating policy. Courtships and marriages were almost perfunctory and were ordered by the group leadership. Karen has said the very worst combination is ecclesiocentricity and patriarchy. Well, that is what Jim McCotter’s cult was all about. It was one of the first prototypes. I’ve been told by people who have contacted me that “Vickie” Botkin (one person told me that they cannot believe or dream that she now goes by “Victoria”) was set up with Geoff when they lived in Norman in the group homes run by the Great Commission. If you had interest in another person and it was not ordered by leadership, you were disciplined. The no-dating stuff pre-dates Phillips and all of these other folks.
So when you read this document from 1991 and you get to the section on dating, this is grossly understated as are other things in the letter, but at least they are addressed to some extent.
I would like to ask those who read it, however, if the issues and problems admitted to by the Great Commission don’t sound nearly identical to those problems found in Vision Forum and other such FIC oriented systems?
Again, my point is that this stuff is not new. The system of manipulation is age old, but the hobby horses are new. Geoff Botkin and people like Doug Phillips are still reading the Shepherding-Discpleship script. They are a cult like any other cult. They just changed names and venues. Many of the recruits from the college campuses during Jim McCotter’s “Blitz” of evangelism in the ’70s did not finish college. Two people who contacted me about Botkin said that they were pretty certain that he never finished college. So even the negative or what could be considered an anti-college message of the Vision Forumites is not new. This document points that out as well.
http://www.gccweb.org/gcc/about/weakness.pdf
May 21, 2009 at 11:37 am
I just took a look over that link of Cynthia Gee’s, and plan to look at it more closely later. After coffee. I have to ask my husband, because I know some folks in our local Catholic parishes have been trying to bring about a “Charismatic Revival”, which was what finally pushed him away from the choir in our parish.
Honestly, one of the things that keeps me attached to this topic is the idea that the Patriocentrics would connect up with the Joel’s Army folks, especially the ones who have been going through the military/Iraq of late, and that would be…bad.
(Yes, I know, atheists in church. The husband plays bass and fits well with the choir at the local Liberal parish, and I do my volunteer work through them. We go on the holidays when my RCIA leading in-laws are in town. We don’t take communion. Father M knows and puts up with us, saying once “as long as you’re here you’re listening and God has a chance.)
May 21, 2009 at 11:46 am
“I need spiritual leadership and guidance”
Women believers are given the Holy Spirit just as male believers are. The Holy Spirit is your BEST Counselor, Guide, Leader in ALL things. Much better than another depraved sinner saved by grace like you.
Waiting around for your husband to be your Holy Spirit is dangerous for your soul.
May 21, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Cindy, that link is amazing re: 548 Nearly everything listed is what we have seen within this movement:
improper response to criticism: How many people do you personally who have contacted Vision Forum or other associated ministries to either ask for clarification or to challenge teachings only to be completely ignored? I couldn’t help but think about the still unanswered questions on my thatmom blog for Stacy and Jennie. And look at Doug Phillips’ response to criticim…he labeled those women bloggers who disagree with him “titus2lesbians.”
elitism: Isn’t this at the very core of the whole patriocentric movement with their affinity for all things antebellum? And what about the high cost of participating in their events or purchasing the VF materials? Only a certain class of people can purchase or participate in these things. As John Holzmann recently observed, it appears that they intend to make the bar really high so that many homeschoolers cannot participate.
misinterpretation of Scripture: I believe that has been the single most discussed point on this blog. I recently read through many of the comments on the Vision Daughters threads and most of them involved the misuse of Scripture. But the tenets of patriarchy call these things part of the “grand sweep of revelation.”
failing to distinguish between commands, principles, and preferences: Oh, boy, is this true or what? Remember R.C. Sproul Jr.’s article on this? Here is my response from exactly one year ago.
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/the-great-divide-patriocentrists-on-one-side-thinking-women-on-the-other/
And isn’t this thinking at the very core of The Monstrous Regiment of Women movie? personal preferences are lumped in with convictions to create one big stew of misrepresentation of others to their own ends. Everything that doesn’t meet their qualifications is deemed “sin.” Preferences of certain people are turned into “principles” and then “commands.” How many times and by how many people have we heard the phrase “less biblical?”
authoritarian and misuse of church discipline:
This is another one that we have seen repeatedly. Now the latest is that certain people can arbitrarily decide who is and who isn’t saved so that Christians aren’t required to relate to each other as fellow believers! And it is so true that patriocentricity and ecclesiocentrity are bad enough when they stand alone but together it is a perfect storm.
discouraging of formal education: I first heard this from Gothard in the mid 80′s…interesting to hear where it came from. Now there is an attitude within some churches and groups that if you send a child to college you are wicked and foolish. I know one many who has taken daughters aside and counseled them to not go to college, even though their own parents agreed with the daughters that they should be in college. Where do these people get off? Can you begin to imagine what would happen if I had the audacity to take aside a patriocentric daughter and counsel her to go to college?
I am amazed at how parallel these groups are, Cindy.
May 21, 2009 at 1:15 pm
“Women believers are given the Holy Spirit just as male believers are. The Holy Spirit is your BEST Counselor, Guide, Leader in ALL things. Much better than another depraved sinner saved by grace like you.
Waiting around for your husband to be your Holy Spirit is dangerous for your soul.”
Duh. I ain’t stupid. I know that. BUT…
Is it so wrong to want to have SPIRITUAL conversations with my husband, instead of just having to listen to stupid jokes or something of that nature? My personality desires very deep conversation, whereas my husband is happy talking about the weather, or telling jokes.
May 21, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“I am amazed at how parallel these groups are, Cindy.”
That’s because at it’s core, dominionism is not a religious movement.
Dominionism is a political movement that is using religion as a marketing tool and is utilizing religious leaders as vectors to spread their ideology, in much the same way that the malaria germ spreads itself from host to host through carrier mosquitoes.
Any religion will do, and any religious leader is acceptable, as long as the message gets delivered.
May 21, 2009 at 2:03 pm
“Is it so wrong to want to have SPIRITUAL conversations with my husband, instead of just having to listen to stupid jokes or something of that nature? My personality desires very deep conversation, whereas my husband is happy talking about the weather, or telling jokes.”
Sounds like my husband, LOL!!
And, there’s nothing wrong with desiring deep conversation at all, but if your husband isn’t “into” that, there’s no point in trying to push it on him. He’ll just resent it, just as a wife would resent being dragged to Nascar races or Star Trek conventions or gun shows just because her husband was interested in those things.
My advice is to live and let live, and seek out intellectual conversation online or at church — and who knows, as your husband matures, he just may come to be interested in theology, too.
May 21, 2009 at 2:22 pm
“Duh. I ain’t stupid. I know that. BUT…
Is it so wrong to want to have SPIRITUAL conversations with my husband, instead of just having to listen to stupid jokes or something of that nature? My personality desires very deep conversation, whereas my husband is happy talking about the weather, or telling jokes.”
Sorry, Mrs W. I must have misunderstood you when you said earlier:
“I need spiritual leadership and guidance”
May 21, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“That does not mean that the groups would not find it politically advantageous to pull together at some point, but I don’t see that happening at all. Phillips’ bunch and the elitist Great Commission folks are too separatist at this point. I don’t see that going away. It would take something huge to get the Joel’s Army people and the Vision Forum minded to merge.”
Yup…. starting with a LIFESTYLE.
These groups are doctrinally dissimilar – some are Arminian, some are Calvinist, some are patrio, and some are less so, but they all are pushing a hardline, militaristic theonomist/dominionist paradigm, and they percieve themselves as having a common “enemy” in the rest of us normal folk, both Christian and non-Christian, who don’t buy into dominionism.
That’s quite enough to draw them into an alliance — the Axis countries had even less in common during WWII, and look how that worked out.
The bright side is that no matter how much damage these bad boys end up doing (and I predict that before it’s all over, they’re gonna do plenty), they aren’t going to win in the end, because Jesus said that the MEEK will inherit the earth, and whatever else these guys are, meek they are definitely not!
May 21, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I have to watch movies that I’m not interested in, have to have sex when I’m not interested, so yes, he can have some spiritual conversation.
May 21, 2009 at 3:43 pm
And by the way I’m at a church who won’t have a spiritual conversation with me without my husband present.
May 21, 2009 at 4:12 pm
“Is it so wrong to want to have SPIRITUAL conversations with my husband, instead of just having to listen to stupid jokes or something of that nature? My personality desires very deep conversation…”
yeah, but not all the time, right? I mean, I like to tell stupid jokes and sing silly songs. There’s times for everything.
“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
a time to laugh,a time to dance, a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love.”
Ya know, the most profound things that my hubby has said, and that I have taken to heart and cherished, have been very simple truths from scripture that were right in front of my face all my life, that I just didn’t appreciate until he shared it with me.
“The full soul loatheth an honeycomb; but to the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet.”
May 21, 2009 at 5:01 pm
These people really are unbelievable. What kills me is how their younger, newer followers drink up every word. Doug Phillips outright lies about Kathryn Joyce’s choice of words in “Quiverfull” and Adlyn Morrison, one of his youngest and smartest (yet most gullible) followers was totally buying all his criticisms of Joyce and linking to his juvenile rant. I sent her an email explaining the truth of the matter and wonder if it’ll ever make any difference.
May 21, 2009 at 5:17 pm
“They all are pushing a hardline, militaristic theonomist/dominionist paradigm, and they percieve themselves as having a common “enemy” in the rest of us normal folk, both Christian and non-Christian, who don’t buy into dominionism.”
EXACTLY. Every time I see the Botkin girls and their followers I want to shake them and say, “Don’t you know that you’re defying EVERYTHING normal? Not just atheists, but Christians!! Give me a break.”
May 21, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Cynthia,
I have never seen the two groups be able to mix, and zealous people on both sides of the fence get quite defensive over the Calvinism/Arminianism issue. If those two groups would come together over lifestyle only, I don’t think they would work well together and would likely not be effective. (We can hope!
)
But there is a great deal of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” that now goes on in Christian politics, some of which I believe is actually played out on this blog at times.
And you point out an astute observation about dominionism not being religious but political…
Both are idealistic, and both of these types of idealistic systems are prone to totalitarianism. Christianity is idealistic, and this is why Christ must be central or it man will become central. The works of the flesh manifest in our hearts when we are not guided by the Spirit. Likewise, when groups of men get together to advance a cause through the works of the flesh and by man’s standard, you get thought reform. Look at the behavior of the group and the tactics used to advance any group. When they are void of the Spirit of God and when they are exercised without Christ crucified as the central message (replaced with no dating, submission doctrine, gender junk, church government, or even things like feeding the poor), you end up with a system that is utilitarian and bureaucratic. Lifton’s eight criteria of thought reform emerge. It is like the group manifestation of the works of the flesh in the individual.
Strip the details away, and Amway’s tactics reduce to the same tactics as Jim Jones as the Moonies as the Communist Party as the IRA as the Great Commission Ministries cult as the Heaven’s Gate as the PLO as Hilter. It is all about power and money and control and group rule. When that starts to eclipse individuals and Christ crucified, the result is the same. It turns into coercive thought reform.
May 21, 2009 at 7:01 pm
So all that said,
Dominionism is not a religion, it is political, and both can become idealistic totalism or totalitarianism or fascist when the group becomes more important than the individual and the end is used to justify the means, compromising ethics and loosing sight of the forest for the trees.
Religion is inherently political… Look at the Pharisees.
May 21, 2009 at 9:10 pm
“Religion is inherently political… Look at the Pharisees.”
Man-cantered religion is inherently political.
God-centered religion turns that on its head, with a system in which whoever would be greatest, must strive to be least of all.
May 22, 2009 at 1:26 am
Hey Heather1028 and Alisa,
It’s lovely to meet you! Sorry about the delay of my response. I tend to take a few days to reply on the internet, so this is normal for me.
Could I ask your age? Could you expand more on how your parents implemented Ezzo philosophies and how it has affected you?
Sure, I’m nineteen. As I was writing out some thoughts for you this afternoon, I realized that I have quite a few, and felt uncomfortable posting them on this thread, partly since it’s devoted to another subject, and partly because it can be tough for me to keep up with (which is why I usually de-lurk only on occasion).
Maybe, if you both wanted to explore this subject further, we could start a thread somewhere else to share and encourage each other. Perhaps Alisa, you’d like to write a post on your blog about this, and we could share in the comment section? It sounds like you have wisdom to share on this subject. I’d also be happy to set up a blog and post some of my thoughts (about how the method affected me, and how Jesus is healing me) that way, and we could share there. What sounds good to you? Any ideas?
Not to hijack the thread, but I’m also very interested in the Ezzo subject. Well, I guess not so much them, as that whole parenting approach and it’s unpleasantries (dare I say, even it’s extra-Scriptural basis?) and the practical alternatives out there.
Me too. I was really into researching this in the past year, with the purpose of working through and understanding my Ezzo experience, and what it taught me to believe about myself, others, and God. I think I agree with you on the extra-scriptural basis.
I feel like God has taken me on a personal journey into His heart on the subject and what parenting according to His preferences truly looks like, and then I read “Biblical Parenting” by Crystal Lutton, and her theological basis for no-spanking discipline read nearly word for word like what the thought process the Spirit had been personally taking me down.
Isn’t it great when stuff like that happens? God’s the best! Will have to remember the title and author of that book, just in case I ever become a parent someday.
I love the last paragraph of your comment. I so agree with you. When God’s in the picture, everything is redeemable. This has been true in my life. And his sweet grace is just overflowing! Even though my parents made a mistake with their choice of the Ezzo approach, they continued to grow in Jesus, which lead them toward a more loving relationship with us.
Oh, I’ll be away for the weekend, not sure if I’ll be able to access the internet. And as I said above, I’m a slowpoke when it comes to commenting. I’ll be watching for your replies, though, and will get back to you.
May 22, 2009 at 10:14 am
In Kevin Swanson’s radio broadcast from May 20, he quotes James Dobson as saying Christians are losing the culture war, and also says the US is going to be overrun by Muslims and Hispanics because atheists and apostate Christians are using birth control.
Much of the usual ranting here, but if you can wade through to the last few minutes, he talks about true Christians needing to “preserve their godly seed” and “resaltify” by withdrawing from the world for 40 years or so and strengthening their numbers in purity and holiness, then to return even stronger. Sounds like it goes along with the NZ plan–an interesting strategy for dominionists…retreat, regroup, THEN overcome.
Mark 7:14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
May 22, 2009 at 10:31 am
Sorry, I left off a crucial missing “R”:
“Retreat, regroup, reproduce, THEN overcome.”
May 22, 2009 at 10:41 am
Kathy, did he really say “he US is going to be overrun by Muslims and Hispanics because atheists and apostate Christians are using birth control. ”
Excuse me, but aren’t there Hispanic Christians. This sounds racist and kinist. We need to clarify that.
May 22, 2009 at 12:08 pm
The words were not in the same sentence–I put them together–but that is what I got from what he said (listened to it last night). I had the same thought, too–what about the many Hispanic believers in Christ–what does this say about the patriocentric opinion of them? Swanson did say he thought “they” would have more influence with them (Hispanics) than with the Muslims.
May 22, 2009 at 12:23 pm
It sounds racist and kinist because it IS racist and kinist.
In the typical dominionist worldview, most Hispanics don’t qualify as Christians because they are Catholics, and even non-Catholic Hispanics don’t qualify as being fitted for “dominion” because they aren’t white. Never-mind that Catholicism is the original Christian denomination, and that Christianity had its origins among brown-skinned people.
And did you ever notice that dominionists are all for everyone having big Christian families, as long as it’s THEIR brand of “Christians” who are having the big families?
But when it comes to non-white Christians, (especially non-white Catholic Christians!) having 8, 9, or 10 kids, and not using birth control, suddenly the WASPish Quiverfull folks get very, very quiet…
“There was an Old Biddy who Lived in a Shoe…”
Regarding the Quiverfull Movement, someone wrote,
“I have seen women who do not breastfeed or severely limit breastfeeding so they can have as many children in as little time as possible. They wonder why CPS is called on them all the time by their neighbors. Well, when your children are running around the neighborhood in March with no shoes on and no coats on and your toddler is in the middle of the road, that really is not a hard thing to comprehend. ”
So true.
And, other considerations come into play here as well. When a woman’s husband has a good job, and she can afford to have as many kids as she wants without resorting to medicaid or foodstamps (or, welfare– yes, working parents are eligible too, if they have more kids than income), that’s one thing, and everybody praises her in the gates, but just let Mom show up in the supermarket checkout line with nine kids and foodstamps, and the Busybodybiddies will be tsk-tsking.
If Mom and kids have dark hair and eyes, they will also be tsk-tsking about those Mexican Catholic immigrants who are coming here illegally and taking over the country.
If the family is black, they will be muttering words like “welfare queen”, even if no food stamps are in sight and Mom is wearing a head-doily and a wedding ring.
And if the Mom is white and the kids are black, better call 911, because half a dozen Mrs. Busybodybiddies will have just passed out in aisle #5 of the Piggly Wiggly from an old-fashioned attack of the vapors.”
May 22, 2009 at 2:34 pm
When did Christianity become exclusively Caucasian? I missed the memo.
God can’t turn the heart of a Muslim to believe in Christ Jesus? Sounds like this is not an ominous sign of the death of White Chritianity so much as it is a sign to become skilled at a targeted type of evangelism. But what do we expect from a group that is essentially operating on a principle of Social Darwinism and social engineering? The Christian, no matter what the color of their skin, must be prepared to evangelize the most rapidly growing group. The 10-40 Window is coming to our backyard and our front yard, and we no longer have to go looking for opportunities to minister the Gospel. They are coming to us.
It seems to me that this aberrant group that is so devoted to seed and the Old Testament legalism needs to go back to review the fact that Israel was often outnumbered. Did the God of the Old Testament suddenly become spiritually impotent or something? Does the Word of God suddenly return void, failing to accomplish what God sends it to do????
2 Kings 6:16-18
“Don’t be afraid,” the prophet answered. “Those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” And Elisha prayed, “O LORD, open his eyes so he may see.” Then the LORD opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. As the enemy came down toward him, Elisha prayed to the LORD, “Strike these people with blindness.” So he struck them with blindness, as Elisha had asked.
2 Kings 20:15-22
He said: “Listen, King Jehoshaphat and all who live in Judah and Jerusalem! This is what the LORD says to you: ‘Do not be afraid or discouraged because of this vast army. For the battle is not yours, but God’s. Tomorrow march down against them. They will be climbing up by the Pass of Ziz, and you will find them at the end of the gorge in the Desert of Jeruel. You will not have to fight this battle. Take up your positions; stand firm and see the deliverance the LORD will give you, O Judah and Jerusalem. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Go out to face them tomorrow, and the LORD will be with you.’ ”
Jehoshaphat bowed with his face to the ground, and all the people of Judah and Jerusalem fell down in worship before the LORD. Then some Levites from the Kohathites and Korahites stood up and praised the LORD, the God of Israel, with very loud voice.
Early in the morning they left for the Desert of Tekoa. As they set out, Jehoshaphat stood and said, “Listen to me, Judah and people of Jerusalem! Have faith in the LORD your God and you will be upheld; have faith in his prophets and you will be successful.” After consulting the people, Jehoshaphat appointed men to sing to the LORD and to praise him for the splendor of his holiness as they went out at the head of the army, saying:
“Give thanks to the LORD,
for his love endures forever.”
As they began to sing and praise, the LORD set ambushes against the men of Ammon and Moab and Mount Seir who were invading Judah, and they were defeated. The men of Ammon and Moab rose up against the men from Mount Seir to destroy and annihilate them. After they finished slaughtering the men from Seir, they helped to destroy one another.
I guess God only shuts the mouth of the lion for white guys?????? I’d rather like to think that the missions money that the US has poured into places like South America and Africa will come back to bless the United States. I’ve hosted South American and African missionaries to the US in my home when they visited. Hallelujah! All this means is that Muslims are going to come to faith in Christ, and we have lots of time to prepare for the harvest.
May 22, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Well, this might keep folks like Wilson really busy with imprecatory prayer…
He has all of these babies that he can pray for God to make die in utero, as per his discourse in “Mother Kirk.” One only need to be pro-life when dealing with God’s elect. We will know they are Christians by the color of their skin…
May 22, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Let me be fair to all those who are concerned about the growth of ethnic groups. And the kinists who believe that people can be whatever color (usually indicative of one’s ethnic group) they are so long as they don’t mix with other colors (usually indicative of one’s ethnic group).
We will know that they are elect by whether or not they are in the right ethnic group would be a better and more true statement, based on what has been written by these folks.
I just don’t understand how a group that supposedly focuses on God’s sovereignty as a primary claim to fame has so little confidence in that sovereignty when it comes to demographics.
It’s like the Napoleon Hill version of the Great Commission.
May 22, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Mrs. W
((((HUGS))))
I’m praying for you to see your incredible worth in our Savior’s eyes, and that you wouldn’t listen to the voices that make you second guess what His Spirit is telling you about love, patience and co-operating together in a marriage.
These are hard and painful things to go through. I just encourage you to pray, pray, pray that God would open your husband’s eyes to the Truth in Jesus (while seeking a “safe” zone to grow). What the women here have said is true: you are precious and the way you’ve been treated in your relationship and by the manipulators in your sphere of church influence are wrong. They have an agenda, and it’s not the love of Christ.
Please seek someone outside of patriocentric circles in real life for help (if you can) and continue to come here for encouragement. We love you.
In Christ’s unfailing Love,
Kathleen
May 22, 2009 at 3:32 pm
You know, I keep reading all this talk of NZ, and I keep coming back to something Sara Robertson wrote:
Goin’ Up To The Country
Of course, you can only live by your own rules for so long before you start drawing unwanted attention to yourself. So, in trying to stay under the radar, these groups often decide to move out of town to some remote corner of the world, buying up large tracts of country property where they can build a compound and be left to “live in peace” — though, too often, peace is about the last thing that results from this.
According to CSIS, “goin’ up to the country” is a watershed moment in the development of a dangerous group. The decision to withdraw from society is often the first overt act of paranoia — a clear statement that the group believes that mainstream authority is “out to get us,” and is strongly asserting the right to live outside the law. Furthermore, in the isolation of the compound, leaders are free to consolidate their arbitrary control over the group’s members, without any social counterbalance at all — “a situation that facilitates violence,” as the report observes.
In this hothouse environment, suspicion and dependency flourish; and the unquestioned conviction that the outside world means them harm — and they must organize and arm themselves for the coming showdown — takes deep root. The persistence of this pattern is borne out by the huge numbers of rural cult compounds that turned into armed camps in recent American history. Jonestown. Waco. The Aryan Nations’ Hayden Lake camp in Idaho. Elizabeth Clare Prophet’s attempt to arm her retreat in Montana. The Hare Krishna compound in West Virginia. Rajneeshpuram in Oregon. (The biggest example of all may be the Mormon exodus to Utah, where Brigham Young’s growing paranoia led him to order the Mountain Meadows Massacre.) When a charismatic leader moves his or her group en masse from the city to the country, that group has crossed a Rubicon beyond which the likelihood of violence increases dramatically.
From http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/02/are-they-crazy-dangerous-or-just-plain.html
At least they’ll be goin’ up to someone else’s country.
May 22, 2009 at 3:54 pm
“When did Christianity become exclusively Caucasian? I missed the memo.”
I’ll add: When did Christianity become exclusively American?
It seems to me that these groups are not at all about the Great Commission, and have no desire to leave their “Jerusalem” (wherever it may be) to go and preach the gospel. And, honestly, if they were more open to preaching the gospel, they wouldn’t have to leave the city to find the lost, they would find the world in their backyard. Columbus (OH) is an excellent example of the world in one place. Take a campus like OSU and you will find nearly every nation represented there, most of the people are lost.
To me, this is clearly a reversal of the command to preach to the lost, rather it is exactly why many of the old churches die.
May 22, 2009 at 6:05 pm
“At least they’ll be goin’ up to someone else’s country.”
Let them go somewhere else, then — I’ve got good friends in NZ.
May 22, 2009 at 6:23 pm
“To me, this is clearly a reversal of the command to preach to the lost, rather it is exactly why many of the old churches die.”
Actually, the old churches are dying because they DO still preach to the lost — the trouble is, people have grown tired of that message, and they want something newer and fresher.
The new cults are quick to step in, offering disaffected, bored Christians a “victorious life” filled with “power “where believers can become super-holy by “separating themselves from the world” and breeding the next generation of believers themselves, rather than preaching the Gospel and making converts, in accordance with the Great Commission.
May 23, 2009 at 9:27 am
Annie C, thanks for the Sara Robinson article.
Sort of made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end.
May 23, 2009 at 9:36 am
“When did Christianity become exclusively American? ”
Abby, this is something I have been talking about for a long time as it relates to the “roles of women” and “Christian decorum” within these circles. Can you imagine some of the things that the patriocentrists assign to women under the heading of “godly womanhood” being practiced or accepted in most nations around the world? If these nonessentials of their faith are already preventing them from real ministry to real families, families who really need the Gospel message and the real application of it, imagine how not accepted these nonessentials are in other countries.
I recalled a story in my series of FIC articles about a man and his two daughters who attended the church for a while. He was separated from his wife and had the girls on most weekends and brought them to church. This man was clueless about the Gospel to begin with and was expected to do all the things most families cannot even pull off on a regular basis. There was a hesitancy to get too involved with them because the little girls were so worldly wise. There was no wife for the moms to invite to the home. And, frankly, by the time you got done doing all the things that were expected of you as a home discipleship family, there was little to no time to work through the huge pile of problems that man brought along with him. So imagine taking the patriocentric message into the inner city or into the upper strata of corporate America.
But the true Gospel is another story. It spans all people groups, all times, all cultures, all strata of society.
May 23, 2009 at 10:48 am
Cynthia,
Your comment reminds me of a professor I had in college. He was once the president of the school, and was a full-time minister at a church in the city. He advocated cold calling, as in, walking around the neighborhood and knocking on doors. Unfortunately, this is just not affective anymore because of the Jehovah’s Witnesses doing the same thing.
I don’t believe that this method was ever highly effective, maybe somewhat effective, but not enough to think that it was the “only way” to do it. I prefer the servant evangelism that many churches now do, because it draws people to YOU. When you do something out of genuine service, people want to know why, and you have a ready-made situation to preach the gospel. It also puts a better light on Christianity than the world has on us right now, which is an added bonus. My church now does a “serve the city” weekend twice a year, where there are many projects all around the city with the goal of simply serving others, while possibly having an opportunity to plant the seed of the gospel.
Back to the old churches, I think there are many that still do what this old professor did, but there are also many who are stingy with the gospel, and prefer to share it only with those like themselves, which ensures that either the church will never grow, or they will only bring in acceptable newcomers. It’s not that much different from the elitism of these fringe theologies.
May 23, 2009 at 10:51 am
Also wanted to add that the only life filled with “power” that I know of is that which doesn’t separate itself from the world but lives out the words of Jesus IN the world. Any kind of separatist lifestyle is dead and powerless, right? I mean, who are you going to reach if you treat all of life like the people living in “The Village”?
May 23, 2009 at 11:06 am
“So imagine taking the patriocentric message into the inner city or into the upper strata of corporate America.”
It doesn’t even work within their own little circle.
Any family that varies from the norm of “Father, Mother, and at least several kids” doesn’t fit in. People who have only one or two children are OUT, single moms and dads are OUT (and that includes widows, widowers, and those who have been abandoned by their spouses — folks who are not willingly single.)
Childless couples are also OUT, no matter that their childlessness is not of their own doing — the patrios generally maintain that barrenness is the result of sin, in order to hide the fact that their paradigm is fundamentally flawed.
And, last but not least, people who choose to remain unmarried are OUT, even though the Bible declares that remaining single in order to serve the Lord is a more virtuous lifestyle that marriage, if a person can maintain celibacy without sin.
In order to fully embrace the patrio lifestyle, a person must abandon the example and teachings of Christ and the Apostles, and return to the ways of Old Testament. It is impossible for a person to fully embrace both patriarchy and the New Testament — after a certain point, the two lifestyles and the teachings behind them become mutually exclusive.
May 23, 2009 at 11:54 am
Annie C, thanks for the article, too. I made note of it, although I didn’t much like it. Paranoia seems to be a state I and others in my family are noticing more and more, and I can see where it often ends up.
Karen, that is a sad, but probably somewhat typical, story (#580). Of course, sometimes regular churches may not do much better, unfortunately, and I’m confessing times where I found it messy to get involved, especially when my kids were younger.
But the true Gospel is another story. It spans all people groups, all times, all cultures, all strata of society. AMEN!
Cindy K, I appreciate you, your encouragement and your voice of reason so much! I love the verses out of 2 Kings–thanks for the reminder!!
The 10-40 Window is coming to our backyard and our front yard, and we no longer have to go looking for opportunities to minister the Gospel. They are coming to us. Praise God, He is faithful, sovereign, and always at work!
May 23, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Abby, I think what your church is doing is why it is growing in number and having such an impact in an area that has been largely unreached. And you are right about power coming through living out Christ’s life in culture, in the world, but not of it.
In order to fully embrace the patrio lifestyle, a person must abandon the example and teachings of Christ and the Apostles, and return to the ways of Old Testament. It is impossible for a person to fully embrace both patriarchy and the New Testament — after a certain point, the two lifestyles and the teachings behind them become mutually exclusive. Once again, Cynthia, you have hit the nail on the head.
I was trying to think (after Annie C’s article) of any of the separatist “going to the country” movements that have been fruitful in God’s eyes and have lasted. Maybe someone can fill me in on one (I’m sure the Puritans coming to America are what the patrios want to claim, but they didn’t last as a separatist group.) So I’m thinking Waco, Mountain Meadows, YFZ Ranch in Eldorado, Jonestown, Lancaster, even Geneva and Calvin.
Can anyone think of one? Anybody? (crickets)
May 23, 2009 at 5:44 pm
I noticed today that we are getting lots of visits the past few days from blogs who are referring their readers here. If you are new, welcome!
I have been reading back through all the patriarchy/patriocentricity threads beginning with the Visionary Daughters and man oh man have we shared some great discussions and insights here! I encourage everyone who hasn’t read there to go back and do so. And, if you have read there but not for a while, it is some awesome reading. As I have said many times before, it is fun to have smart girlfriends!
Thanks, ladies, for always making this a spot on the web that stretches my thinking process!
May 25, 2009 at 1:30 pm
““When did Christianity become exclusively American? ”
Abby, this is something I have been talking about for a long time as it relates to the “roles of women” and “Christian decorum” within these circles. Can you imagine some of the things that the patriocentrists assign to women under the heading of “godly womanhood” being practiced or accepted in most nations around the world? If these nonessentials of their faith are already preventing them from real ministry to real families, families who really need the Gospel message and the real application of it, imagine how not accepted these nonessentials are in other countries.”
Don’t forget how Lady Lydia tried to revise history by telling people that black, Christian, slave women stayed inside the cabin to care for the kids and cook dinner for their slave “husband” (who wasn’t really their husband) when he came home from “work”.
When the focus is on the patriarchalist’s own homegrown brand of “biblical woman’s role”, you will find them jamming a square peg into a round hole in order to suit their message.
May 25, 2009 at 1:50 pm
“Also, why is it that I can ask my husband to do something, and he tells me he’ll get it done by a certain time, and when he doesn’t and a few days later I ask him again, that it’s “nagging” him. If he asks me over and over to do the same thing it’s “reminding” me, but if I do it it’s “nagging”. If I bring it up, all he can say (like a three year old is) well, now you know how it feels (because of course he has no explanation for why it is right for him but wrong for me except that he wants it to be like that.”
A good friend of mine was told by her pastor that her husband was the one who defined what nagging is. The pastor then asked her husband what his own personal definition of “nagging” was and the husband responded by saying that it is whenever his wife asks him or mentions something more than once. The pastor then told my friend that she must submit to her husband’s definition of the word “nag”.
They were in marital counseling because he would hit her. The counseling addressed her “problems” that were “causing” the abuse.
I would call it what it is- nagging. If he defines it as nagging when you remind him, then it is nagging when he does it to you. I would “remind” him that he is not “one-anothering” you and that you dislike his “nagging” as much as he dislikes your “nagging”. Maybe that would lead to a discussion on how the same action is being redefined depending upon who is on the receiving end?
Why is it that the same action is not called by the same word? Hypocrisy. The old classic “do as I say not as I do”.
But, this is so FAR from what the Bible does teaching about marriage it isn’t even funny. We are to consider others better than our own selves, we are to put the interests of others above our own and we are to treat others as we want to be treated- that is Biblical love.
I am tired of people making up rules about marriage when the Bible is very clear on how we are to treat others, especially when these manmade rules fly in the face of clear Scriptural principles.
May 25, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“Furthermore, to put a stumblingblock before your wife, and cause her to fear and doubt God’s love, grace and power in her life, is indeed sin! To put her in bondage to superstition- so that she fears to choose what she prefers because she may be punished, is unconscionable! It’s emotional abuse! It’s spiritual abuse! And she’s pregnant and vulnerable. Who’s protecting this woman? I’m sorry, this upsets me. It sounds like a future edition of “No Longer Quivering” shudders! ”
Momgodin,
I am there right with you. It upsets me, too.
What upsets me more is that this very attitude is taught, ad nauseam, by the patriocentrists/patriarchalists and complementarians. “Created to Be His Helpmeet” is one such example. “Me Obey Him?” is another book crammed down the throats of women.
Also, the article referenced by Annie C about male privilege is insightful because this is what is found in patrio/comp writings.
Women are told that their needs are met by meeting the needs of their husband while that is not true in so many cases. A man’s need for sex, respect, honor, obedience is what is of primary concern in a relationship and a woman’s need for respect, real intimacy (not just the “wham, bam, thank-you maam” type), honor, appreciation are not really needs but selfish desires.
My friend was told that if she expected conversation with her husband in their marriage that she should have marriage a woman because her expectation was sinful and something men are not equipped for.
That is b.s. because how many of these same men who can’t converse with their wives now that they are married, eloquently conversed with these same women before they were married?
Patriarchy teaches us the very things/attitudes that Mrs. W’s husband exhibits. And, I truly empathize with Mrs. W about feeling worthless as a woman. Wondering why God made a brain for women when we don’t really need it and it would be so much more easier to exist and thrive in a patriarchal culture if we didn’t have one. In fact, I would have preferred a lobotomy so that I could just stop being myself and having my own thoughts/desires. I was there, once. In fact, I lived it for most of my life. In fact, I was taught that during my young years as a girl.
The fact is that women have needs and desires of their own and they are no more or less important or sinful than a man’s needs and desires.
May 25, 2009 at 8:04 pm
“Don’t forget how Lady Lydia tried to revise history by telling people that black, Christian, slave women stayed inside the cabin to care for the kids and cook dinner for their slave “husband” (who wasn’t really their husband) when he came home from “work”.”
LOL. THAT was a riot. Thanks for the laugh!
May 25, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Off topic, but I just happened to see this while reading the news tonight … this child could use our prayers:
PHOENIX – Boxer Mike Tyson’s 4-year-old daughter is on life support after she was found with her neck on a treadmill cable Monday, police said.
The girl’s 7-year-old brother found her on a treadmill with her neck on a cable attached to the exercise machine at their Phoenix home, police Sgt. Andy Hill said, calling it a “tragic accident.”
The boy told the girl’s mother, who was in another room. She took the girl off the cable, called 911 and tried to revive her.
Responding officers and firefighters performed CPR on the girl as they rushed her to a nearby hospital, where she was in “extremely critical condition” and on life support, Hill said.
“Somehow she was playing on this treadmill, and there’s a cord that hangs under the console — it’s kind of a loop,” Hill said. “Either she slipped or put her head in the loop, but it acted like a noose, and she was obviously unable to get herself off of it.”
Hill said former heavyweight champion Tyson had been in Las Vegas but flew to Phoenix immediately after learning of the accident. Police didn’t release the girl’s name.
Tyson could not immediately be reached for comment. Calls to three of his representatives were either not returned or not answered.
Brief footage from local TV station KTVK showed Tyson arriving at the hospital in a white button-up and black pants, and looking around with a frown before going inside.
Hill said everything in the investigation pointed to an accident. “There’s nothing in the investigation that revealed anything suspicious,” he said.
He added that responding to calls involving children is an officer’s most difficult duty.
“Those are the things that stay with you in your career,” he said. “We always hope for a miracle — not to have the worst happen to a child.”
May 26, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Mrs W,
I’ve actually been praying over that same subject, of finding that place of communication that isn’t expecting our husbands to be our girlfriends, but rather what is reasonable and healthy for us to be relating about ourselves to our life-partners and having them invested in that as well. I haven’t found that place yet, and we’re definitely not in the patrio/comp camp. So it’s not always a theological thing, sometimes it’s just a human thing. But boy, do human things hurt a lot…
Heather and sourcabbage,
Yes! I would love to continue discussing this, and sure, if you want to use my little-bitty blog, let’s go for it. I’ll post a quick something so there’s something available now and then we can get into the good stuff.
May 26, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Okay, I just posted something for anyone interested in discussing what God’s heart in parenting really is and what it does and doesn’t look like. Just click my name or here:
http://becomingthekindofwomaniwantmydaughtertobe.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/gods-heart-in-parenting-what-it-is-and-what-it-isnt/
See you when you get around to it, sourcabbage and Heather! No rush, my time online is limited too.
May 26, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Okay, this is perverse, imho. Something is very wrong in Patrioland and what he says about a man’s “need” for attention from younger women is ridiculous. A father is not to be looking to meet his ego-stroking “need” for attention from younger women in his daughter.
Voddie Baucham talks about how God gave men daughters because they “yearn for attention from younger women”. Really? Is that why daughters are born? Gack.
Here is what he said verbatim:
“A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who can give them that. And instead they go find a substitute daughter….you’ve seen it, we’ve all seen it. These old guys going and finding these substitute daughters.”
A “substitute daughter”???? Huh? These older men are having sex with these younger women. These younger women stroke their egos and are status symbols. They are not looking for “substitute daughters”. They are looking for a sexual encounter. They are looking to satisfy their lust. Hello? Earth to Patrioland?
Vodie states that his daughter is 17 years old and still climbs up into his lap. He says that a daughter’s first boyfriend coincides with when Dad didn’t let them sit on his lap anymore. (I stopped sitting on my dad’s lap long before my first boyfriend.) They yearn for some male to show them the kind of physical attention and affection they used to get from their father. But, the world lied to their Daddys and told him that he couldn’t give you that which the daughter needed anymore. Thus she runs off into the arms of some sinful, lustful boy.
So, Daddy is getting his “needs” met for attention/affection from a younger woman through his daughter. Is it any wonder that basically adult women are being taught to sit on their father’s laps?
I know that I would have found it quite icky to sit on my father’s lap at that age. There are plenty of ways a father can show his daughter that he loves her and show her affection in a much less sexual way. A young woman’s sexual needs are net met through their fathers. A father being affectionate with his daughter should be WAY different than the romantic affection between a man and woman NOT related.
And what about mothers and sons? Don’t sons need the physical affection from women? Maybe sons wouldn’t be having sex before marriage if the world didn’t lie to “Mommy” and tell her that there is something wrong with cuddling up with her 17 year old son? Don’t mothers need the attention from younger men to validate her sexuality,too? Didn’t God make sons for the purpose of satisfying this “yearning” that women have for the attention of younger men? Anyone hear of the term “Cougar”? Hello, Voddie! Men are not the only ones who like pretty, young things and who “yearn” for fresh, young blood.
Why aren’t sons being encouraged to cuddle-up with dear old “Mommy”…maybe put his head on her bosom and she could stroke his hair? That way the mother is getting her needs met for a younger man through her son and the son is getting his needs met for physical affection for a woman. Where do boys go to get their need for female affection?
The whole thing is off. This is just wrong and it gives a whole new meaning to being “engaged to Daddy”.
If the patrios think that men have a God-given “need” and yearning for the attention of younger women and that God has given them daughters to meet that need, then I predict polygamy is right around the corner.
Daughters are NOT given to fathers to meet their “yearnings” for younger women or validate their aging sexuality. Daughters are taboo. But, someone could make the case that a new, young wife could fit the bill nicely and even the Bible says it is okay.
May 26, 2009 at 4:07 pm
He also says that women have a natural inclination towards an emotional, intuitive version of love they have to be taught how to exhibit biblical womanhood which pushes beyond that to the appropriate kind of love.
This was stated at the very end of the above video segment and it comes right after his talk on how Christ showed love on the cross.
Love is an act of the will, a choice, it was not selfish.
Now, it has been my experience that men need to be taught to push beyond the emotional/intuitive type of love, too. Come on. Are we fooling ourselves by thinking that agape love comes more easily to men?
Both men and women tend to go by their feelings and emotions.
Also, it would make it easier for women if they weren’t constantly being fed a diet of pablum when it comes to literature that gives the illusion of constant romance.
May 26, 2009 at 5:36 pm
““A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who can give them that. And instead they go find a substitute daughter….you’ve seen it, we’ve all seen it. These old guys going and finding these substitute daughters.””
Are you kidding me? Men want younger women as substitute daughters? What in the world? Men want younger women because they are more sexually appealing. I have known lots of men who traded in their wives for younger versions but have not once seen them treat these women as daughters. Is anyone really buying that?
As far as physical attention for both moms and dads and their children, we are a pretty physically demonstrative family and always have been. My boys all hug me, tell me they love me when they call, and not once has it ever been a weird thing. The same is true for my daughter and husband, she with me, and our sons with their dad. My youngest son will still give me a kiss on the cheek in public! BUT, that being said, each and every one of us knows when that line would be crossed and we would never get near the line, let alone cross it. I believe that using this terminology that Voddie is using and comparing dad to the boyfriend is the first step of getting close to that line. Daughters should never ever think of their fathers in those terms. Dads can be appropriately affectionate all through life without entering the weird zone. And normal people now where that zone is. What is going on with the patriocentrists?
May 26, 2009 at 5:37 pm
“Also, it would make it easier for women if they weren’t constantly being fed a diet of pablum when it comes to literature that gives the illusion of constant romance.”
No kidding. I remember when a patrio wife tried to tell me that the Jane Austen books are not romances. LOL
May 26, 2009 at 5:47 pm
You know, I can see what Voddie is trying to say and I think there are bits of truth to it, but the fact that he can relate all this to their version of what families should look like is DEEPLY disturbing.
THAT is the real issue here. They look at society and take their perception of what’s wrong with it and concoct their own so-called cures instead of looking at Scripture and simply following what it explicitly lays out for how we are to interact with each other and the world. They are taking their cues from society (ONE society in ONE time and place) and making universal, sweeping, grandiose pronouncements on how WE (really, THEY) can be the heroes.
Whatever happened to JESUS being the Savior of the World?
May 26, 2009 at 6:12 pm
When will end??????? :p
I heard him say “Love is a work of sanctification.”
Agree! Yet he says we have to teach young women to love biblically?
But the Holy Spirit does this!
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love” Gal 5:22 “Abide in me and ye shall bring forth much fruit.” not complicated.
He joked,
“Girl you leave me? I tell her, I’m going with you! (laughter) Love is a choice.”
Doesn’t sound like she has a choice!
May 26, 2009 at 6:16 pm
No, Karen, I am not buying it at all. It all seems very self-serving. And all this talk about how older men need the attention/affection of younger women and God gave them daughters to meet this (sensual) “need” gives me a glimpse as to possible motive behind all the teachings about daughters and fathers.
“What is going on with the patriocentrists?”
I will not be shocked if, 10 years down the road, we see some of the patriarchalists making a case for polygamy and taking extra wives.
They have already taken a step in that direction by saying that a man has need for the attention of younger women.
And, you are right, no man who has left his wife for a younger woman treats that younger woman like a daughter! What a joke.
I am thinking about how I have noticed how these young girls are thrust out in front (the young, pretty ones, that is) while their own mothers are virtually invisible and non-existent.
Surrounding one’s self with the attentions of young women is something that Warren Jeff’s does not something Bible-believing Christians think is proper.
I think the dangerous part is when he said that God gave men daughters to fulfill these “needs”! Yikes!
I am also thinking more about the Daddy/Daughter events with more of this light shed on the whole thing. Shaving, dressing and grooming daddy? Yep. Makes sense.
May 26, 2009 at 6:41 pm
I remember listening to a recording of “What he must be if he wants to marry my daughter” with a group of girlfriends one night, and being a little weirded out, but not exactly knowing why. Now that I listen to this, and remember what I heard through those recordings, it was the implication of *control.* And that because I did not like the idea of having my every step controlled by a man, I was rebellious and disobedient.
May 26, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Isn’t Voddie basically describing the relationship Elsie Dinsmore had with her father?
May 26, 2009 at 7:22 pm
I’ll throw this out there, I just remembered it. I read it a little while ago on the internet. It’s an Islamic story, from the Koran, I believe, I really don’t know for certain.
Anyways… a man comes to Mohammad and asks him who he should love most on earth. Mohammad says, “your mother.” The man asks Mohammad, “and after that?” Again Mohammad says, “your mother.” The man asks him a third time who he should love most on earth after that, and Mohammad says again, “your mother.” So he asks him a fourth time, who he should love the most after his mom (who now has the top three spots on “people I need to love today”) and Mohammad tells him, “your father.”
Please, please understand, I’m not trying to teach Islam. You can delve into the Biblical comparisons and pickings apart if you like to; I have myself. But I thought, as I was reading over some of these recent posts, that the juxtaposition between this story, and the teaching of the patrios is somewhat humorous and completely opposite. While this Muslim story is shelling out that you should honor and love your mom first above all things, patrios have kind of shoved her on the back burner.
The other thought that has come to mind as I’ve been contemplating this, is that it seems that in very strict, radical Muslim countries, like the middle east, this probably isn’t carried out very well, given the complete domination of men in these lands. Slightly like the patrios’ teachings.
May 26, 2009 at 8:52 pm
“No, Karen, I am not buying it at all. It all seems very self-serving. And all this talk about how older men need the attention/affection of younger women and God gave them daughters to meet this (sensual) “need” gives me a glimpse as to possible motive behind all the teachings about daughters and fathers.”
Yeah, this is just creepy that he would go there. To me, just the fact that his mind has gone there tells me he’s totally distracted from what we really should be consumed with: the Gospel and God’s work in the hearts of His creation.
“I will not be shocked if, 10 years down the road, we see some of the patriarchalists making a case for polygamy and taking extra wives.
They have already taken a step in that direction by saying that a man has need for the attention of younger women.”
Me neither. It’s truly frightening.
“I am thinking about how I have noticed how these young girls are thrust out in front (the young, pretty ones, that is) while their own mothers are virtually invisible and non-existent.”
It was this very observation that brought me out of lurkdom to first comment on this blog. It’s pure marketing. And like Voddie so accurately pointed out, it also meets the totally worldly and fleshly desires to be surrounded by youth and beauty instead of what Scripture lays out as virtuous. You don’t see the ugly, spiritual girls on the cover of the VF catalog… or any of the myriad of DVD’s, CD’s and books on how girls are to be handled.
“I think the dangerous part is when he said that God gave men daughters to fulfill these “needs”! Yikes!”
Yes, this is just disgusting. He’s right in that these girls are being used to fulfill the father’s/man’s desires. But to say that that is God’s will… that is just despicable.
May 26, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Karen,
I have not read any Elsie Dinsmore books (though I see that they are on Project Gutenburg, so no one needs to put out money to buy them. I understand that you need to “bring your own insulin” when you read them.
So I don’t know that this is the stuff of Elsie Dinsmore, but it is certainly the stuff of enmenshment and Covert Incest. I defer to Patricia Love’s book on the subject, and you can read more about this on the Overcoming Botkin Syndrome site I set up to counter these teachings. It’s interesting, but Freud was obsessed and preoccupied with sex, projecting his obsession on to everyone else, likely because he felt guilty for adultery with his live-in sister-in-law while still very married to his wife. He was someone who made such conjectures about men’s “needs” and drives, but at least he did not robe them in the other gospel of the patriocentric family.
This whole idea of a man needing attention from young women strikes me as like something Freud would have said as opposed to, lets say, the Apostle Paul. From whence did Paul get his “needs” met? And what of men who have all sons? Maybe family patriarchs should teach their daughters to “minister” to older men who have only sons or no children at all to sit sit on their laps? Will Voddie offer up his daughter for this ministry? Somehow, I don’t think so, and I would imagine that he’d be zealous to deck such an older man with these “needs” for any mere suggestion that they be gratified in such a way. What supposedly Biblical means do they pursue to get girls to sit on their laps? That seems to be turning more than one’s heart to one’s father. It seems that these “needs” ought to be mortified. And why does this discussion of “needs” put me in mind of a line from some young, handsome stud sweet talking a girl at Lover’s Lane in a lousy B horror movie, right before the swamp thing appears to punish them for their sins of lust?
http://botkinsyndrome.blogspot.com/2008/07/characteristics-of-covert-emotional.html
WHAT IS
“BOTKIN SYNDROME”?
The dysfunctional dynamics and long-term effects of the teachings of the Botkin Sisters and Vision Forum (Covert/emotional incest, non-sexual but gender related incest intermingled with the the teachings of patriarchy/patriocentricity)
WHAT IS COVERT/EMOTIONAL INCEST?
As related to Botkin Syndrome, incest is the using of one family member (generally an adult) in an inappropriate way to meet needs at the expense of the other party: usually a parent that uses a child to gratify needs that should only be met by another adult.
(According to the literature of psychology, does not always refer to sexual violation.)
COVERT Incest: Use of a child by a parent (or sibling) to meet adult needs (non-sexual, psychological, emotional or religious)
OVERT Incest: sexual violation
Read “Emotional Incest Syndrome” by Patricia Love and “Silently Seduced” by Kenneth Adams and “Love Addiction” by Pia Mellody.
May 26, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I will not be shocked if, 10 years down the road, we see some of the patriarchalists making a case for polygamy and taking extra wives.
I will not be shocked if some of these girls come out with tell-all books about highly inappropriate behavior. I mean good gumdrops, that was *creepy*
May 26, 2009 at 9:28 pm
“And that because I did not like the idea of having my every step controlled by a man, I was rebellious and disobedient.”
Catherine,
It sounds like you’re a fairly healthy individual.
Only someone who has some serious issues actually wants to be completely controlled by someone else. It cracks my up because GOD doesn’t even take it upon Himself to control us. He wants us to do that ourselves. And then He wants us to ABIDE with Him. Totally opposite paradigms.
May 26, 2009 at 9:51 pm
“I will not be shocked if, 10 years down the road, we see some of the patriarchalists making a case for polygamy and taking extra wives.”
Well, if that does happen, I gotta admit that even polygamy is healthier than barely-sublimated incest.
May 27, 2009 at 8:21 am
“I am thinking about how I have noticed how these young girls are thrust out in front (the young, pretty ones, that is) while their own mothers are virtually invisible and non-existent.”
This is one of the things that first bothered me about the whole patriarchy/patriocentrist issue. I remember being bothered by how all of the programs/retreats/etc. sponsored by VF are geared toward fathers. There are no programs for mothers — none. I wonder, do they tell these girls that once they get married, they will disappear?
May 27, 2009 at 10:06 am
It really does seem that the bulk of patriocentric teachings revolve around the father/daughter relationship.
I wonder why the wives aren’t being instructed to sit on their husband’s laps to meet these “needs”? Why does it seem, from my own personal experience, that many times the father in these patriocentric groups seem to be much more friendly with their own daughters while their wife sits off to the side?
The daddy-shaving/daddy-dressing/daddy-grooming activities make more sense in light of the statement that God gave men daughters to meet their “need” for the attention of younger women.
I would think it would be hard to let these daughters go in marriage knowing that the attention, so needed, of a younger woman was going to disappear. What then? What do these men do when they no longer have a daughter to fawn over them and meet their needs? Will they be tempted to leave their wives to find a “substitute daughter”?
What happened to being satisfied with the breasts of the wife of your youth?
It also helps me to understand the Botkin girls’ book better. Especially where they advice the young women to ask their fathers what colors of clothing give their fathers pleasure and then wear those colors.
It is almost like being able to relive the whole dating relationship again and again.
Bill Gothard once gave a talk telling women that they shouldn’t be jealous of their husband’s close relationship with their daughters. Women were feeling “left out” because the fathers were “dating” their daughters and physically close (ie., sitting on laps) He told them that the daughter is a younger (and obedient) version of them and it reminds the father of his time of courtship with the mother.
May 27, 2009 at 10:20 am
I am wondering if anyone can think of any Biblical perspective that would support Baucham’s premise that men need the attention of younger women? I have thought about this for the past day and can’t think of a single thing.
May 27, 2009 at 10:35 am
Karen,
I can think of plenty of Bible verses that fly in the face of such an assertion.
I see no where in the Bible that a man needs the attention of younger women much less any woman but his own wife.
2 Tim 2:22 tells us to flee youthful lusts…basically don’t fall into a midlife crisis where you need a new sports car and a nubile young woman on your arm.
The whole thought is worldly, imho.
It is one thing to say that one enjoys the attention of a younger member of the opposite sex and quite another thing to say that God meets that “need”.
Sure, that sort of attention is quite flattering and it gives a great boost to an aging ego but I hardly think it is a need and it is certainly NOT gender specific!
I would like to see if the patriarchalists turn the same sentiment around and use it for mothers/sons. Certainly our sons need the same sort of thing from their mothers in order to protect them from immorality and certainly mothers need the attention of younger men, no?
What about the harlot in Proverbs who lured the simple fellow away to her home? Classic case of Cougar and younger man. He would have been protected if his mother sat on his lap and gave him the physical affection he craved. Also, the “Cougar” from Proverbs wouldn’t have been tempted to find these younger men since God gave her sons to meet those “needs”.
Makes just as much sense but somehow I don’t think the patriarchalists see it that way.
This whole “need” thing is very PATRIOcentric in and of itself.
May 27, 2009 at 11:33 am
Well, men do need the attention of younger women, and women of younger men — basically, older people need the attention of younger people — but not the kind of attention that has young women sitting in older men’s laps.
Human beings are meant to live together in society and interact with one another in various ways; positive, respectful interaction makes people feel valuable and needed.
Between members of the opposite sex, this can take the form of purely platonic “flirting” — if a youngish man complements an older woman on her appearance (or on her excellent cooking!) or an older man tells a younger woman “how pretty she is looking today”, and the woman smiles and says, “why, thank you” or some such pleasantry, there is nothing wrong with that.
Both the woman and the man come away feeling good about themselves — the man has recognised the woman’s womanliness, and in accepting the compliment, the woman has validated the man’s masculinity.
In my day, such harmless pleasantries were commonplace and even expected, but it is getting rarer; sadly, in today’s sexually charged society, even platonic social interaction can be misinterpreted as a “come-on”.
May 27, 2009 at 11:43 am
I also think this is less of a case of older men leaving their wives to find “substitute daughters” and more of a case of older men finding “substitute mistresses” in their daughters.
A man who leaves his wife for a younger woman is not looking for a “substitute daughter” to lavish affection/attention on him but a younger woman to take as a mistress- a woman who has sex with him thus validating to himself that he still has “got it”.
1 Cor. 7 says that a man is to find his “need” for female attention in his own wife. The daughter has a duty to honor/obey her parents but she is never told that it is her job to render affection to her father because this is how God is going to meet his need for a younger woman.
Daughters are not surrogate wives. And whatever a daughter is under compulsion according to Scripture to render to her father she is also to render the very same thing to her mother. As far as I can see there is no difference in the duties of a daughter to her father or mother- the duties are the same to both of her parents.
I have to wonder how this makes these women feel to hear from an “authority” that men have a need for the attention of younger women? Do they question it? Does it cause them angst? Does it cause them to become suspicious of all the younger more beautiful women at church? Does it cause them to push their physically mature daughters to take care of Daddy’s needs when their daughters are not at all comfortable? Does it cause them to push down any suspicions they might have that there is something more going on with their husband and their daughter?
How many women have sat by knowing in their gut that their husbands were molesting their daughters….they saw all the signs….but didn’t do anything. Now you have an authoritative teacher saying that this is a legitimate need of their husband and a man who is given over to this sin may very well use this patriocentric doctrine as a cover for evil. In fact, this teaching may even open the door to sin because it justifies and makes legitimate a sinful desire. Once you cross God-given natural boundaries it becomes easier to go down the path.
I know too many women, firsthand, who grew up in churched homes, fathers as deacons/elders, who were molested by these fathers almost their entire lives at home. Many times the mother knew and ignored it and shamed their daughter when she went to the mother for help. Even the church leaders shamed the daughters when she came for help. One of my friends became pregnant by her father at the age of 13 (he was a fine, upstanding deacon in his church) and her mother and father took her to get an abortion. Another friend was church disciplined out of the church for being unwed and pregnant at the age of 15. The church leadership knew it was her father but he stayed and she was made an example out of. She was sent away to have the baby in an unwed mother’s home so she couldn’t tell anyone else at church who the father of her baby was.
I also have a couple of stories where a mother was overly affectionate with her son who was in his twenties and was extremely jealous of the time he spent with other women. It was creepy.
May 27, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Cynthia G.,
I agree. Those are normal and healthy examples.
I am just disturbed that God was used as a stamp of approval to meet these “needs” through a daughter.
May 27, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“I am just disturbed that God was used as a stamp of approval to meet these “needs” through a daughter.”
Yeah, me too.
There is a tendency in certain circles nowadays to use God as a “stamp of approval” for just about everything — I think that it’s part of the whole “them VS us” view that is promoted among extreme separatist fundamentalists.
They don’t seem to understand that many things in life are neither good not evil, Christian nor “worldly”, but are just plain neutral. Thus they feel compelled to defend most everything they do in order to prove that it is “Biblical”, and in so doing they come up Christian versions and Christian ways to do almost everything.
Honestly — it’s a wonder they don’t have Christian bathrooms, with facilities for themselves that are separate from the amenities provided for all those other people, so as not to catch sin cooties.
May 27, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Corrie -
#614 is reason #2 why I’m an atheist.
Yes, the same thing happens in our ungodly, Liberal, unbelieving circles. But we don’t imply that a holy book said it was acceptable, or that someone was too sanctified to do something like that, or that because the victim has a vagina they cannot be telling the truth or their testimony isn’t as meaningful or they deserve it anyway because the holy book said so.
We tend do tell people that they’re wrong and to tell him to get therapy/leave him/call the authorities, depending on the severity of the problem. Along with listening to and trying to help the victim.
In my experience it’s a far larger problem in church groups, not because they’re are fewer perpetrators, but because the system is rigged to allow them to escape responsibility for their crimes, and to allow them to keep committing them.
May 27, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“In my experience it’s a far larger problem in church groups, not because they’re are fewer perpetrators, but because the system is rigged to allow them to escape responsibility for their crimes, and to allow them to keep committing them.”
Did anyone else see the film “Doubt” about this very subject. Really interesting and the characters represent so many of the types of people I know/have known. Let’s talk about it.
May 27, 2009 at 4:38 pm
“Yes, the same thing happens in our ungodly, Liberal, unbelieving circles.”
“Liberal” does not equal “ungodly” any more than “conservative” equals “godly”. Some of the godliest people I know would be considered liberals by many of you.
My husband and I watched the film “Doubt” over the weekend and it was very interesting with very layered, composite characters. The Meryl Streep character was a bit over-the-top, deliberately-so, I’m sure, and I felt like we never found out why she was predisposed to “doubt” the priest in the face of no real evidence. But clearly, there was a basis for her “doubt”. Very interesting.
May 27, 2009 at 6:57 pm
“Liberal” does not equal “ungodly” any more than “conservative” equals “godly”.
On the one hand, not according to the Patriocentrists. On the other hand, I was being snarky.
Sorry.
I haven’t seen Doubt yet, but it’s high on our movie list. No worries about spoilers, I want to hear about it.
May 27, 2009 at 7:41 pm
The Botkin sisters have recently done an interview with Chalcedon. It’s here:
http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/2009/05/two-new-podcasts.php
I haven’t time to listen to it right now but I hope to get around to it in the next few days. It might be interesting?
May 27, 2009 at 9:21 pm
“#614 is reason #2 why I’m an atheist.
Yes, the same thing happens in our ungodly, Liberal, unbelieving circles. But we don’t imply that a holy book said it was acceptable, or that someone was too sanctified to do something like that, or that because the victim has a vagina they cannot be telling the truth or their testimony isn’t as meaningful or they deserve it anyway because the holy book said so.”
I hear you, Annie, and how!
… I’ve noticed the same thing myself, and it’s one of the reasons why I am a Christian.
Jesus Himself saw this very thing happening in the society in which He lived, and He called the religious big shots out and exposed them. He dared to take a stand against the hypocrites, and they killed Him for it.
You know, if tomorrow I somehow found proof positive that God wasn’t real, I’d like to think that I would still follow Jesus. He had real guts — and I like that.
May 28, 2009 at 1:44 am
So if a Patrio-man has “needs,” like needing his 17 year old daughter to climb around his lap, how can he ever give that up? Why would he ever want to? It might even be unbiblical to let her go. Because Daddy has NEEDS, God-given ones, that only a cute, young Daddy-lovin’ daughter can fulfill, darn-it!
Maybe that’s the reason for the ever-elaborate set of hoops young sinful, lusty potential suiters must navigate to date the Patrio daughter. Limit access to nearly nothing, require a few more theological dissertaions, Set that bar just out of reach, impossibly so.
Because what would Daddy do without getting his needs fulfilled? If his daughter married, would he be justified, perhaps obligated, in seeking out a daughter substitute?
In polygamous circles, wife favoritism is a huge problem–among the wives, at least. The husbands love watching the wives fight over them. Will it be the same way between sisters? Who gets to sit in Daddy’s lap tonight? Who is Daddy’s best little girl of today?
May 28, 2009 at 8:34 am
Cynthia, Couldn’t agree more. I am an atheist AND a big fan of Jesus!
The Sean Connery clip is utterly chilling. I am no longer a fan of his.
And Voddie Baucham — well, wow. Not much to add on that except I think it is a bit of naive wishful thinking that he reduces teen girls’ sexuality to nothing more than a desire for attention from daddy. These men — and I think a lot of men in our culture — for some reason can’t handle the idea that girls have their own adult, sexual desires just like boys do.
May 28, 2009 at 8:36 am
Debbie, I toyed with this idea on here before, more so, what happens when Daddy wakes up and realizes his daughters are married and he has no one to get that attention from. Maybe the next big thing for the patrio movement will be encouraging multiple generations of families living together? This way, in his granddaughter, Daddy still has a cute little girl to sit on his lap and wait on him. Can you imagine how that would benefit training these young keepers-at-home! They’ll have *more* adult men there to learn to serve and submit to!
If this does happen, though, I foresee a great deal of tension beginning to pull apart the patrio movement, in regards to who actually leads in a multi-generation household. Young men, who are trying to set their own vision, and just danced around like a trained bear to win their wives, are going to have to be put back down, in order to let Daddy run his vision through his sons as he sees fit.
May 28, 2009 at 10:44 am
“Maybe the next big thing for the patrio movement will be encouraging multiple generations of families living together?”
Catherine, they’ve been there, done that, back when theonomist extrordinaire Gary North was first getting the Y2K scare rolling.
The community was called Rivendell, in Floyd County, Virginia, and a lot of the Patrios (including “Patriarch Magazine” owner Phil Lancaster, a big buddy of James and Stacey McDonald) called it home for a time:
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/27/news/mn-17823
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:L39tIlebL58J:george.loper.org/repchoice/2000/Oct/82.html+Rivendell+floyd+county&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.rickross.com/reference/y2k/y2k21.html
http://www.rickross.com/reference/y2k/y2k20.html
May 28, 2009 at 10:47 am
“Maybe the next big thing for the patrio movement will be encouraging multiple generations of families living together?”
Catherine, they’ve been there, done that, back when theonomist extrordinaire Gary North was first getting the Y2K scare rolling.
The community was called Rivendell, in Floyd County, Virginia, and a lot of the Patrios (including “Patriarch Magazine” owner Phil Lancaster, a big buddy of James and Stacey McDonald) called it home for a time:
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/27/news/mn-17823
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:L39tIlebL58J:george.loper.org/repchoice/2000/Oct/82.html+Rivendell+floyd+county&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.rickross.com/reference/y2k/y2k21.html
http://www.rickross.com/reference/y2k/y2k20.html
WILLIS – The Rev. Bruce Evan Murch waves his hands and paces, recounting the early days of his struggle against abortion.
For a few moments, he’s far from the Floyd County woods and the two-bedroom trailer he shares with his wife and nine children.
It was 1989, and America’s abortion debate was exploding. Murch and about 200 other abortion opponents invaded a clinic in West Hartford, Conn. They barricaded the doors and made police destroy the building to remove them.
‘They brought in the Jaws of Life and tore the walls down,’ Murch says.
Murch says police handcuffed him, then stood on his wrists until they went numb. Then he was picked up, and his hands were bent forward until his palms touched his forearms, he said. He was thrown into a police van so hard that he cracked another protester’s rib. As he lay there, he realized he was battling not just abortion, but an entire society, he says.
Murch stops talking. The 43-year-old removes his metal-rimmed glasses and puts his head down on the table. The light shows his scalp beneath close-cropped gray hair.
‘Man, this stuff is hard to go back over,’ he says.
On the national level, the wave of radical abortion protests crested years ago. But it may be building in Southwest Virginia, where Murch and other abortion opponents established a Y2K refuge near the rural crossroads of Willis, then stayed to build homes.
Called Rivendell, the new community is a base for Murch and for Joseph Foreman, a founder of Operation Rescue, one of the best-known anti-abortion groups.
Both men were defendants last year in an abortion violence case that brought multimillion-dollar judgments against them. Abortion-rights groups call Murch and Foreman extremists, and Dallas Blanchard, a sociologist who writes about abortion opponents, describes them as ‘among the most dangerous’ activists.
Starting last summer, Murch began what he calls a return to full-time activism. He escalated demonstrations at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Roanoke, and said he soon will picket clinic workers’ homes.
Residential Picketing in Virginia
Picketing or disrupting tranquility of home – Any person who shall engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling place of any individual, or who shall assemble with another person or persons in manner which disrupts or threatends to disrupt any individual’s right to tranquility in his home, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. Each day on which a violation of this secition occurs shall constitute a separate offense.
‘What they’re espousing is hate,’ said David Nova, chief executive officer and president of Planned Parenthood of the Blue Ridge. ‘And my concern is hate is one step away from violence.’
Rivendell after Y2K
A 430-acre former dairy farm, Rivendell draws its name from an edge-of-the-wilderness elfish stronghold in J.R.R. Tolkien’s ‘Lord of the Rings.’ A driveway sign reads ‘Drive Cautiously! Children and Gnomes at Play.’
In the ridge-top meadows, Murch and Foreman come across as a couple of city folks new to rural life.
Murch, a native of Connecticut, enthuses about his family’s plans to hunt deer and can vegetables, about the space his children will have once he finishes joining two trailers together.
Foreman, a slim 45-year-old with dark brown hair, eyes and mustache, talks about the organic beef he wants to raise, and struggles to set up fence posts for a strip-grazing experiment with a neighbor’s cow.
But some people see a dark side to Rivendell, and talk about groups of men with guns in the woods. On a Web site run by Rivendell founder Ken Griffith, articles on theology and home birth share space with an essay urging Christians to arm themselves against future government persecution.
Nationally, researchers have reported links between some abortion opponents and the anti-government Patriot militia movements.
‘Most of these folks had a much broader world view. It was not just limited to abortion,’ explained Frederick Clarkson, author of ‘Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy.’
Murch and Foreman said they share some ideas associated with militias, such as strong support for the Second Amendment and a belief that government is dangerously out of step with biblical law. But Murch scoffed at the idea of a military-style organization in Rivendell.
‘We’re just folks who moved out to the country to get away from that. We’re not up here setting up fortifications and waiting for the government,’ Murch said. ‘I’ll guarantee you the farmhouses around here have more guns than our people would think of owning.’
Present and former Rivendell residents said the community’s Y2K preparations, such as stockpiling food and discussing security, probably gave rise to rumors.
And some Rivendell residents met twice weekly for months for an event they called warrior training.
‘Basically it was taking the young guys and doing basically discipline stuff, learning to use compasses and stuff,’ Murch said. On one occasion, the training group took along rifles to sight in their scopes for hunting.
‘I said, gee, all it’s going to take is one person driving by and seeing this and it’s ‘There goes the Rivendell militia!” Foreman said.
Fears of violence
Foreman and Murch, both arrested dozens of times at protests, were at the center of abortion opponents’ 1990s split over the use of force. When Operation Rescue denounced abortion shootings, Foreman and Murch were among those who did not. Both supported what became known as the defensive action or justifiable homicide position, an argument that killing abortion clinic workers was justified because it would save unborn lives.
‘That’s the bind that the pro-life movement is in,’ Foreman said. ‘We’re trying to argue politely for human life.’
After years of activism, Foreman said he now hopes to devote himself to changing society in a more basic way, by educating the next generation.
‘Violence gets in the way. You don’t want a society that changes through violence. The outcome is almost always worse for everybody,’ he said.
But in the Bible-based society Foreman hopes to create, he added, ‘I truly want David Nova to be concerned about what his neighbor thinks. … I want the abortionist to fear not me, but his neighbors, his wife, his children, the media – whoever shines a light on what he’s doing.’
Murch makes stronger statements. ‘I haven’t advocated it,’ he said of clinic violence. ‘But I have refused to condemn it. And I have made an argument that those shootings were justified under U.S. law and under Scripture.’
Critics contend Murch’s and Foreman’s statements encourage more violent acts.
‘I think those kinds of threats help instill a climate of violence and fear and intimidation,’ said Elizabeth Cavendish, vice president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.
Courtroom battles
Creating a climate of violence was the key issue in last year’s Planned Parenthood vs. American Coalition of Life Activists lawsuit. A jury in Portland, Ore., returned a $107 million verdict against Foreman, Murch and a dozen other defendants, concluding their civil disobedience crossed into intimidation. It was the largest award to result from an abortion case.
At issue were ‘Wanted’ posters issued by 12 individuals and two organizations, including the ACLA, a coalition Foreman helped form and for which Murch served as Northeast regional director. The posters listed the names and addresses of abortion doctors and offered rewards for information leading to their arrest or the revocation of medical licenses.
Also crucial to the case were ‘The Nuremberg Files,’ an archive of addresses and other information about clinic workers, judges and abortion-rights advocates that defendants helped assemble. The information was posted on the World Wide Web and presented at news conferences where defendants said it would be used at trials when abortion was made illegal.
Planned Parenthood argued that though the posters and files did not advocate violence directly, they still constituted threats, that they were, in effect, hit lists.
The verdict is being appealed.
Murch and Foreman’s share of the judgment is about $5.5 million each. Neither has owned anything of value in years, leaving most possessions in their wives’ names. Their families subsist mostly on donations, they said.
In May, Foreman took steps to set aside his debt, filing for bankruptcy in federal court in Roanoke. In his petition, he said he owed $7.1 million, nearly all to clinics and abortion-rights groups who sued him.
Foreman’s case is pending. But Maria Vullo, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the Portland lawsuit, noted that other defendants tried to file for bankruptcy and were rejected.
Foreman said the bankruptcy case will be pivotal. If his debts are cleared, he will start farming and teaching in Rivendell, he said.
If his petition is denied, Foreman promised to step up his abortion activism.
‘If you’re going to screw my life up, I’m going to do my best to make you uncomfortable,’ Foreman said.
A higher education
The son of missionaries, Foreman spent his childhood in Korea and New Jersey, then attended high school in North Carolina. His ideal career, Foreman said, would be as a police hostage negotiator.
To hear Foreman tell it, his two decades of activism have been an attempt to find a sort of middle ground, albeit one solidly based in biblical morality.
‘I’m always too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals,’ Foreman said.
In Rivendell, where he brought about 25 people from a church where he was a pastor in California, Foreman sees hope for changing society.
Most of the 20 or so families at Rivendell are conservative Christians, he said, and most attend Covenant Church, a Reformed Presbyterian congregation where Foreman is one of three leading elders. The church emphasizes its ties to the early American Puritans and before that, to John Calvin.
Covenant Church emphasizes raising large, close-knit families, and encourages traditional breadwinner/homemaker roles for its men and women. Another of the church’s elders is Phil Lancaster, publisher of Patriarch magazine.
The church advocates a courtship system for young people, basically a ban on unsupervised dating, plus an agreement that suitors will marry if the woman and her father say yes.
Probably the biggest emphasis at Rivendell is on home schooling, and it is here that Foreman finds hope for the future.
‘You’re going to have a crowd of kids coming out of home schooling who are already culturally different,’ Foreman said. ‘The two quickest ways to raise independent children – don’t let ‘em watch TV and don’t let ‘em go to public school.’
His own eight children, he says with pride, ‘have only a vague idea of who Beavis and Butt-head are.’
Murch teaches a biology class to Rivendell children, peppering biblical examples through the curriculum. He uses an 1828 edition of Webster’s dictionary to sort out definitions because ‘that’s before the language got polluted.’
A trailer next to the Foreman family’s double-wide manufactured home serves as a combination classroom and library, with rows of folding chairs sharing space with bookcases laden with volumes of religious history, philosophy and social commentary.
The next step is to prepare home-schooled children for higher education, Foreman said. Some Rivendell residents do not believe in sending their children to college, believing it will overturn their faith. But Foreman sees no better way to gain the knowledge needed to influence society.
The crucial point is to equip children with an analytical mind-set they can gain from the university experience without being overwhelmed. ‘Being better than your professor,’ Foreman calls it.
Foreman’s first attempts to create such a program are visible in a logic class he teaches. On a recent Friday, a dozen children and adults gather for a discussion of logic terms.
‘We’ve all mocked President Clinton for saying it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is,’ Foreman lectures, holding the class’s textbook. ‘But we’ll see later on in the book, the man says that ‘is’ doesn’t always mean the same thing.’
Street preaching
As they are most Tuesday mornings, Murch’s giant, graphic abortion pictures were out in front of the Roanoke Planned Parenthood clinic Oct. 10. About 25 people made the hour drive from Rivendell, lining both sides of Peters Creek Road.
Murch concedes the depictions of mutilated fetuses are gruesome. That’s the point.
‘It forces a woman to see the reality of what she’s about to do with all the pro-choice rhetoric stripped away,’ he said. ‘And it forces the community to see what the reality is.’
Several times, brakes screech as drivers narrowly avoid collisions, and supportive honks mix with rude gestures. An empty school bus swerves into the next lane as its driver shouts and waves both hands above the steering wheel.
Foreman is at this demonstration, but stays across the street from the clinic, quietly holding a sign. Murch, who calls himself a street preacher, takes a more confrontational stance.
‘When somebody swerves and throws on the brakes and gets out and in my face, I love it,’ he says.
At the mouth of the clinic driveway, 15-year-old Daniel Hubbard says he joined the demonstrations about two months ago, soon after his family moved from San Diego to Rivendell. Dark-haired and clean-cut, Hubbard said he tries to offer words of comfort to the women who enter the clinic, perhaps to seek abortions. He has harsher words for people he thinks work there.
‘I try to condemn ‘em, trouble their hearts,’ Hubbard says. ‘You say, ‘You’re going to hell,’ something that kinds of whips them.’
Clinic president Nova said the number of demonstrators and the intensity of their message skyrocketed after Murch arrived. Without being specific, he said new security measures have been taken. At the clinic’s request, new ‘No parking’ signs have gone up along the deceleration lane Nova said demonstrators blocked. Police have written a handful of tickets for standing in the road or other traffic-related offenses.
Roanoke police spokeswoman Shelly Alley said the protests have not involved anything she would call violence. But on Dec. 4 the Roanoke City Police Academy will offer a violence-prevention seminar to officers and clinic workers.
On this morning, a police officer approaches Murch to say a school bus driver had complained about the gory signs, saying it upset children she carried. Murch replies that the last bus to pass was empty.
Besides, Murch says, ‘I have my own children out here. They have not suffered any ill effects.’
The officer leaves.
Days before the demonstration, Murch had described how his son Evan sometimes asks to see miniature versions of the protest pictures before going to bed. The boy stares, then weeps, Murch said.
‘He’s 6 years old,’ Murch said with awe. ‘But he gets it’” (Mike Gangloff, The Roanoke Times , October 22, 2000).
Comments? Questions? Write me at george@loper.org.
May 28, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“In polygamous circles, wife favoritism is a huge problem–among the wives, at least. The husbands love watching the wives fight over them. Will it be the same way between sisters? Who gets to sit in Daddy’s lap tonight? Who is Daddy’s best little girl of today?”
This is already an issue in Quiverfull homes. This kind of thing goes back as far as Joseph and his brothers. As if we need any more twisted theology to set this up. As far as the wife favoritism/jealousy thing, that goes back just as far too. Think Rachel and Leah.
Again, it comes back to seeking God and one anothering (whoa… that sounded strikingly like the something from the Greatest Commandments… “You shall love the Lord your God… and love others as yourself”), not conniving and bargaining to get what you want like Jacob did. It never ceases to amaze me, the way sin snowballs on us (uh, and if only I didn’t have such first hand experience in this!). Imagine if Jacob had never started down the road he did in deceiving his father and stealing from his brother. Look at where it got him. More jealousy, attempted murder, more conniving. More grief.
Why can’t we simply follow the actual directives we have for interacting with each other? What is so hard about those one anothers? I know, I know, a little thing called sin nature. Blasted gene. Okay, so we know we can’t do it on our own. So what about abiding in him and drawing on His ability NOT to sin? Drawing on His love for others?
Okay, I’m rambling. Off to Bible study!