I consider myself somewhat an expert on raising boys, having 5 of my own and now watching as 6 grandsons are being raised by parents who grew up in my home. There are so many things that Mr. Botkins states as fact that, to me, cannot be supported and are certainly not substantiated in Scripture. I always go back to the fact that King Lemuel’s MOM was the one who instructed her son as we see in Proverbs 31. And shall I talk about Jochabed, the mother of Moses, or Timothy’s mom and grandma, Lois and Eunice?
Funny, you are right about the fact that Botkin forgot about Proverbs 31 and that the King’s MOTHER taught him about what to look for in a fiance among other things. Not to mention the first part of Proverbs 31 and her teachings on justice and proper conduct for a king.
Also, this article is TOTALLY slanted using highly inflammatory rhetoric in order to shore up his own personal preferences. It is insulting to those who actually think.
I wonder how he jumps to the wild conclusions he does about egalitarian Christian marriages? That egalitarian marriages are not about “oneness”…only complementarian marriages can achieve that. That egalitarians don’t live integrated lives with one another and that their marriages will end in divorce, most likely, because the only thing holding them together is children.
Also, why are so many complementarian/patriarchal marriages in trouble and ending in divorce?
And where does the Bible say that a man is the leader/ruler of his wife? He says that there is a verse in the Bible that says this but I can’t find it.
He will be disadvantaged unless you, Mom, are especially sensitive to three things.
• Your son’s need for freedom
• Your son’s need for male mentoring
• Your son’s need for a multigenerational vision (emphasis mine)
Do boys really have a “need” for a multigenerational vision? What is that even supposed to mean? I should raise my son (or, actually, my husband should raise our son) to plan out his children’s and grandchildren’s lives? And if I don’t, I’m not being sensitive to his needs?!
“Also, why are so many complementarian/patriarchal marriages in trouble and ending in divorce?”
That is a good question! And it’s so true, at least in my experience.
Some of the rockiest and most troubled marriages I know of are complementarian, and the strongest ones are the ones that don’t necessarily call themselves egalitarian (because they don’t bother labeling themselves) but the husband and wife both treat each other with mutual respect, and both put each others needs before themselves.
I still don’t get how the patriarchs think that the only way to have a good marriage is if person A fits into this box and person B fits into the box just under and to the left of person A’s box. And if person B’s box doesn’t gravitate around person A’s box good enough, their marriage will fall apart because obviously person B is in rebellion and not submitting to person A enough.
I’m gonna hafta add my two cents here on raising boys, teenage or otherwise.
My sons need me.
They need their father also, but he, right now, is not a good mentor.
I have called on men in the church to kind of hold that place until my husband comes around, if he comes around.
But the reality of it is, they depend on me, A LOT.
They know I’m the one with the level head and reasonable expectations. I’m the one interested in them, their fears, their dreams.
Their father is interested in what makes himself happy right now, and little else.
My one son, in particular, clings to my side of the family and identifies with my side more, and the men on that side.
Anyway, I’m rambling.
The bottom line is that I had, at one time, bought into this, ‘boys need men, Moms, stay out of it’ mentality. Even heard it on Dobson and was prepared to go that way because the ‘experts’ said it was best.
Now I know better. Our lives simply don’t fit into the cookie cutter box the patrios and even Dobson are peddling.
And I thank God that He is much bigger than the box these men want to put Him and all of us in.
I thank God for the example of King Lemuel’s mom, Lois and Eunice, and Jochabed. And I know that my boys are going to be okay in spite of their dad, with a little help from their mom.
If what the patrios are selling is the only hope for boys, my sons wouldn’t have a chance.
But God is much bigger than than.
According to Botkin (former leader/member of a cult…is he still peddling the cult mentality??) all men are D O O M E D if they haven’t been homeschooled according to his specifications.
I was a single parent of a son for the first 6 years of his life. He is every bit a man at the age of 24. I am not saying that men aren’t necessary but I am trying to counter the damaging rhetoric of Botkin where women are virtually unnecessary.
I taught my son how to be a man and what to look for in a wife and how to have a vision ( he is an engineer NOW because I encouraged that from a young age when I saw his natural talent and abilities).
Imho, Botkin denigrated women and the very important role they have in leading and guiding their sons into adulthood.
I guess all the founding fathers who gave their mothers kudos/credit for their success are a bunch of wimpy failures who had no inkling about how to succeed in the future….according to Botkin.
Every time I read a piece from him or Baucham, I ask myself “Where are their wives?”
So, men are of utmost importance to their daughters and they are of utmost import to their sons and that leaves the hidden wife to fix meat, pies and serve up hot, steaming sex upon request?
Do they not realize that women have vision and they instill that vision in their children each and every day of those children’s lives?
I, as a woman, might as well go to work and work hard at my career since my input in my children’s lives is so unimportant.
Why aren’t these guys cheering for the stay at home dad if they believe the stuff they write?
There are many women in your shoes who read this stuff and, worse yet, try to follow it to the detriment of their children. You are doing what you should do and waiting for some sort of “leadership” that might never come would be, imho, sin but that is exactly what the patriarchalists tell us to do…WAIT. Well, I have to wonder if they live in the real world?
Some of them were even married before and if their formula works out so well, I would like to know if they could apply it to their first marriages and have a great outcome? I don’t think so.
Good thing Timothy’s mother and grandmother didn’t wait for dear old Dad to come around, the one, according to Botkin, who can “best” teach these things to his son, Timothy. It seems that his mother and grandmother were the BEST ones to teach Timothy what he needed to know for is future adult life.
There are some of us who learned some very harmful and negative things from our fathers. Are the patrios trying to claim that fathers are really always the best parent to teach their children certain things? Again, where is reality in any of these teachings?
Bean,
I really appreciate your comments. I was just talking to someone this morning about boxes and how if we stay in our proper box then all will be well according to these teaches. That just isn’t so. I know many, many traditional type comp homes that have come apart and the woman was firmly in her ever-so-submissive box.
I also know many marriages that THRIVE and these couples have no such labels or boxes and each just lives out their strengths in an organic fashion all the while submitting to the other spouse and putting them first.
In patriarchy, you have the “needs” ( I am wary of using that word because some funky things fall under that heading) of the patriarch being the thing that all the others are to focus upon meeting. Totally unChristlike.
AS I read the above posts (not the links yet) one women immediately came to my mind- Suzanna Wesley.
I have never heard that Charles and John Wesley’s father had any part in the spiritual training of his sons, as he was busy away writing a tome of theology that no one ever reads.
Yet Suzanna started each morning with prayer, and led Bible studies in the parrish while the parson (her husband) was away as well as run the household which included livestock and growing your own food back in those days.
When John entered the theological realm, is was in the open air to the common people and he insisted that religion be eminently practical over theoretical.
I think the only influence his father had on the Wesley boys was through his absence.
Of course Charles and John weren’t Calvinist, so they probably don’t count as real men.
“It is most appropriate for this framework to come from his father, so perhaps you should respectfully ask your husband to read the rest of this article with you.”
1. He acknowledges who is reading this article — The Mom!
2. However, Mom apparently should not even be reading homeschooling articles on her own.
So, according to Mark Driscoll’s notes because I’m in a non-christian, Feminist marriage I’m functionally single? My husband and I don’t even share any “unifying, ephemeral elements”. We’re living as roommates? Wow, I’d better tell him that nine years of happy marriage has really just been a sham.
Methinks the pastor paints with too big a brush. Or doesn’t understand many a thing.
““It is most appropriate for this framework to come from his father, so perhaps you should respectfully ask your husband to read the rest of this article with you.””
EMR,
I read the article again, after reading your quote…thinking to myself “SURELY! Botkin did not say such a ridiculous thing!”
I was wrong.
“One of the most vital things you will ever give your boy in his education is the intellectual framework from which to make his most important life decisions about his vocation, his estate, his marriage, and his fields of study. This intellectual framework is not the academic stuff; the worldview stuff is what encompasses the past, the present, and a long-term future.
Because the big decisions bear down on him in his teens, he needs more direction in his teen years than at any other time of life. Without a long-term vision that includes his own children and grandchildren, he will not make good plans or decisions.
It is most appropriate for this framework to come from his father, so perhaps you should respectfully ask your husband to read the rest of this article with you.”
And why does Botkin think that it is most appropriate for this worldview framework to come for “his father”? What scripture does he get his assertion from?
Thank God for mothers everywhere who DAILY lay down this framework for their sons!
I would love to tell him what exactly is appropriate but it would have to be censored on this forum.
“It is most appropriate for this framework to come from his father, so perhaps you should respectfully ask your husband to read the rest of this article with you.”
Just another example of how the patriarchal mindset turns women into children.
Botkin may as well have wrote “Run along and go get Daddy! Because you’re too small and insignificant to understand, let alone teach, this kind of masculine thinking to your sons!”
Balderdash!
He honestly can’t live in the real world. In the real world, women raise REAL men, not “I’m a man so I’m better than you, neener neener” men.
This statement of asking your husband to come and read the rest of the article with you is extremely prideful. He is saying that what he has written is so vitally different and life-changing that it must be read by the most important person in the house. He wants to be read by all those men who would not normally want to read what he has to say.
But, in some defense of what he says, quite apart from the way that he says it, I have found that there are times that the boys simply will not listen to me because of their age and trying limits to achieve independence. If it comes from Mom, for a period of time, it is therefore not worthy. My husband has had to step in and tell the boys that they are not to treat me in the offhand manner of ignoring me or dismissing what I said. I’m not sure that is what Botkin has in mind, though.
Also, on the issue of apprenticeship, my boys have benefited from jobs outside the home – one in a bike shop and one with a lawn care company. The third has done a little with the lawn care company, but has spent more time in debate, so hasn’t been able to participate as much. It has done them a world of good to have physical labor and get a sense of accomplishment. I have enjoyed, too, that they earned money and were away from home one day a week.
keebler: “But, in some defense of what he says, quite apart from the way that he says it, I have found that there are times that the boys simply will not listen to me…”
I know exactly what you are saying, keeb.
But the huge difference is, Botkin is saying boys need their fathers therefore mothers need to step back, get out of the way, disappear… whatever.
WE (you and I and the ladies here) are NOT saying boys don’t need their fathers. We know they need BOTH.
Neither become expendible at any time during the child’s development.
I know my boys need me. I also know they need men. That’s why when my husband emotionally checked out for a time (hasn’t come back completely, but seems to be on his way) I called on other men in the church. But even with their help, I was their primary source of nurture, counsel, reason, direction, encouragement.
Their father couldn’t/wouldn’t do it for a time. Still doesn’t fully ‘get’ his sons’ needs. But I do, for the most part. And they come to me for it because they know it’s there for them.
I WISH my husband were more of a partner in this. But wishing doesn’t make it so.
Therefore, Botkin can go take a flying leap. He can take his counsel of darkness with him and crawl back into his dank, enslaving, patrio hole.
“If it comes from Mom, for a period of time, it is therefore not worthy. My husband has had to step in and tell the boys that they are not to treat me in the offhand manner of ignoring me or dismissing what I said. I’m not sure that is what Botkin has in mind, though.”
I have been through this with each of my now-grown boys. (For the record, the youngest one still thinks the sun sets in my face and I am enjoying it while I can!)
My husband stepped in every time and warned them that “no man would be allowed to speak to his wife in such a manner.” It took the problem out of the mom and authority realm and placed it in the “don’t mess with my woman” realm.
The other way I dealt with this was by asking them to do things rather than telling them. The difference was like night and day.
“Would you please take out the trash on your way out, honey?” Instead of “Take out the trash, that’s your chore you know.”
” If it comes from Mom, for a period of time, it is therefore not worthy. My husband has had to step in and tell the boys that they are not to treat me in the offhand manner of ignoring me or dismissing what I said. ”
And this dismissing of a woman’s voice, imho, comes from the fall.
Recently, on the Bayly blog, one very rabid patriarchalist said that men don’t listen to what a woman has to say because her voice carries no authority with men.
That is sin because the Bible tells men (sons) to obey the law and teachings of their mother.
In fact, Botkin is dismissing the authority and voice of women everywhere when he writes what he does.
I agree that hard work is vital to the work ethic of both boys and girls. But, I don’t think Botkin has in mind boys learning how to actually serve around the house by cooking, cleaning and doing laundry, all skills that every boy should have. He is talking about the important dominion-taking work that only men should tackle that leads them on a path to a career.
My oldest son worked in landscaping, on a dairy farm and then apprenticed at a bridge building company which also involved abating abestos from old city sewers. That led him into his job as an engineer where he now designs those bridges.
I hope to give my daughters the same vision and framework that I have given my son and give them opportunities to follow their dreams. Not just teach them how to cook, clean, do laundry, care for children and serve the One Whom All Orbit Around (the patriarch).
My oldest daughter is following her desire to go into the medical field and hopefully someday she will care for the poor on the mission fields (that is her dream). She has also been trained how to cook, clean, care for a home and children.
I wonder if domestic duties are part of the framework that Botkin thinks sons should be trained in?
And you are right that sons don’t always listen to their mothers at a certain age. It is a test and one that I persevere through. Sons are to obey mothers and their law just as much as a father’s teachings. The Bible doesn’t differentiate between a mother and father’s authority. But, the sinful nature wants to harshly rule over women and dismiss them and treat them with suspicion and as much less important in the whole scheme of things.
I think I have an audience with my son and now that he is 24, I think I have much more influence than I did when he was 13. I think this is because he knows that I know what I am talking about.
The opinions of these so-called experts amount to little more than manure. They are an embarrassment to the Kingdom, in my opinion.
BOTH parents should meet vital needs in their children. The exact roles of both those meeting the needs (the parents) and those having their needs met (the children, boys or girls) depends largely on the personalities of those involved, the gifting of the individual parents, and the overall family dynamic.
Trying to force people into roles that they were not necessarily created to fill is one of my biggest pet peeves with this whole so-called lifestyle. Trying to make women “dumb down” their gifts and talents to make the men seem “superior” just seems silly and stupid to me.
For instance, my husband is wonderful, a gifted and talented man (and father) in many, many arenas. One of them, however, is not finances. He is not a spender, but he has little interest in researching investment opportunties and looking after our finances in general. His eyes positively glaze over when anyone starts talking finances. On the other hand, I have a degree in business, have always been interested in financial matters, and so I handle our family’s finances as well as our retirement plans, etc. I provide my husband with short summaries on a monthly basis so that he does not remain in the dark. This arrangement has worked very well for us for nearly three decades.
So because their father is not gifted in the area of finances, I wonder: is it better our boys get little or no instruction in finances rather than get it from me, according to these yahoos?
“My husband stepped in every time and warned them that “no man would be allowed to speak to his wife in such a manner.” It took the problem out of the mom and authority realm and placed it in the “don’t mess with my woman” realm.
The other way I dealt with this was by asking them to do things rather than telling them. The difference was like night and day.
“Would you please take out the trash on your way out, honey?” Instead of “Take out the trash, that’s your chore you know.””
Very wise advice, Karen!
I wonder if the Botkin mindset which is all over his latest piece actually causes sons to disrespect their mothers, dismiss them and think of women, in general, as lower?
The patriarchalists tend to constantly dismiss a woman’s influence over her children, both male and female, and elevate a man’s influence to realms that just don’t line up with reality.
I don’t read many pieces about how important a mom’s influence is over forming the framework of her children’s worldview but reality shows me that women throughout history are HUGE in developing their child’s worldview and in teaching them a good work ethic and in guiding them in career paths. Who better knows a child’s strengths and weaknesses and natural bents than a mother since she is the one who has spent so much time with them?
Do they want women to want to stay home and raise children? Then they should stop writing denigrating pieces about the role of women in the lives of their children. Or else, why don’t they just have handmaidens who birth children for their own kingdoms and care for the children’s basic needs and leave the important stuff to the men? Or are they already doing that?
“BOTH parents should meet vital needs in their children. The exact roles of both those meeting the needs (the parents) and those having their needs met (the children, boys or girls) depends largely on the personalities of those involved, the gifting of the individual parents, and the overall family dynamic.
Trying to force people into roles that they were not necessarily created to fill is one of my biggest pet peeves with this whole so-called lifestyle. Trying to make women “dumb down” their gifts and talents to make the men seem “superior” just seems silly and stupid to me.”
Savannah,
Your whole post is excellent and it really cuts to the heart of the issue for me, personally.
Why isn’t that a woman does what she does best, based on her gifts and the man does what he does best, based on his gifts? Surely they do not believe that all men have the same gifts and that ALL men are better at finances and understanding worldview and guiding their offspring into career paths?
What, exactly, does Botkin think women are good at teaching their children?
I don’t read many pieces about how important a mom’s influence is over forming the framework of her children’s worldview but reality shows me that women throughout history are HUGE in developing their child’s worldview and in teaching them a good work ethic and in guiding them in career paths.
There’s an old saying, “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” My husband is a Civil War buff and he has observed that all the famous Civil War Generals had very strong mothers who had a huge influence on them.
Or else, why don’t they just have handmaidens who birth children for their own kingdoms and care for the children’s basic needs and leave the important stuff to the men?
You mean like in Margaret Atwood’s novel, “The Handmaid’s Tale”? It may seem so very far fetched when you read this book, but it could be a natural consequence of patriocentrism.
Why isn’t that a woman does what she does best, based on her gifts and the man does what he does best, based on his gifts?
Corrie, Corrie, Corrie, you just don’t get it. Men may have many and varied calling and gifts, and can use them in any domain or sphere they please. All women have just ONE calling: wife and mother. Anything else is rebellion.
I’m in agreement with all the comments so far and wanted to share another resource sample that I just received. It is a new magazine out of Nashville called Home Educating Family. Add a www and a .com for the web. I am cautiously optimistic about this publication.
First article by Stuart McAllister “When all else fails Worry!” contrasts media, experts, & society fear with God’s Word & a sampling of scripture about trusting Christ & being anxious for nothing. Couldn’t read the next one by Piper. Then a great one by Susan Hunt “Seasons of a Woman’s Life”, then one by Ted Tripp. Next a history of John Winthrop by Rob Shearer(Greenleaf Press) Next a nice interview with a brand new family who homeschool– my editing now– (not homeschoolers, per that you tube video a month or so ago). There are 6 other articles written by women- and some of the bios don’t even mention –gasp– their husband! I’m telling you, compared to the male dominated crisis mongering “leadership” forum trying to take over homeschooling… this magazine is an absolute Oasis. It is … so… N O R M A L ! This is where I “live” and these are the kinds of people I know and learn with & from. I went to their website and left a comment to keep it up and how refreshing it was compared to… those other “leaders”. Bottom line is not that I necessarily NEED this magazine, as a “veteran”… but those starting out or being confronted with the “ugly men’s movement” DO.
“So because their father is not gifted in the area of finances, I wonder: is it better our boys get little or no instruction in finances rather than get it from me, according to these yahoos?”
So, what do you think of the announcement today by the Vatican that Anglicans who are so terrified of women clergy have a safe, woman-leadership-free church home with Rome?
Terror of women runs so deep that people would switch denominations to avoid confronting the issue.
“The other way I dealt with this was by asking them to do things rather than telling them. The difference was like night and day. “Would you please take out the trash on your way out, honey?” Instead of “Take out the trash, that’s your chore you know.””
I started out an asking kind of mom. I have found just the opposite to be true! When I ask nicely, it won’t get done. When I state it matter-of-factly, he gets it done.
Maybe it’s more the willingness to change approaches that gets their attention?
Okay I wish I could delete the previous post, since it is way off topic by now. Sorry. Been trying to catch up with all that’s been posted, but it’s a lot to get through.
Here’s a post from a female grad of one of the IFB colleges on my forum, that I thought was alarming:
“Have you ever wondered why there was so much emphasis placed on GIRLS bragging on the preachers? Why were we not taught to try to be an encouragement to WOMEN in ministry?
I carried this philosophy of exalting men away from HAC with me, and it got me into trouble on the mission field. I taught several classes for girls at a Bible institute in Mexico and loved it! I told the girls in one class to let preachers know when a sermon had been a particular blessing to them; that they could even write notes of encouragement. (Parroting what I had been taught at HAC) A few weeks later one of the girls who was a pastor’s daughter herself told me in front of the class: My father asked me to let you know that writing notes to married men is not acceptable in our culture!!! Turns out she had written a note to a visiting speaker at her home church and told her dad. He did not allow her to give the preacher that note.”
Emmy, with many Anglicans, including your s truly, the problem is not so much with women clergy as with partnered homosexual clergy.
THAT’S the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Thanks for the insight, Cynthia Gee! I have read lots of articles that mention both issues but then harp heavily on the women clergy subject. I think it was sort of taken for granted by the journalists that gay clergy were frowned upon. The interesting “angle” to them seemed to be gender.
So, are you considering taking up the Pope on his offer? I would love to learn more about your decision. Thank you!
“Corrie, Corrie, Corrie, you just don’t get it. Men may have many and varied calling and gifts, and can use them in any domain or sphere they please. All women have just ONE calling: wife and mother. Anything else is rebellion.”
You are exactly correct. I just do not get it. Never will. Never have. And, since I decided to live in Reality instead of Denial, I just don’t see that the above teaching is based on truth at all.
I wonder if the patrios see janitorial work as “feminine” since they do not train their sons to clean toilets, scrub floors, do laundry, etc?
“Men may have many and varied calling and gifts, and can use them in any domain or sphere they please. All women have just ONE calling: wife and mother. Anything else is rebellion.”
I’ve never seen it written so plainly before. And it’s true, that IS what they believe. That is what they teach their sons and their daughters.
I’m just so sad… when I think about all the girls who have squelched their true talents and callings in order to fit into a mold that someone other than God made for them. Girls that could have been “so much more“. They repress their own selves because they believe they are in rebellion if they don’t. And the damage is as real as if they were asked to cut pieces of their flesh away so they could fit inside that small box.
I just want to clarify that I don’t think that being a wife and a mother is somehow less than. I just don’t believe it is the ONLY way a woman is supposed to live. Woman can be wives, mothers, PLUS,- or they could be childless, or they could be single, or they could be devoted singularly to motherhood, and can still glorify God and be living out His design for their unique lives.
It’s not up to MEN to decide what God’s design is for all women.
Exactly, Bean. This philosophy hurts men, too, since they are locked into the provider role that can at times be terribly burdensome. Some men are working two and three jobs and never see their families, when it would be much easier on everyone if their wives could at least take a part time job! Or men who want to stay home for a season and raise their kids while their wive pursues her career: in the patrio paradigm, this would be seen as unmanly.
Personally, I love it when my husband is holding/changing/feeding our children. There is nothing sexier than a man that’s good with kids, and that includes diaper changing.
I agree, Light, that the men are being hurt as well. Not only in that they are the sole providers, but that they are without a true partner in life. Someone who never checks or challenges them at all, because they are “submitting”. Whatever happened to iron sharpening iron? Iron won’t get sharper if it’s being dragged over a doormat. The blade will eventually get dull, and the mat will be ripped to pieces.
“”Trying to force people into roles that they were not necessarily created to fill is one of my biggest pet peeves with this whole so-called lifestyle. Trying to make women “dumb down” their gifts and talents to make the men seem “superior” just seems silly and stupid to me.”"
I think we have the same pet peeve there!
To me its almost like saying, “Ladies if you would please lower yourself down a bit so we could be so higher up!”
Dumbing down doesn’t make them more ‘superior’ etc. Its an illusion they like to embrace I guess.
I was listening to a news story the other night about how men are now more accepting of their wife making more money then they do in the workplace. How it is less of a threat for them to be the breadwinner presently.
I have to wonder how many men didn’t wish to admit it, because it makes them look insecure and prideful. It would be a man that is secure with himself to NOT let such a silly matter like that effect their manhood to begin with.
I seriously have to wonder if all these HUGE leaders in the church that load all of the rules of what NOT to do so you man could feel his leadership…are just THAT insecure with themselves!
I would think learning to deal with it, and finding that it doesn’t strip anything away from you? That would seem like true growth, and they can move on to more important things. I don’t have issues with affirming people, etc. God also wishes us to serve others of course! Things like salary don’t make men MEN! It hardly makes them Godly men either. They use ‘breadwinner’ as ego points in reality. Learning to work, live and serve with the gifts that God gave you, and appreciating those gifts that God gave your spouse is what I read the bible saying. Asking others NOT to take a raise because it would mean your husband isn’t top dog in the salary department? That’s hardly affirming or appreciating anything. Its called don’t slide in the ego mud.
I didn’t mean to bring ‘work’ into it. The program I saw just triggered the thought only. The premise just seemed silly to me.
Someone dropped me a note and thought the TW ladies would find the discussion on Voddie Baucham’s daughter, Jasmine’s blog this week to be interesting. The first entry is basically a question by young woman named Kelsey who talks about her mom’s jealousy of her relationship with her dad. The comments are quite telling.
The second entry is Jasmine’s response to Kelsey and her defense of the Botkins, etc.
Hannha, thanks for poasting that. I thought that was the 2nd one I posted….long day, too tired!
It all sounds to me like people are waking up and realizing how far down the path away from “normal” these teachings have gone. And it certainly sounds as though Jasmine feels the need to defend it all.
Okay, I finished reading it! While I will never agree that a godly girls only option in life is to stay home and wait for Mr. Right to come along (excuse me, for God to bring Mr. Right along at the perfect time), I like this girl. As we say in the country, her hearts in the right place.
She finally gives some honor and recognition to mothers, and she has a much more balanced approach to staying home and serving. She serves her Mom AS WELL AS her Dad while waiting for her own marriage to begin.
I do not think that this (staying home) is the only godly option for young Christian girls, but honoring your father and mother, now THAT has been a requirement for godly Christian girls (and boys) for over four thousand years! That part I heartily agree with.
When I read the article I was scratching my head. I have to wonder if the mother felt the right to mention to her husband about these feelings. I hope the child wasn’t the one that got to feel that pressure only.
One of the inconsistencies in Return of the Daughters was the emphasis of daughters helping their dads by working alongside them in their businesses. If the “normative” role of women is to be a keeper at home and a woman working outside the home is compared to the harlot, as per the Botkins, then why are the young women who are running errands, meeting with customers, doing research, etc. for their dads not held to the same standards. Shouldn’t those future homemakers be homemaking with their moms? And even in situations where there are only daughters in the home, wouldn’t you think that an apprenticeship in the working place would/should be done by young men, even from other families? I am trying to see why it is ok for these girls to prepare for a career outside the home when “Scripture” doesn’t allow for it?
I noticed, too, that none of these commenters or Jasmine discussed the “need” for men to have the attention of younger women.
One more thought about this…perhaps the answer to this is that the fathers know that young single women who aren’t caring for their own husbands and children will naturally long for “something more” and are giving them responsibilities in their businesses to avoid them wanting to go to college or find a life outside the home when they are single. Maybe that is the unspoken agenda. {{{shrug}}}
To me, it’s just very disturbing that these obviously bright young women believe that this lifestyle is their *only* option. To see one of these young women describe herself as a “stay-at-home-daughter” is doubly disturbing. Stay-at-home-moms? I’m all for it. Stay-at-home-[adult]-daughters? Unless a parent is ill and requires round the clock care, I don’t see any reason for this and cannot imagine what good comes from it for the daughters, although it does certainly seem like a good deal for the dad. And isn’t that what it’s all about???? [please note sarcasm]
Savannah, hence the word “patriocentricity.” Everything revolves around the dad. We are told that only family member who has a calling from the Lord is the father. No Scripture to back this up. Jasmine refers to this in her article…helping the father fulfill his calling. When that is your purpose in life, as they teach, it IS the only option.
Delurking again for a quick comment: On one blog I read, a mom referred to her “stay-at-home daughter” as a “housemaiden.” You know, like housewife? Too strange.
“Unless a parent is ill and requires round the clock care, I don’t see any reason for this and cannot imagine what good comes from it for the daughters, although it does certainly seem like a good deal for the dad. And isn’t that what it’s all about???? [please note sarcasm]”
Savannah,
Not only is it a good deal for the dad but a very good deal for the mom. Now all these adult “housemaidens” or “stay-at-home-daughters” can do most of the housework, childcare, and cooking.
I often tell Karen that I really think I went wrong (said tongue in cheek!) when I left the patriarchal movement and encouraged my older daughters to pursue their own interests and educations. I am the one who does most of the housework and care of the younger children and all the cooking….but then, again, I am the younger children’s mother.
Leaving the patriarchal mindset and actually looking at my daughters like they are human beings with a purpose other than doing all of my work for me has made my workload a lot heavier!
So, the selfish and fleshly part of me sometimes thinks it would be a good deal for me to make them all stay home and be housemaidens. It would also be cheaper and a heck of a lot easier since I wouldn’t have to worry about college and book costs.
#52 The rule for the game of patriocentricity is double-standards. What they say and what they do don’t make sense nor do they match up, so that is where you are going wrong by trying to figure out any method to their madness.
Really, at the heart of patriocentricity, is egocentrism and selfishness and a false view of self- thinking more highly of one’s self than one every dare ought think of himself.
Okay, the ewww factor and my radar went off BIG TIME when reading Miss Kelsey’s question. And, unlike Jasmine, I don’t think it is a good question at all, I think it is unnatural and odd and it should raise HUGE red flags.
Gads. Her question makes my stomach churn.
Her and her dad have the same “love languages”? How “cute”.
She desires to be a “helper” to her dad? Uhhhh, that isn’t her job. That is her mom’s calling.
Making him his favorite foods? Walking next to him while they shop? Where is the mom? Off in the wings? Walking 10 paces behind them?
Why doesn’t Kelsey make her mother’s favorite foods and look for her own husband to be a “helper” to? Why doesn’t she let her mother walk next to her own husband and learn her rightful place as a daughter to BOTH OF THEM?
Sorry, I know of one case where the daughter is much more like a wife to her father than her mother was (especially when it comes to public displays of affection” and it gave me the heebie jeebies. For good reason, too, there is/was something funky going on there.
All this be a “helpmeet to your Daddy” is going to cause some major problems.
“om Miss Kelsey:
Hi Jasmine!
So, the first time I found out that your dad actually even had a daughter my age (I’m 20) was when I watched Return of the Daughters. (Which I love, btw.
I have tried to become more supportive of my parents’ vision as a result of convictions springing from the documentary… (I was already a stay at home daughter and all)… and to be a helper to my dad. Which usually goes over pretty well since my dad and I are very alike, have the same “love languages” etc.
So my question comes here.
My mom started to feel a little “jealous” because she felt like I was taking her spot of helping my dad, making his favorite foods, walking next to him while shopping, and all of that.
And that began my wondering…
How can I be a loving helper to my dad when my mom is his true help-meet and he is designed to only have one, and I am designed to have my own man to support and help but (in God’s timing) he hasn’t showed up yet?
Maybe this is a somewhat unusual question, but I do desire to have good family harmony and help my parents (my spiritual gift is serving)… I really appreciated what you had to say in Return of the Daughters, so wondered if you had any insights for me.
“How can I be a loving helper to my dad……..” (shivers up my spine)
Totally weird. I read this to my daughters, one of them is about Kelsey’s age, and they had the same thoughts.
This all comes from the Botkins and throw in a little Voddie-men yearn for the attentions of younger women and God gave them a daughter to fulfill that yearning- Baucham.
We can also add Vision Forum and Raising Maidens of Virtue to the list of lead the “Kelseys” astray and set them up to be either sexually abused (it happens a LOT) or an adversary of their own mother by usurping her rightful place.
I just can’t believe that some people cannot see the inherent unwholesomeness of this practice. I am not suggesting that anything is “going on” necessarily in these situations, at least physically, but what about emotionally? The fact that a daughter even has to begin to worry that she has usurped the position of her own mother in the family dynamic should be a huge red flag.
I think this whole issue of “usurpring,” along with the examples Corrie pulled from that Q&A, indicate that the men in the patriocentricity movement actually want to marginalize their wives even within the wives’ “natural, mandated” domestic domain.
We know of course that patriocentricity seeks to alienate half of the human species from the majority of vast spectrum of human experiences and endeavors. That’s not news. But what’s so very interesting is how they also want to alienate married women with children from their husbands and families…which is the domain they preach as the only One True Path for all women everywhere.
We see this in the glorification of the father-daughter relationship and the use of unmarried daughters as mini-helpmeets.
The question is why they would do this (beyond the obvious maintenance and amplication of thousands of years of male privilege).
And I believe it is because they are threatened by women who are wives and (biological) mothers. A wife and (biological) mother is, by definition, a sexually experienced woman with a measure of built-in power (over the offspring she carried in her body). A wife and adoptive mother has also been socially and legally vested with authority over her children.
So, this this sexuality and authority is a threat to patriocentric men.
Solution? Surround yourself with sexually inexperienced women with NO authority or control (over herself OR others) whatsoever. This will pose no threat to the fragile web spun by the patriarch…in which he is the “king bee” (no queen bees allowed in patrio-lanf!) and his word is law.
I hope it is okay if I butt in because I was really struck by Shadowspring’s comment about feminism in the last thread, which I will quote at length and respond to:
Growing up in the 70s, this really was often what feminists proclaimed. The 80s gave us Andrea Dworkin, who posited that heterosexual sex was by very definition violence against women. I believe it was columnist Anna Quindlen who called SAHMs “glorified prostitutes”. It was an ugly time to be a woman who embraced her body and motherhood and who desired nothing on earth more than to nurture children. In other words, to be me.
Thankfully it appears that those radical voices have been left behind by succeeding generations, and it is much more acceptable today for a woman to choose to be a SAHM without the ridicule and ostracization by their paycheck-earning peers that I endured.
The older I get the more clear becomes the reason for the anger behind the 70s feminist voices, not that it is justified to become a bitter, angry person as a Christian. But I have seen so many injustices against women, even in the church, maybe especially in the church, that I find myself judging my mom’s generation much less harshly.
This resonates with me because I suppose I am one of those 70s style feminists, even though I am not even quite 40 yet. My perspective was heavily influenced by my mother — a woman who relished being a stay-at-home-mom, yet strongly agreed with much of what was said by the Andrea Dworkins and Anna Quindlens of the 70s and 80s.
As you acknowledge, Shadowspring (and I really appreciate it), these kinds of utterances have to be understood in context.
I actually don’t think Dworkin ever said that all heterosexual intercourse is rape, though she is widely quoted as such. I think she made a couple of different points:
1) In many ways, our culture implicitly assumes that all, or most, heterosexual sex is tantamount to rape of a woman. Thus, even consensual sex is often discussed as a conquest, a violation, a penetration, an act of disrespect, or something a man has “gotten” from a woman. Premarital sex, even when consensual, is still interpreted in 2009 as a defeat of the woman. I think she is arguing that we don’t have a cultural vocabulary for talking about truly egalitarian, truly consensual sex, even within marriage. It is not Dworkin’s view that all heterosexual sex is necessarily rape, but rather the view of the dominant culture.
2) When Dworkin spoke, in a world where marital rape was considered legal, a world in which many believed that a woman’s submission to her husband’s sexual demands is always compulsory, and a world in which women did not have options that enabled us to easily forego marriage, sex within marriage could not truly be considered a free act by the woman. Obviously, many of those conditions have changed for many women. Dworkin’s statements in this regard clearly anticipate that sex need not be rape in a more egalitarian world where women truly have free choices.
I am not necessarily a huge Dworkin fan, but she is not as crazy as she has been made to appear in the mainstream media. Here is more on Dworkin for those who are interested: http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/10/andrea_dworkin/
I bet a similar analysis can be applied to Quindlen’s statement about housewives being whores (if it was Quindlen who said something like this). My mother — herself a housewife –used to talk about this concept with me. But my mother was not calling herself a whore. What she was critiquing was the discourse about housewives — the discussions of marriage as a quid pro quo arrangement of financial support in exchange for sex, babies, and housecleaning services. This discourse does implicitly view housewives as whores, and sadly, it is all too common a view even today. The most grating example to me are those who argue that men won’t marry if premarital sex is easily available, i.e. “why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free.” This reductive and insulting view of the relations between the sexes, a view which feminists oppose, is common among patriarchalists. It is the patriarchal view, not the feminist view, that frames traditional wives and mothers as sellers of goods and services.
I don’t doubt that SAHMs have been treated rudely by working women over the years (and vice-versa), encouraged by a media intent on selling the notion of the “mommy wars.” Feminism is easily misunderstood — caricatured by its opponents and bastardized by regular people who have some sympathy with its aims. But the leaders and thinkers of the movement tend to be more thoughtful and sympathetic than they are given credit for — and its basic principles and orienatation are sound.
Hope this rant isn’t too off topic. I guess I think feminists are unfairly criticized for being “strident” and “angry” without regard to the circumstances that provoke us to speak and act as we do. Am I angry? You bet! I am very angry at the grotesque sexism endured by my mother, my grandmother, my great aunts and other women of their generation. I am angry at the more subtle sexism I sometimes encounter. I am furious about the egregiously low status and abuse of women in other cultures around the world, and among the patriarchal set here in my own country. I am not sure that anger per se is such a bad thing — or that feminists, even the old-timey 70s feminists, need be considered the enemies of the stay-at-home-mothers.
“Hope this rant isn’t too off topic. I guess I think feminists are unfairly criticized for being “strident” and “angry” without regard to the circumstances that provoke us to speak and act as we do. Am I angry? You bet! I am very angry at the grotesque sexism endured by my mother, my grandmother, my great aunts and other women of their generation. I am angry at the more subtle sexism I sometimes encounter. I am furious about the egregiously low status and abuse of women in other cultures around the world, and among the patriarchal set here in my own country. I am not sure that anger per se is such a bad thing — or that feminists, even the old-timey 70s feminists, need be considered the enemies of the stay-at-home-mothers.”
Laurie, I am in agreement here, believe me.
The word “feminist” is used because the users know it can be equated with abortion and gay rights and they want to associate anyone who disagrees with them with things they know will get a negative response.
I, took, am angry at what things have caused women to respond in the first place. No vote, having to turn over property to husbands when they married, having to endure abuse in order to stay with their children because they knew a divorce would result in men having sole custody of children etc.
And then there are all the things you mentioned. Where is the outrage on the part of the Voddie Bauchams and Doug Phillips about this stuff?
For a detailed and well-worded rebuttal to Andrea Dworkin, I recommend reading Domestic Tranquility by F. Carolyn Graglia. I believe she has an entire chapter dedicated to discussing Ms. Dworkin’s statements.
I read myself the article calling SAH women glorified prostitutes. It galvanized me to despise feminists who claim the title, because feminists openly despised me. I am not 100% sure it was Anna Quindlen, because though I kept the article for many years, I have not come across that box since my last move.
It is modern feminists that started these wars, with Betty Friedan saying SAHMs had child-like minds up to the female columnist who called my relationship with my husband prostitution.
It was women at my husband’s work that sneered at me and looked as if my children were diseased when I dropped by for lunch with my husband. It was a (different) former co-worker of his who met my husband and I out for a walk who said,”That’s right, you don’t do anything.” when she found out I was still at home with my kids.
I am afraid your post has stirred up a lot of memories for me that are strongly unpleasant. I would like you much better if you did NOT try to pretend that it was someone other than feminists who started the Mommy Wars and continues to stoke the fires.
My daughter is being raised to follow her own heart and be strong, just like her mother. But she also is raised to value her womb, and to value children. Right now she is seeking a commission in the Air Force, and the USA will be better off for her winning it.
But if/when she decides to have children, I know she will value her children as worthy of her time. Then the USAF will have to take a back seat, because children of women in my family are worth more than any amount of money, prestige, and public good.
And that has always been my response to the feminists who mock me: my children are just worth more than theirs. And they are the ones who did the valuing.
Having got that off my chest, let me say that earlier feminists (Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth, Carrie Nation, Catherine Booth, etc.) have my undying appreciation. They were courageous woman who made the world a better place.
I firmly believe in equal pay for equal work, the rights of women to vote, own property, live free from abuse, choose any career they can pull off, marry who they choose, divorce if they feel it necessary, live as free moral agents subject to the same laws as any other citizen.
I did not reject feminism; modern feminism rejected me. I thought I might be acceptable to the younger set, as I am actually consider myself a more true feminist- more truly a believer in the individual woman’s right to control her own destiny and in her intrinsic value as a person.
Hmmm . . . now you have me re-thinking my own point.
I think there is truth to the stereotype that feminists generally support gay rights and abortion rights. I fall into that mold myself and yes, I view gay rights and abortion as very closely related to my belief in women’s equality.
Every so often, a feminist blog will debate the issue of whether someone who opposes the right to abortion can really be a “feminist.” The consensus on the blogs is that opposition to abortion rights is never a feminist position, that is, that such opposition is not consistent with the feminist belief in women’s rights to autonomy, bodily sovereignty and societal equality. But that’s not the same thing as saying someone is not “a feminist” if he or she disagrees with certain discrete aspects of mainstream feminism. (I am aware, of course, that groups like Feminists for Life would disagree with the mainstream feminist analysis.)
In other words, I don’t think feminism requires doctrinal purity. Feminism describes a general orientation of strong concern for women’s autonomy and dignity. Anyone who holds such a strong concern should be included in the definition of feminist — even if he or she holds certain discrete views that could be argued not to line up with feminism.
Problem is, I can definitely see how feminist discourse can give the impression that doctrinal purity IS required. That plays into the hands of people who want to dissuade women like you from advocating respect for women. That is, it plays into the hands that want people to assume you must believe in abortion and gay rights. We do need a word — “feminism” is as good as any — to describe what you all are doing here on this wonderful blog and this word should not be owned exclusively by people like me who match up with the Gloria Steinem-type feminist.
I am sort of thinking out loud here. But mainstream feminists ought to do a better job of fostering unity among women across
the political and religious spectrum. I worry that there are so many women who are afraid to speak or write about issues of women’s status because they fear that the “feminist” label does not describe them. This is a fear that has been fostered not only by patriarchs, but by feminists ourselves.
No matter where you stand on gay rights or abortion, most modern American women DO oppose the notion of being second class citizens, whether politically or culturally. On the other hand, it may be a lot to ask a lesbian to join forces with a woman who does not support her right to live as a lesbian; and it may be a lot to ask that woman to join forces with a lesbian if that woman believes the lesbian’s lifestyle to be an affront to her an entire belief system. Still, I harbor some hope that women across the board can disagree vigorously on some issues while still considering each other allies in such endeavors as criticizing rigid gender roles, notions of female inferiority, etc.
Not sure this is coherent, but I am so used my own generic feminist mold, that you got me thinking.
Confused by your last comments: You say you had hoped that you would be more acceptable to the younger generation of feminists, but that I have somehow set you straight. Let me say: I absolutely in no way meant to imply any rejection of you or how you have lived your life. I usually only lurk on this blog (probably a good idea) but I ADMIRE you enormously and I admire the crucial work you and the others on this blog are doing. You are confronting the little known problem of real harm done to women in patriocentric communities. It is not up to me to confer labels, but when I read your writing and those of others on this blog, I think of it as “true feminist” thinking and writing.
The “mommy wars” are of particular interest to me, for some reason. I think I am somewhat fascinated, overall, in women’s general willingness to turn on one another and try to place themselves in positions of superiority over one another. So much for sisterhood – LOL.
My own experience, having been both a SAHM for a decade and now being back in the work force for almost the same period of time, has been that both working women and SAH women are often perfectly willing to throw the other under the bus. Shadowspring, when I was a SAHM, I was on the receiving end of a few of those sneering-type comments,, too. But the contempt of the SAHM towards the working mother is no less intense, because as a mother in the workforce since 2000, I have also been on the receiving end of nasty remarks about my working from SAHMs. In my view, neither group has a corner market on viciousness.
I think this whole unfortunate phenomenon has been whipped up and sustained by the media, no matter “who started it”. Both sides have been very happy to keep it going. My approach, from the beginning, has been to refuse to take part in it. I did not feel the need to defend my choice to be at home with my children to my snooty neighbor or my husband’s colleagues, and I do not feel the need now to defend my choice to use my talents and education to fully partner with my husband in providing financially for my family to nosy church acquaintances. Both are legitimate choices and it is up to my husband and I to decide what is best for OUR family. At least, that’s the approach that has worked for me as I’ve navigated these troubled waters.
It would be a ,ajor understatement to write that I personally am very hurt by 70s feminism. It happened long before I ever became a mother.
My mom is a 70s feminist, who couldn’t stand her children or being a mother. I grew up with that burden already piled onto my little shoulders before I left the crib. Children to her were parasites, like the aliens in the famous movie of the same name.
I am quite open about my life as a SAHM being a personal political statement that children have value, that *I* had value. I see my mom as weak, a sham of a woman, who in her zeal to bear the title feminist gladly shed every bit of maternal sentiment she might have ever had.
So again, Light, I apologize for freaking out on you.
I’m not sure even now I can read what your words actually say, but what I got out of it was that you respect and admire my mother and her heroines, that my mother was admirable somehow, and it should be pretty obvious to everyone that her lifelong rejection of me as a person still smarts.
I am quite sure that is why the sneers and putdowns from other women hurts/angers me so much. I do take it personal. It is personal.
Ideas have consequences, and there is a lot of ruin in my past as a result of the idea that mothering is for simpletons who can’t get a real job. (An actual comment from an e-mail sent out last week to a friend of mine who is a mother of eight, leader of a large home school support group and volunteer in the community and in her church).
So while I admire the cool detachment of Savannah, it is not something I can create in myself. These words of condemnation that working women toss out touch a very painful spot in my heart. I didn’t put it there. I don’t want it there. But there it is nonetheless.
So, sorry, Light. I heard a defense of the teaching that children are not worth much, just little leeches that will suck the life out of you and drain your bank account. You never said that, but you said you did admire 70s feminists. And that sounded to me like you agree with the rhetoric they were tossing around at that time, and that was about the gist of it concerning children.
Whew! Well, I think that’s enough for me for awhile. I hope you accept my apology Light. And I hope some other poster will come along and put the thread back on track.
I’m checking out for the rest of the night to take my son to a pumpkin-carving teen scream event and to spend some time with my daughter. I hope everyone else also enjoys their families tonight.
Interesting. I don’t think feminism in Australia was ever quite as virulent as that. And the “Mommy wars” were certainly less intense. the worst I ever got from working mothers for being an SAHM was a raised eyebrow and a sense of confusion. That’s probably why I’m happy to call myself a feminist today — because in the circles i’ve moved in it’s had a lot less to do with whether you were in or out of the workforce, and a lot more to do with having a choice about your role and not being squeezed into a particular mould just because you’re a woman. The only time I really experienced prejudice was at the Christian school, where a certain subgroup of women who had large families made it obvious that I wasn’t one of them since I only had 2 kids.
But then, even now, the stats in Australia and America are very different. i understand that something like 85% of American mothers with children under 5 are back in fulltime employment (I may have thew exact figures wrong, it’s a while since I’ve seen them) Here it’s still less than 20%, I understand. That makes a huge social difference
Shadowspring, I truly apologize if what you described as my “cool detachment” came off as uncaring towards the pain you have obviously suffered. That was not my intent in any way.
Yes, thatmom–it’s almost as though the patriocentric patriarchs (sorry for redundancy) reserve their most acute fear of women for the mother’s authority over her sons.
Talking of feminism, it reminds me of the clip played on Meet the Press this past Sunday. For our overseas viewers, this is a political talk show that likes to re-play clips from early on in the show’s history. The 70s clip had an aggressive male interviewer attacking a sober and calm Gloria Steinem.
“Isn’t it true Miss Steinem,” he said forcefully, “that women actually have more power than men because they have power over their sons from their earliest years? Isn’t it true that women BRAINWASH men from a young age?”
Ooooh, those fighting words wouldn’ve had me delivering a set-down. But Steinem was very cool and collected in her answer and refused to engage with his misogyny. The man was plainly terrified of women and transferred his fear into aggression.
Laurie: “This reductive and insulting view of the relations between the sexes, a view which feminists oppose, is common among patriarchalists. It is the patriarchal view, not the feminist view, that frames traditional wives and mothers as sellers of goods and services.
… Feminism is easily misunderstood — caricatured by its opponents and bastardized by regular people who have some sympathy with its aims.
Emmy:
YES!
I can only shake my head at the self-indulgent ignorance of the G. Botkins and D. Phillips of the world when they rail against “feminism’s devaluing of women and exploitation of female sexuality.” It is patriarchy–IMO a very un-Christ-modelling paradigm–that devalues women and exploits their sexuality. Patriarchy is the carnal, earthly, clannish/tribal code perpetuated by power-hungry humans.
I prefer Jesus’ commitment to the equality and dignity of all human beings–Gentile or Jew, Woman or Man, Slave or Free.
If I remember correctly, a certain male author in the 40′s sparked the feminist movement (or a few women to start it) by writing about housewives and how they were leeches/parasites who sucked off of their husbands and didn’t contribute to society and how staying at home with children proved that they were simpletons.
I will try to find the book that I read a few years back that I am referring to.
Emmy wrote about a ’70s interviewer questioning Gloria Steinem:
“Isn’t it true Miss Steinem,” he said forcefully, “that women actually have more power than men because they have power over their sons from their earliest years? Isn’t it true that women BRAINWASH men from a young age?”
Same dynamic with the patrios.
Funny you should say that — when the patrio was beginning back in the early 1980′s, it was often yuppie WIVES who sold their husbands and families on the paradigm.
Another thing, too –
I think a lot of women, (and yours truly) were attracted by the prairie-style clothing, and the whole county-chic, blue-kerchiefed-geese (remember them?) stenciled, Hallmark-Little House on the Prairie kitsch of it all, and by the fact that they could be following the latest fashion/homemaking/mothering trend, and be on the cutting edge religiously speaking as well …. in other words, they could be IN STYLE, and be approved of God and Man at the same time.
A little off topic but in honor of Voddie’s ideas on needing the attention of younger women, here is something fun from Andy Rooney:
As I grow in age, I value women over 50 most of all. Here are just a few reasons why:
A woman over 50 will never wake you in the middle of the night and ask, ‘What are you thinking?’ She doesn’t care what you think.
If a woman over 50 doesn’t want to watch the game, she doesn’t sit around whining about it. She does something she wants to do, and it’s usually more interesting.
Women over 50 are dignified. They seldom have a screaming match with you at the opera or in the middle of an expensive restaurant. Of course, if you deserve it, they won’t hesitate to shoot you if they think they can get away with it.
Older women are generous with praise, often undeserved. They know what it’s like to be unappreciated.
Women get psychic as they age. You never have to confess your sins to a woman over 50.
Once you get past a wrinkle or two, a woman over 50 is far sexier than her younger counterpart.
Older women are forthright and honest.. They’ll tell you right off if you are a jerk, if you are acting like one. You don’t ever have to wonder where you stand with her.
Yes, we praise women over 50 for a multitude of reasons. Unfortunately, it’s not reciprocal. For every stunning, smart, well-coiffed, hot woman over 50, there is a bald, paunchy relic in yellow pants making a fool of himself with some 22-year old waitress. Ladies, I apologize.
For all those men who say, ‘Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Here’s an update for you. Nowadays 80% of women are against marriage. Why? Because women realize it’s not worth buying an entire pig just to get a little sausage!
Cynthia, this really made me laugh this morning. Sadly, we still have people in our town who dress their front yard geese! Right now the are witch geese!
Cynthia and Karen, you both made me giggle this morning!
Cynthia, your “blue-kerchiefed-geese” thing made me remember that my mother-in-law, who lives several hours away, once presented me with a concrete goose and outfits she had actually made for it (a different for every holiday and season). My husband was trying so hard to suppress laughter while I was unwrapping all of this stuff that he blew soda out of his nose and had to excuse himself (because one doesn’t even have to know me that well to know that that just isn’t me – LOL). I, thankfully, was more composed, as it really was a sweet gift into which she had put a lot of work, and I thanked her nicely and sincerely. However, when we got home, we promptly shelved the whole kit and kaboodle until she visited, at which time we had to search frantically for the box, etc., all the while hoping that one of our toddler sons wouldn’t sell us out to grandma. Very funny memory!
Karen, your list from Andy Rooney is hilarious, as well, and I think mostly true. I am not quite fifty – just a few years shy – but I can already relate with much of the list, and I can see those attributes in most of my friends that age, too. I don’t think I’m going to mind the big five-OH too much at all
Apologies accepted all the way around, mine included,and we can move on?
Even my mom’s virulent brand of feminism was a response to the patriarchal upbringing she suffered. Remember, my grandfather threw away the letter awarding her a college to business school because women had no need of education? That’s the same mom.
So the excesses of resentment she was attracted too had deep roots in being dismissed as a person because she was female. I do get it. The limitations put on her life by men in power were very real, very destructive, very wrong.
That is one reason that just adding a Christian veneer to sexist behavior stands out so plainly to me. Sexism is just another word for sin, a certain classification of sin. When one uses feminism as an excuse to hate tit-for-tat, to be just as selfish and greedy and ugly as men have been, then it becomes sin too.
However the demand that all people be treated as people of value and worth is NOT sin! It is standing up for righteousness and justice. We have a clear mandate from God to pursue righteousness and justice in the earth.
In this aspect I myself am a “feminist” and am proud to wear the label. However, I tried to join the pro-life feminist group iFeminist once, and they rejected. Apparently you can’t be against porn (acceptable among some feminists), pro-life (which to me means pro-womb, pro-child but certainly not anti-birth control or family planning) and be admitted to their ranks unless you are also not religious.
Seems I get rejected by everyone! LOL Can’t be a patrio, can’t be a feminist. *sigh* What’s a girl to do?
This is off topic but did you happen to hear FOF about two weeks ago ? Carolyn McCulley and Candice Waters were on the air. If go to FOF ‘Boundless” website you can hear it. Just wondering your thoughts. Both were talking about their book and the state of singleness . I have been single a very long time now and have read most of the books out there. I don’t know that I buy into Soverign Graces/Boundless approach or versions of married life and motherhood but I sensed Mr Dobson wasn’t 100% aware or on board with some of what they had to say….
LOL Karen! That was an unexpected and brilliant lyric to drop. And I am happy for the company.
Yes it was tres cool to be all Charlotte Mason, gingham-checked picnic tablecloth with real linens and home-made everything home school mom in the ’80s! I definitely remember the trend, even though it was not my style.
I read Charlotte Mason and all her gushing about fresh air and I thought, “Well of course in the early nineteenth century England people were dying of CO2 poisoning with gas lamps and coal heat! You had to go outside every day the weather was decent, and leave a window cracked at all times. But there’s nothing especially virtuous about it. Just common sense.”
The Charlotte Mason fans around me in hot sticky Florida didn’t seem to think that through. And just try to spread out a gingham picnic blanket on the grass in Florida! Fireants will eat you alive. South Texas too. LOL That didn’t stop the fashionable home school mom from trying, a la Karen Andreola!
I don’ get it. Is this man taking up for Rich Lusk within a denominational dispute?
Rich Lusk is a federalist (which I had to look up-LOL!) and he wrote a book that I think is advocating infant baptism as a means of salvation? I’m not sure. I haven’t read the book.
I know a lot of PCA homeschoolers are into the covenant theology thing. I guess it really matters them that there is some guarantee on their kids salvation, although theologically they believe a person can lose their salvation.
So in the end, there are no guarantees. You might just not actually be one of the elect after all, surprise surprise.
“For all those men who say, ‘Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Here’s an update for you. Nowadays 80% of women are against marriage. Why? Because women realize it’s not worth buying an entire pig just to get a little sausage!”
LOL…. just a note, I have nothing against blue-kerchiefed geese, just all the baggage that went with them…. and their omnipresence, ad nauseum.
Given time, I might even come to appreciate those geese again, as part of a Beatrix-Potter-meets-1980s nostalgia trip, but for now, I’m happily into Delft windmills and blue roosters…
Ugh.. I remember those apron and bonnet-wearing geese. My Aunt had her kitchen full of the fake ones, and her yard full of the real ones! I didn’t like geese, they were loud and scary and tended to pick on me because I was small and easy to chase.
Bad memories for me, too, but of a slightly different kind, lol!
Bean, that is too funny, because I think I was “emotionally scarred” by a goose when I was a little girl, too. My old Uncle Seamus lived way yonder in the hills and my folks always took food out there for them as his wife was sickly. They had a watch-goose instead of a watchdog and I was completely terrified of this animal, with good reason. It was completely mean, though and through, and I was always afraid to get out of the car. LOL – I am still not that crazy about geese, and we have such a proliferation now of the Canada geese that they’re everywhere!
That was not why I didn’t go for the concrete goose in various clothing, though. I just never was into the country thing that much.
Apparently the feminist-ish pirates were what made this book objectionable not the fact that they were PIRATES that steal, pillage, and plunder or that they were drunken and caroused. Really, where is the clear thinking? Men peeling potatoes, scrubbing floors, and shining shoes is the offensive part because that would make them more like women??????????
I’m sure the author’s intent was to break down the oh-so-clear and biblical barriers between manhood and womanhood, to blur the lines, to confuse young minds into thinking “Is that boy pirate a girl? He’s peeling potatoes, so he must be!” /sarcasm
Ridiculous. I bet if it were the other way around, if the boy pirates took over the girl pirates ship and made THEM wash the floors, etc etc, that would be fine. Because those unruly women would be put in their rightful place, under the men.
That was an interesting review of the pirate woman book.
As I read, I kept thinking that I do not want my children to see peeling potatoes or scrubbing floors to be thought of in a negative light but really shouldn’t anything we do in our homes for others be a demonstration of serving one another? Why is it better to have one chore over another?
I also remembered that in the army, KP (kitchen patrol) is often used as punishment for infractions. (Not always, as every recruit takes turns peeling potatoes and scrubbing floors and latrines!)
That is the most inane thing I have ever read. And your commentary on her book review is right on the mark. Yes, where is the outrage about raping, pillaging, drunken, carousing and plundering male pirates? The outrage is that female pirates take over the ship of the male pirates and make them shine shoes, peel potatoes and scrub floors and then she goes into how those are the things she is doing as the service of the “quiet, hidden service of women in the home”.
As if peeling potatoes, shining things and scrubbing floors are the work reserved for women? She has two sons, why isn’t she training them how to scrub floors, peel potatoes and shine things?
And, somehow these female pirates have morphed into “feminists”? It’s okay, I guess, for males to be pirates and rape and molest women and force others to do their work for them because being a pirate and oppressing others, especially women,is biblical manhood? But, may it never be that a bunch of fictional female pirates with Bertha at the helm oppress oppressors!
She then issues a prayer about catching worldly messages. I don’t think she really understands at all.
Biblical manhood/womanhood???? Thoughts on “housework”? Huh? CBMW is grasping for straws.
I have been preparing to give two devotionals at a retreat for homeschooling moms in a couple weeks and have chosen this verse as the them for what I am doing:
“She opens her mouth with wisdom and the law of kindness is on her tongue.”
I began pulling out all the resources I have on my shelves on Proverbs 31 and doing some online digging as well. I was so disappointed to see so many commentaries and writers approach Proverbs 31 as instruction for women in how to behave to SO THAT their husbands can be “known in the gates when he sits among the elders in the land.” I don’t see where that is ever given as the reason. If I have missed that, someone please show it to me.
Amazingly, when I chucked all the commentaries and did my own word study on wisdom and kindness, I was blown away.
I am also not using the pink letter edition Bible.
Okay, the CBMW article is worse than I thought. Here is one of the reviews from Amazon:
“From School Library Journal
Kindergarten-Grade 2–Molly is sailing off to visit her grandmother when she is captured by ferocious Captain Firebeard and his cutthroat crew. Their intention is to hold her for ransom, but the stalwart girl refuses to divulge her parents’ names and address despite endless chores and threats of being fed to the sharks. Instead, she waits until the pirates fall asleep and tosses messages tucked into bottles out to sea. Caught in the act, she is about to be thrown overboard when rescue arrives in the person of her mother, the pirate Barbarous Bertha. Firebeard and his crew must now take over Molly’s chores, and she sails happily off to Grandma’s house. ”
So, this woman isn’t outraged that a bunch of ruffians kidnapped this little girl and forced her to do endless chores and threatened her with death. It is only when she is rescued by her grandma, Bertha, and Grandma gives them their comeuppance for torturing her grand-daughter does this woman have a problem?
So, the message from CBMW is that it is wrong for Grandmas to deal out punishments to nasty male pirates because peeling potatoes, scrubbing floors and polishing shoes are women’s work? It was okay when her grand-daughter was being treated thus by a bunch of males but when Grandma comes and gives her grand-daughter’s captors a taste of their own medicine it is bad?
I guess this woman didn’t have a problem with all the talk about on the part of the males about partying and drinking rum and the “worldly message” it sends to her boys?
This article is so out in left field it is unbelievable. There are so many messages in this book but one that I would not get out of it would be that men should not do housework.
And if the CBMW author would have actually read the book instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to her own pet “sin” of feminism, she would have seen that Grandma Bertha was punishing the pirates by giving them a taste of their own medicine. She was not punishing them with housework only reserved for that of hidden females. She was punishing them by making them do the SAME thing that they did to her own granddaughter.
Why isn’t she outraged that these men kidnapped this little girl and made her a slave? Why isn’t she outraged about the drinking, carousing and partying and the using of females of these male pirates as it is depicted in this book? This happens MUCH more in this world than Grandma Berthas taking over pirate ships and making male pirates do the work of females! LOL
Makes me wanna go out and buy the book to read to my daughters.
Too bad they are a little old for stories like that.
I am trying to teach them (my daughters) how the world is so hard on women in so many cultures and how God doesn’t approve the bad treatment of women. And that there are places (few, but more than two) where God calls on the women to do something about the oppressed poor. That some spoiled, rich, women are actually under God’s judgement because they turn a deaf ear to the cries of the poor and oppressed.
And I don’t think, “my husband says I can’t” is an excuse that would hold water with God.
His answer might look like, “So in other words, your husband was and idol you had and worshipped over Me.” Just guessing on that one. But it’s more of a result of me trying to work out my salvation in fear and trembling and relearning that I’m responsible for my own actions and inaction, not my husband, not matter how the patrios rage.
I say that we form a “Grandma Bertha” club that sends a message to men who want to kidnap our granddaughters that they had better not mess with our granddaughters (or daughters, for that matter) or they will be messing with “Grandma Bertha”.
I think THAT is the message, if I were Kim Schmidt/CBMW, I would want my sons to get out of that book.
But, the author of that book review somehow skipped over that very important message being conveyed to her sons and was upset that very BAD MEN were being punished for kidnapping a little girl and forcing her to be a slave. After all, I am sure that CBMW reasons that this little girl should have been happy to serve those men in the role that God has ordained for her, doing the housework of a “hidden woman” and considering it all joy when she is oppressed and abused and suffering as a victim of drunken pirates/criminals.
If I was Grandma Bertha, I may have strung those pirates up by their important bits to teach them a lesson but then it would not be a children’s book of fiction.
The message that CBMW is sending loud and clear by posting this review is that they really don’t care about the oppression of women and that the really important thing is that BAD, BAD MEN are never to stoop so low as to peel potatoes and scrub the decks of pirate ships as punishment for their crimes. After all, CBMW seems to be saying that men will be men and being a pirate is a man’s role and that Grandma Bertha and her gaggle of feminists are trying to be like men when they take on the role of pirate. How dare she punish BAD, BAD CRIMINALS with the hidden work of a housewife (in other words, Grandma Bertha gave them a taste of their own medicine and forced them to do what they forced her granddaughter to do).
If CBMW is so far gone as to not see that this is what the book is about and it is not about women’s roles and women’s housework then I don’t know what else to say.
And, as I type all of this I am laughing because the whole thing is just so stupid, I can’t believe it was even posted on their site.
CBMW has lost a LOT of credibility with this one and I don’t think I can trust them to represent another work of child’s fiction much less trust them to deliver the truth of God’s word, esp. when it relates to men and women.
They are also the ones who posted an article about how we are married in heaven and that females are in eternal submission to their earthly husbands. If it sounds like Mormon theology, it is but that doesn’t stop CBMW from wanting to ignore what the Scriptures actually say and stop them from keeping the men first and the women last in their war against the female gender.
“I am trying to teach them (my daughters) how the world is so hard on women in so many cultures and how God doesn’t approve the bad treatment of women. And that there are places (few, but more than two) where God calls on the women to do something about the oppressed poor. That some spoiled, rich, women are actually under God’s judgement because they turn a deaf ear to the cries of the poor and oppressed.”
Mara,
Exactly!
And I will not shrink back when I see the oppressed needing to be delivered from their oppressors. Just because I am a woman does not mean that I am exempt from God’s word telling us that we are to deliver those who are being oppressed. That is NOT only men’s work.
“It’s the story of the fierce pirates of the Horrible Haddock. All are men, given to drunkenness and carousing. They get overtaken by Barbarous Bertha and her band of all women pirates. Bertha and her crew conquer the men and sentence them to a life of scrubbing decks, peeling vegetables, and polishing Bertha’s shoes.
I explained to my two young sons, “This book does not please God. It’s trying to teach us that women should be more like men and men should be more like women. But God teaches us that He made men and women different, and that’s a good thing.”"
Let’s just examine what Schmidt said on CBMW about this child’s fiction book.
It’s trying to teach us that women should be more like men…….
Okay. How is this book doing this? That men are the ones fit to be drunken and carousing pirates and that this is a man’s role? And this is a good thing?
This book does not please God…..
Because, according to her, women want to usurp a role that is rightfully reserved for men. (In this book it is that of being a pirate, that is what SHE is saying.)
This is so warped and it shows me that patriocentricity clouds the view of the REAL issues so much so that they cannot see the forest for the trees. The little girl is delivered from her captors and the criminals are punished but this book is not pleasing to God.
Hmmmm….we should be very alarmed for the true victims in the patriocentric movement when we have people like this making out the heroes to be the bad people and the truly bad people to be the oppressed victims.
One more thing and then I will go back to my hidden work…
Karen, I guess this makes the supervising male officers in the Army and the Navy feminists because they use peeling potatoes, scrubbing latrines and swabbing the poop deck as punishment for underlings?
These MALE officers are sending their feminist message that woman’s work is punishment, right?
Also, I thought that Paul Newman looked mighty manly in “Cool Hand Luke” as he peeled potatoes but now that we have been enlightened with the wisdom from on high (CBMW), it was all a feminist plot to send the message that woman’s work is a punishment.
I think CBMW should just come up with a list of acceptable chores – one for males and one for females so we can all make sure that we are walking accordingly in our gender-assigned roles. I am sure that these lists are in the Bible somewhere?
Did Esau peel his own potatoes when he prepared meat for his father? Did Jesus have a woman throw the fish on the fire when He made breakfast for His disciples?
Why didn’t Jesus rebuke Mary for not doing the hidden work that belongs to every female? Why wasn’t Martha praised for doing what she was born to do…hidden away in the kitchen doing the woman’s work while the men did their (out in the open?) work?
And what does this word “hidden woman” mean and where does it come from? I hear it all the time amongst patriocentrists and I have no idea where it comes from?
I wonder if that makes Lady Wisdom bad for not staying hidden and for wandering out into the town’s square crying with a loud voice and teaching the simpletons about wisdom? Why was wisdom personified as a woman if women are to be hidden? That makes no sense.
This is an excellent site! Thank you for posting it.
Reading some of the things on that site should open our eyes to the REAL issues facing our world!
I am so sick of listening to the patrios rage on and on about feminists when these sorts of things are going on all over the world and they have been for centuries! Where is their outrage over what so many women have suffered and are suffering right now?
If we are not careful, the patrios will marginalize women to the point that we are just like these other countries where oppression and marginalization of women and the paltry eduction of girls cause chaos and every evil thing to run unfettered.
Hidden woman to me sounds like a figurative burka. Why must women be hidden?
And may I say, I love doing laundry for my family. It’s hidden in the basement. I’ve got all the tools. I’ve got the primo washer and dryer set up. I love it. I love looking at my kids’ clothes and remembering how they got mud on them at the pumpkin patch or how they hugged me while wearing this or that article of clothing. I save special things in a little box to remember the cuteness someday.
It’s NOT punishment to do work. It’s the attitude. It’s not beneath me. It’s not beneath my husband. He puts ALL, I mean ALL the laundry away. He’s got a military precision about it, that cracks me up.
Families work together. Families do menial labor because it’s great to have clean clothes to wear and delicious food to share.
I feel SO MUCH BETTER about housework since I’ve transitioned to more egal then comp. Now I do it out of love not obligation.
I wish I could tell this young mom that. She really needs to hear it and to chill out a little. She’d be a lot happier, I bet.
“I am so sick of listening to the patrios rage on and on about feminists when these sorts of things are going on all over the world and they have been for centuries! Where is their outrage over what so many women have suffered and are suffering right now?”
Corrie, you’re missing the point… women all over the world wouldn’t suffer if only they would submit joyfully to their men at all times and in all circumstances. Sure, the men could be kinder, you know, love them as Christ loved the church… but in the end, if they mistreat their wives, it’s because they aren’t being respected enough.
” women all over the world wouldn’t suffer if only they would submit joyfully to their men at all times and in all circumstances. Sure, the men could be kinder, you know, love them as Christ loved the church… but in the end, if they mistreat their wives, it’s because they aren’t being respected enough.”
Bean, I almost don’t know what to say or how to say it. The more abusive a man is, the more he wants and demands submission to his wishes. The more he gets the more he wants. This is not the description of Biblical submission which is for all believers. Biblical submission for all believers (including those married and those not) is an attitude of arranging oneself under another in order to lift them up. It is not about what the other wants or demands. Biblical submission gives into the lives of others not for selfish gain, but for the benefit of the other, what God gives us to give.
Men who mistreat their wives cannot blame their sinful actions on their victims, although they would like to. It is their own fault and no others. If anything, the more a woman submits to a willfully abusive man whether in actions, words or treatment, the more the man will mistreat her. A fool will not be corrected by words or getting his way. He must be released to God for judgment.
“Hidden woman to me sounds like a figurative burka. Why must women be hidden?”
Holly, I hope you stick around! I like the way you think.
And I have to second the rest of your comment. It’s been my thoughts exactly. It’s so good I had to post it again:
“And may I say, I love doing laundry for my family. It’s hidden in the basement. I’ve got all the tools. I’ve got the primo washer and dryer set up. I love it. I love looking at my kids’ clothes and remembering how they got mud on them at the pumpkin patch or how they hugged me while wearing this or that article of clothing. I save special things in a little box to remember the cuteness someday.
It’s NOT punishment to do work. It’s the attitude. It’s not beneath me. It’s not beneath my husband. He puts ALL, I mean ALL the laundry away. He’s got a military precision about it, that cracks me up.
Families work together. Families do menial labor because it’s great to have clean clothes to wear and delicious food to share.
I feel SO MUCH BETTER about housework since I’ve transitioned to more egal then comp. Now I do it out of love not obligation.
I wish I could tell this young mom that. She really needs to hear it and to chill out a little. She’d be a lot happier, I bet.”
TL… I was being completely sarcastic. I thought my comment was ridiculous enough that everyone would get that. Sorry if I seemed to be sincere… it wasn’t at all!
“TL… I was being completely sarcastic. I thought my comment was ridiculous enough that everyone would get that. Sorry if I seemed to be sincere… it wasn’t at all!”
Thank goodness!! I felt so sorry that anyone would actually believe that. LOL
Bean wrote:
“Corrie, you’re missing the point… women all over the world wouldn’t suffer if only they would submit joyfully to their men at all times and in all circumstances. Sure, the men could be kinder, you know, love them as Christ loved the church… but in the end, if they mistreat their wives, it’s because they aren’t being respected enough.”
Well don’t stop being sad TL because people actually DO BELIEVE that! People in authority in churches teach exactly that to abused women. Don’t ask me how I know, but I assure it happens exactly that way. That is THE explanation for why your husband has not yet been won over to obedience for Christ by your quiet, gentle spirit.
Yep, the woman ain’t doing it right. People seriously use that scripture to spiritually abuse women who go to the church for help in an abusive relationship.
Heck, non-Christians do it too (but he seems like such a nice guy! are you sure you didn’t provoke him?) but it’s far far worse when people use scripture to back them up.
They are using God’s holy name in vain is a BIG WAY, when they attach God to their hard hearted love of doctrine that trumps justice or mercy.
“I’m fascinated by the attitude of “Let me tell you all about how I don’t want to draw attention to myself.””
Emr,
LOL!
Holly,
Re: #125, I echo what Alisa said to you. You stated it beautifully! I think it is great when families have this sort of work ethic and they look at the tasks to be done around the house as a team sort of thing. Also, when a family works together it makes the work much easier to do. When it is all one one person’s back (the “hidden woman” at home), it is a daunting task, especially the more children that woman has. I am trying to teach this to my children so they are truly a blessing to their spouses when/if they get married. I often said, about myself, that working full-time as a single mother was far more easier and restful for me than it is being a full-time stay at home mom of 10 who has 99% of household tasks resting squarely on her shoulders (that includes mowing the lawn and a lot of other things not deemed woman’s work). I start early in the morning and don’t finish all of the jobs that need to be done until late into the night when everyone has been in bed for hours.
I, too, see no work beneath me. I do what needs to be done when it needs to be done for the benefit of my family. I do what needs to be done anywhere I am for the benefit of others. I also take great pride in my work whether it be scrubbing toilets, folding laundry, ironing, painting or whatever.
But, I think your point about it being a team effort is very important, emotionally, for the health of the family.
You are exactly right that these things are taught.
In fact, I can’t get over the irony that the woman needs to basically make her husband the leader “God meant him to be” and if he isn’t (ie., respected in the gates, etc) then it is because she isn’t doing something right. Vision Forum even has tapes that teach women how to make their husbands godly leaders.
My question is this: Who really is the leader according to this sentiment? It is the woman.
If a person is not a great leader they can’t blame the underlings for that problem. I happen to believe that not all men are naturally born to lead. I think that true leaders have special gifts/talents that they are born with and that they develop over a period of time. But, since the patrio paradigm doesn’t allow for all members of the body of Christ to exercise their gifts/talents and lead/guide in the areas that they are most strong in, they have to make all sorts of gyrations to prop up the man as the “leader” by putting pressure and responsibility on the woman to make him that leader he is supposed to be.
A leader decides he/she wants to be a leader and then does puts their mind to being that leader. It is all about a person’s will, doing what needs to be done as far as educating one’s self and training one’s self and then practicing what one learns.
Sometimes I feel like the patrios want us to prop up our husbands like Richard and Larry tried to prop up their dead boss and make it look like he was still alive, in “Weekend at Bernies”. Some women have to pretend that their husbands are leaders all the while doing all the work but making it look as if their husbands are leading.
What kind of men are these that they must be propped up in such artificial ways?
Seriously – I would have rather remained single than to be yoked with one of these types. I thank God for *real* men, like the one He gave to me, who doesn’t need his ego stroked constantly or for me to pretend I am way dumber than he is to prop up his fragile male ego. If our sons turn out to be half the man their father is in this respect, it will be something good.
TL, sorry for not warning you about the quirky and fully entertaining sense of humor around here when I told you about this thread.
I take it for granted sometimes.
And shadowspring, don’t worry, my friend TL knows what you are talking about.
I feel sorry for those men being manipulated by their wives to be something they are not.
I once had a woman break an important commitment to our home school group and totally claim she was righteous for patrios sake. Her husband needed the car, therefore she was free -no, obligated- to break her word and skip out on her work. She said her husband needed the car to go to a Promise Keeper’s meeting.
Please tell me I am not the only one to see the irony in that?
Well, as president I took over her task, even though I was very sick, made sure that her obligations were met because other people were depending on us as an organization. But I also told her that it was unacceptable to bow out at the last minute without making some other arrangements to keep her word. (Mind you if it had been an emergency that would be different, but I don’t think they hold emergency Promise Keeper’s meetings.
A few days later I received a letter with no return address. Hmmmm. I can’t stand hate mail so I asked my hubby to read it for me and summarize in a sentence or two. “So and so’s husband hates you and will not allow his wife to be part of the organization as long as you are president.”
Anyone but me strongly suspicious that his wife made him a) go to Promise Keepers and b) write that letter? LOL
“A few days later I received a letter with no return address. Hmmmm. I can’t stand hate mail so I asked my hubby to read it for me and summarize in a sentence or two. “So and so’s husband hates you and will not allow his wife to be part of the organization as long as you are president.”
Apparently, neither of them had read the Bible lately. That sort of attitude is totally unacceptable. Often in patriarchal households the Bible is seldom read. When it is read the husband chooses what is read and what it means. Thus for all practical purposes they really don’t have a grasp of the whole of Scripture.
I don’t know, in this family I believe that mom was pushing the whole patrio thing, trying to become the perfect Christian family.
Hubby never came off as the sort of person to write hate mail in our earlier meetings. I think wifey was behind the whole thing, under cover of “submission to her head” of course.
Shadowspring, that is so odd, because I had a situation where supposedly the husband had told the wife to meet with me and “break up” with me – LOL. I honestly don’t know to this day who was behind it – him or her.
I didn’t really know the woman all that well, but we were in several church groups together and we had gotten together socially a number of times. Apparently, she (or her husband) did not approve of the fact that I made decisions without consulting my husband about things that she supposedly had to consult her husband about (silly things such as which furniture polish to use – I wish I was joking, but that’s the example I was given by her).
Anyway, she called me up and invited me to meet her for frozen yogurt and I happily agreed and while we were sitting there enjoying our frozen confection she told me that her husband “was allowing” her to meet with me this one last time to tell me that I was not a good influence on her and that she would no longer be allowed to see me socially. It would have been funny had it not been really sad.
So I got dumped by this woman who considered herself so much more spiritual than I was because I made basic household decisions *all* *by* *myself*.
Yep. I got dumped like that. Only the poor lady had to call me to tell me she could no longer communicate with me, as her husband thought I did not have a meek and quiet spirit and was a bad influence.
Thing is, we had homechurched together for two years til her husband was tragically killed in an accident. We helped them through that, and she remarried. The new guy was an old bachelor with weird ideas:
I gave her some blush and a lipstick before the wedding. also, my favorite nail polish (she had NO manicure. I was just trying to help) She told me later he was incredulous, saying “You DISOBEYED me! I told you I didn’t like makeup, and you disobeyed me!!” gulp.
I love that the Bible says an excellent wife is the CROWN of her husband. Doesn’t a crown sit on TOP of a head? And has no other purpose than to adorn, signify significance, and be a thing of richness and beauty to behold and treasure? Many singular scriptures are taken from Proverbs; why not this one?
Joking aside, if everyone would JUST LOVE, I don’t think this would be such a hot debate. (I don’t mean this forum, just the issues in general.) There wouldn’t be a battle over who does what–everyone looks out for the well-bring of others, and does what needs to be done. Just love.
Yes, Hillary. What if the church taught on true spiritual unity, that we would be one as Jesus and the Father are one, being like-minded, loving with the same love, having the same spirit of faith, in humility considering one another above ourselves…I am sure that is what Christian marriage really should be all about.
A man as a head, a SOURCE: of courage, comfort, humility, service, faith and a wife as a CROWN, an adornment of beauty, her well-loved countenance a testimony to all of her husband’s true spiritual “authority”- that he is taking authority over all the power of the enemy, crucifying his flesh and rejoicing that his name is written in heaven.
I can remember years and years ago a man who didn’t want his wife to hang out with me because he thought I was “always pregnant” and a homeschooler and he didn’t want his wife to get any of those bad ideas.
Then, more recently, I was labeled as having “latent feminist tendencies,” another reason to steer clear of me. It seems I can’t win.
momgodin, this whole spin that is put on the “meek and quiet spirit” admonishment drivers me nuts. I know plenty of women who are reserved in demeanor who are not meek and quiet in their spirits yet they are “approved.” I used to struggle with this notion all the time since I am naturally gregarious and outgoing and friendly. And since I have this fierce radar that goes off when I see injustice. It wasn’t until I realized that God has given me the personality He chose for me that I was able to be quiet in my spirit. Big difference than being outwardly quiet and sometimes sniffely.
I totally agree with the “meek and quiet” stuff. I was on a mission trip for young adults, and I was constantly being upbraided for some defect or another. Only one time was it accurate (ouch) but most of the other accusations were just ridiculous and I was always able to defend myself scripturally and honestly. This is because I love God’s Word and study it regularly and I love God and seek Him in prayer and personal worship regularly.
On the other hand, there was another young missionary who was immoral, unethical, lukewarm in her faith- but quiet. She was never once called on the carpet for anything as far as I know, because she was quiet. This was seen as godliness, when that girl was guilty of unrepentant immorality on a scale that would make a Hollywood movie star slap her face.
I guess they translate meek and quiet to mean passively silent, sort of like the old English butler who stands still in a corner of the room until called upon for an act of service.
And yet whom does the Bible describe as “very meek, above all the men which were on the face of the earth”? (Numbers 12:3)
Moses — not someone I would describe as passive, or silent, or weak.
I have a note in my Bible by Matthew 5:5 (“Blessed are the meek”)that meekness is “putting my will under God’s control.” That does not equal powerless or passive!
“Anyone but me strongly suspicious that his wife made him a) go to Promise Keepers and b) write that letter? LOL”
Or (c) she wrote the letter herself and signed his name to it.
This is the way that many patriocentric wives act.
I have had women tell me that their husbands didn’t want them to do something and then when I spoke to their husbands about it (as in, I told the husband that I missed their wife at a certain event), they told me that they had no idea that their wife wanted to do that thing and that they wished they would have known about it because they would have encouraged her to go.
They use their husbands to hide behind in order to say “no” instead of being a grown adult and saying “no” or “yes” all on their own adult authority. So, they make their husbands look like a big ogre when he really isn’t.
Interesting article. Makes my skin crawl just to think about the setup these men have and how they have orchestrated a religion in order to satisfy their own flesh, egos and lusts for power and perversion.
“A 38-year-old man from a polygamist sect sexually assaulted a teenager less than half his age at the Yearning For Zion Ranch, a prosecutor charged Wednesday to open the first criminal trial since the ranch was raided.”
Or, better called “Yearning For the Attentions of Younger Women Ranch”.
Have finally caught up on the last comments after being away–lots to go through! Very interesting, and I loved TL’s comment about the neck to turn the head. Karen, the picture of the Rasmussen bros. pedaling furiously to keep the generator going was great–glad I wasn’t eating or drinking, or I would have spewed…
A lady at church recently suggested the book Captivating by Eldredge. I was thinking that somebody had commented on TW about this book but I can’t seem to remember what was said…Do any of you have a reccomendation for or against this book?
Wow, cynthia, I didn’t know such open hatred of women existed on the net. I will not ask God to have mercy on their souls but will instead pray for His divine justice to be evident to all.
I am quite sure you DON’T want to be liked by anyone who chooses Faust for a handle! LOL
An openly wicked man trying to pass his arrogant, hateful attitudes off as righteous? That is so transparently ludicrous it deserves no further comment from me.
By the way, I have never read that you hated home schoolers. I feel pretty sure we would be friends IRL if we lived in the same place. And thatmom is WAY into homeschooling. Methinks this “man” is not that smart…
I have not read Captivating, but I have read Eldredge’s book Wild at Heart and loved it. I am know not sure if I was supposed to have read it/loved it or not-LOL. Perhaps it was only meant for men?
I stay away from all Christian books written for woman only, ever since cracking up laughing at some Elizabeth Elliot book in the ’80s. She was going on in the book about how there were no female chess grandmasters because women just weren’t as smart as men in that way.
My husband is really into chess. The month I read this book Judit Polgar, homeschool prodigy from Eastern Europe, had just achieved grandmaster status in the world chess community.
Both my husband and i had a great laugh over that book! Later an earnest friend of mine watched her DVD series, wanting so hard to be godly woman. When she got to the part about keeping your family’s clothes drawers organized as a measure of your holiness, even my sincerely earnest young friend cracked up laughing.
I am so glad to be a woman today! I am so glad I wasn’t born even ten, much less twenty years earlier! I love being who I am, who God made me to be. I would hate to live in a world where my value and worth as a Christian wife and mother is measured by my family’s clothers drawers!
I loved Wild at Heart too.
And I know several other women who have read it and loved it and felt God talking to them about being more ‘wild and free’** in Christ.
No, I’m not sure we were the ones that were supposed to get that message. But God sent it to us through that book anyway.
**(the term ‘free’ in so many Christian circles has just completely lost it’s meaning, especially to women.)
In post #155, I posted a link to what I thought was an interesting discussion on the reactions in Chistendom to abuse in marriage on Michael Spencer’s (the Internet Monk) website.
I discovered this afternoon that the Brothers Bayly have some very strong thoughts on Monk’s post:
I just read that Bayly Blog article. I’m going to go see how many creative combination of four letter words I can create over one cup of tea. But out of respect I’ll go do that out of hearing range.
Me either, Momgodin. In fact, 10 years ago I would have insisted I was a complementarian … until I read Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood so that I would be able to explain why. That pro-comp tome actually changed my mind, because the logic was so faulty, the eisegesis rampant, that I realized it was all built on a house of cards.
I wouldn’t say I’m a particularly strong egal, I’m sort of out of the comp camp, and dipping my toe in the egal camp. I think there are some good points made in compism about the distinct complementary features of the sexes, but I completely disagree with how the sexes are put into tiny boxes (male=leader, female=follower). Also, I totally support female pastors, so that excludes me from the comp camp.
Annie C #169
Can I join you over that cup of tea?
Maybe after we are done creating four letter word combinations we can have an intelligent conversation and restore each other’s faith in humanity?
Maybe (probably) this is just pride on my part, but I don’t understand why I need some teacher/preacher to tell me how to be a Christian woman. I can read the Bible, I have the Holy Spirit, I am married to a loving godly husband whom I trust and respect. I don’t really see how this is anybody else’s business.
Whether or not someone has been abused actually has little to do with their understanding of Scripture. There are plenty of abused people who are still patriarchal in belief system.
I had a light bulb moment reading your thoughts about Elizabeth Eliott. Can you give me the names of the resources where she talks about a woman’s godliness being measured by the tidiness of the clothing drawers?
The reason I ask is because I remember when I heard this concept about 20 years ago from Bill Gothard. He has sent out a newsletter and it highlighted the McKim family,who had 14 or 15 children. They had hosted a delegation from Russia who came to their home. Gothard talked about how impressed the Russians were because they could open any drawer in the McKim household and it was spotless.
That was the beginning of my escape from patriocentricity. It really was. I was just trying to keep my head above water, homeschooling six kids, one of them with learning disabilities and a “holy terror” on some days. Both of my parents had had strokes and couldn’t drive so we had to completely shift our schedules around to meet their needs, eventually taking my mom into our home when my dad died. In the meantime, Clay’s parents both had major health issues and we were traveling back and forth to Michigan, 8 hours away from us) to help them, too. AND, our church situation was awful. My daughter had 50 piano students coming into our home every week for lessons and I was trying to get three kids prepared for college.
And this guy wanted my sock drawers to be spotless? Gothard was a huge fan of EE and I imagine that is where that all came from. Anyway, I can now look back and be thankful that the Lord used that one statement to wake me up!
Any resources for that quote would be great. I have been wanting to write about this on thatmom.
Speaking of Elisabeth Elliot, a few months ago I read an interesting and irritating devotional from her.
She was telling a story about staying with a family she had never met while she was speaking at their church.Not preaching, I am sure! Anyway, she went to great lengths to talk about the perfection in this household, the perfectly clean home, the perfectly behaved children, etc. etc. etc.
I felt ill reading this. And then, she went on to say that anyone who wants a household just like that one could have it. You just have to make it happen. It was all within your power as the wife and mom to see that it did.
First of all, I would not want a perfect household, as per her standards. A household with absolutely every single thing spotless and perfect means that no one can feel at home there.
But more than that, why would she lay such a trip on mothers? I honestly don’t think I am a lazy person, but at the end of the day my home would never be as she described. I am a sinner and everyone in my family is a sinner. We argue. We make messes and leave them for other people to clean up after and we have to remind each other to change that. My laundry is NEVER done. Sometimes we eat fast food. I sometimes use cream of mushroom soup instead of always making my own white sauce. I don’t always iron and even put a shirt in the dryer with a damp cloth for 10 minutes to get the wrinkles out (works great!) We read the Bible as a family 4-5 nights a week but it isn’t morning and night every day as she says it must be.
What I want to know is why women allow these sorts of trips to be put on them? Why? It breaks my heart to think of all those young moms who are struggling, just trying to do the basics of life and then they hear how the standard of measure for their godliness is this nonsense! This was at the core of my total disdain for the Passionate Housewives book. It was a book chalk full of platitudes and impossible standards masquerading as Biblical womanhood.
This weekend is our annual homeschooling mom’s day of encouragement and I would ask you all to pray for the moms who are coming. I want to see them built up in the faith and encouraged. My presentation is on wisdom and kindness, how they go hand in hand. Please pray that I can inspire them with the Word.
I am combing through Focus on the Family offerings but I can’t find any video series by EE. Hmmm. Wonder if it was a weekly series or something? It would have been in the second half of the ’90s.
On the other hand, it’s very likely the book I read explaining why women would never be chess grandmasters was probably Let Me Be A Woman. It was published in 1976 and I would have been reading it in 1988.
Thatmom, thank you for your rant!!!! Now here comes mine:
If every woman would just reject this attempt to place them under man-made law, these people would cease to have a voice. Elisabeth Elliott or any of these people have no say over how my home should be run. As emr said, it is NOT THEIR BUSINESS! If someone approaches her or any of the rest of them for organizational assistance, then they should feel free to share their “wisdom”. Otherwise, they should shut their yaps!
This subject really gets me worked up. Not because I am a bad housekeeper, but because I find it extremely offensive that people would try to lay this guilt trip on others. What gives them the right??? Does scripture give us specifications for sock drawers? For impressing the Russians? Really? Is that what our faith is about?
Honestly, this insidious message needs to be REJECTED!
Most moms (and dads) I know are doing the best they can. Some days go well, and some days do not go so well. That is called “life”.
When my boys were little (three of them, including a set of twins), there were days when the laundry was folded and the storm doors were free of fingerprints, and the dinner was on the table at 5:30.
And then there were the other days, such as when one child scaled a basketball pole, stood on the rim of the basket for a couple of seconds, and then JUMPED OFF, necessitating a trip to the ER for six stitches in his chin (which, being that was all that was wrong with him, we considered a gift of God’s grace).
Or when one brother shaved a big strip of hair off of another brother during nap time.
Or when the 2-year-old twins removed their diapers during a still-famous naptime and “raked” the number two contents into the carpeting with a plastic toy rake and hoe (hey, they had just had a birthday and these were gifts from a friend who gardens – what can I say?)
Or when the car broke down, or the dishwasher leaked suds all over creation, or a mystery incident by an invisible fourth child left a big ink stain in the middle of the couch. And sometimes those things happened all in one day.
And that was called a pizza night in our house.
If you are a mom of young children – please, as someone who has been there, I implore you: give yourself a break. Your child will not necessarily remember all of your hard work in getting sock drawers just right and gourmet meals on the table (trust me on this – mine don’t have much recollection of these very real efforts on my part when they were growing up). What your child will remember is the time you took to read to them, to play with them, to make cookies with them even though it was a recipe for mess-disaster in the kitchen and always necessitated a floor scrubbing afterwards. They will remember the times you spent laughing together as a family, not whether strangers were impressed by your neatness. They will remember the times you talked to them about how growing up was for you, and how you shared with them your own struggles when you were twelve, soothing their own twelve-year-old anxieties.
These things are some of the truest things I know. Please don’t be taken in by those preaching another gospel.
Among other things, the home is the launchpad for the rest of our lives. Our time, focus, and energy are finite. There is no point to order just for order’s sake; we invest in getting things in order to launch us into whatever else we have to do. As long as socks can be located in a reasonable amount of time, who cares how the sock drawer looks? I spend hours a day in the kitchen, but about 30 seconds putting on socks. Why would I invest so much time in the perfect sock drawer when there are so many other things which require my finite attention?
“In fact, 10 years ago I would have insisted I was a complementarian … until I read Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood so that I would be able to explain why. That pro-comp tome actually changed my mind, because the logic was so faulty, the eisegesis rampant, that I realized it was all built on a house of cards.”
Me too! I could easily agree with comp-light. Men and women do have biological differences, even ones that go beyond reproductive organs. There are muscle mass differences, neurological differences, the whole testosterone effect that occurs in the womb.
If that’s all complementarians were saying, that men and women have complementary differences that suit them for different tasks but are of equal standing in Christ and in human relationships, them I would have remained in that classification.
But turns out that is NOT what CBWM is proposing. They are not just acknowledging differences that influence the roles men and women play in society (childbirth, breastfeeding, heavy lifting =) but claiming that those roles are clearly set and unbending with women eternally subordinate to men.
That’s not what Jesus taught!! Nope, I am now an egal if I have to have a label at all. Jesus came to give me life, abundant eternal life that is not second or subordinate to what he offers males. Whosoever will, that’s who this life is for! I will! I will! I will!
But turns out that is NOT what CBWM is proposing. They are not just acknowledging differences that influence the roles men and women play in society (childbirth, breastfeeding, heavy lifting =) but claiming that those roles are clearly set and unbending with women eternally subordinate to men.
Exactly. I think it was in that book that Piper (or was it Grudem?) gave the example of women’s brains being more wired for multi-tasking, and therefore it was clearly God’s design that they should be the ones home with small children. I can think of several things wrong with this pronouncement. First of all, I cannot multitask. Have never been able to. My husband can do about five things at once. So if the criteria for who raises the children is multitasking ability, he should have been the stay at home parent. But no, that’s not what Piper/Grudem say. Their argument instead goes, “Since most women are X, ALL women must fit into that mold.” Second, I can think of a million other places where multitasking is of incredible benefit. Say, as head of the Emergency Room at the hospital. Maybe we should kick all the men out of these positions, since they supposedly don’t multitask as well, and put women there.
Grudem and Piper pretty much take every generalization about women’s characteristics, and then use that to “prove” why they should be subordinate, stay at home moms, etc. If men were better multitaskers in general, they’d use that against women.
“If you are a mom of young children – please, as someone who has been there, I implore you: give yourself a break.”
Savannah, God bless you. This is what struggling young moms need to hear.
One of the most encouraging things I ever read as a young mother was an editorial in a Christian magazine on the topic of “inconsistency.” The writer said that, although it is a good thing to strive for consistency in parenting, it is not always achievable. And what do our children learn from this? That life is not always consistent. That your efforts do not always have the effect you want them to have. That people are not perfect. And that is a necessary and good thing to learn. So don’t kill yourself for consistency — use your occasional inconsistency with your kids as a teachable moment.
What a sigh of relief I gave at reading that! I don’t remember the name of the man (yes, a man) who wrote it, but I was so grateful for his insight.
Im new to the forum and just wanted to introduce myself, my name is Mark and I’m form UK. I’ve been a long time lurker who has finally decided to make an account and contribute.
“The writer said that, although it is a good thing to strive for consistency in parenting, it is not always achievable. And what do our children learn from this? That life is not always consistent. That your efforts do not always have the effect you want them to have. That people are not perfect. And that is a necessary and good thing to learn. So don’t kill yourself for consistency — use your occasional inconsistency with your kids as a teachable moment.”
That’s great advice! So true. It would be so hard to go through life, thinking you had to be perfect all the time (even in how you fold your socks). What a terrible, huge burden.
Shame on Elisabeth Elliot (and others like her) who tie such huge stones around the necks of others, then throw them into the river asking them to swim.
I am SO not perfect. My house is clean-ish most of the time, and if I have a spectacularly good day with everyone in the house in a good mood willing to pitch in and help, then most of the chores get done pretty quickly. But I’ll never win the battle against dust bunnies, cobwebs, and dirty laundry. Not even when I’m 80 with an empty house. And I’m pretty sure that’s okay with God. I can’t clean my way to heaven…. and He doesn’t ask me to.
I think we need to remember that EE only had one child.
Even in my comp days I couldn’t bring myself to read her book on womanhood. Her books on other subjects were so harsh they appalled me. I’ll never forget how she wrote in glowing terms in her book on Amy Carmichael about the way the future missionary was brought up. Amy as a child was not offered any comfort, physical or emotional if she was in any kind of pain, but told that it was something she just had to learn to bear. Would you say that to a little child in tears from the pain of a stomach ache?
Yes, I can totally believe that EE would think withholding compassion and comfort to the hurting is somehow virtuous.
Aren’t we all glad God is not so harsh?
The whole missionary model she was part of pioneering to indigineous peoples has always struck me as more posturing than true compassion or concern for the unevangelized. Her husband and his friends seemed to have a true vision for the people they risked all to connect with. Not so all who followed in his footsteps.
I thank God this is not always the case. Rachel Saint, Marilyn Lazlo and some others have had great success because they loved the people they served and spent their whole lives on the foreign field, living with the people they loved as dear family. That is the love of God. Languages were preserved, cultures were set free from demon placation and people came to love the Lord of love, Jesus.
Many many others, like my father-in-law, were not successful. They are unable to connect with the indigeneous peoples they went to serve. They left frustrated and with little to show for their years of hard work and sacrifice.
My opinion: they failed mostly because they didn’t really care about the indigenous peoples. They DID want to serve the Lord, but how that ended up happening the way it did was in many cases just a result of the teachings going around in the ’50s.
Their calling was taught by men, and they went to the mission field because they were incited to do so by public speakers like EE. It was the way “true Christians” could prove they were really serious about their faith. The banner of Jim Elliot was used to incite young people at Christian colleges who wanted to serve the Lord to go to the mission field to primitive tribes.
I think they were sold a pig in a poke. There were no miracles. Families were ripped apart. Mother’s hearts broke as little children (5,6,7) were shipped off to boarding school in the name of God. And this was to demonstrate to the indigenous people how much God loved…?
The indigenous peoples didn’t buy it. Least not my father-in-laws gospel witness. And the legacy of pain from this austere legalism and demanded sacrifice is still around.
Thought you ladies might be interested in this upcoming episode of the Joy Behar show
Actress Jodie Sweetin, former co-star of “Full House” and author of the new book “unSweetined” talks about her struggles with addiction. Plus, author Kathryn Joyce, author of “Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement,” along with Rachel Scott, mother of eight and author of “Birthing God’s Mighty Warriors.” And, comedian Caroline Rhea. Tonight at 9 p.m. ET/PT on HLN.
I might tune in to watch it, it could be pretty interesting.
Shadowspring, if the missionaries who preached the Gospel to the Indians had taken Galatians 3:28 to heart, most of Native America might have been converted. As it is, though, they lost that opportunity, and may well have to answer for it.
It’s pretty hard to stomach preaching from people who tell you all about salvation, and who preach that all men are brothers, but ONLY in the Spirit.
Would you listen to someone who invited you to share their afterlife, but who told you in no uncertain terms that as long as we’re still in this life, forget all about living in our neighborhoods, eating at our tables, or marrying into our families.
You can’t honestly call someone a Christian brother, unless you’d welcome him as a brother-in-law.
As for some comments on iMonk’s blog about abuse being in both camps, that may be so but where is an abusive, control-freak going to go to get bolstering for his/her abusive behavior? The camp that tells him that his wife is a field and he is to plow it and use it the way he sees fit or the camp that tells him that he is to share power and to give up control for the sake of one-anothering?
Imho, patriarchal teachings, such as “commenter” outlined in Doug Wilson’s book about women being fields and the husband being the farmer sets up a perfect storm for control-freaks and abusers and even normal, run of the mill men to treat their wives as children and use them for their own purposes (which I find to be abusive as well as physical and emotional).
I also think it is condescending and patronizing to women to believe this…to approach another human being as they are lacking vision, insight, knowledge, wisdom, direction, worldview, etc and that you are the one to instill it, direct them, guide them into ALL things and that your will is to be obeyed in all things. To approach them as if women are less than men and that is exactly what this field/plow/farmer business does.
If you take the teachings to their logical conclusion, what are you going to get?
Well, you take Voddie Baucham’s and the Botkins’ teachings to their logical conclusion, you get “Kelsey” writing to Voddie’s daughter about how to deal with her jealous mother and how to be a “loving helper” to her father.
Why are these people so shocked when people actually put into practice what they teach and then turn around and say that they do not support controlling behavior on the part of husbands?
The Proverbs 31 woman considers a field and buys it….she is NOT a field but one who BUYS a field.
I agree, Corrie. Sure, there is abuse in situations where people identify as “egals”. No doubt about it. Only difference is they do not turn to Scripture to get a pass on the abuse, or even to fully justify it.
So, does anyone have the link to the egal blog where all there people are repeatly slandered? And who exactly is FR Bill who claims to have been slandered along with them. I must have missed this spot on the internet. Please post a link if you have it.
Without thatmom’s blogs (and all the blogs I’ve found since), I’d be wondering if I was talking in a vacuum. I’m 35, married, an ATI survivor (my entire family ran for GRACE after 10 years of it), married another ATI survivor (preacher’s son), and am working with a writing teacher on a memoir(s) of how I went in and how I got out.
Praise God for freedom. Praise God.
Keep praying, keeping talking truth, keep running to God. He is NOT what the patriarchs say He is. He loves us no matter what.
Thatmom posted, “So, does anyone have the link to the egal blog where all there people are repeatly slandered? And who exactly is FR Bill who claims to have been slandered along with them.”
To these guys, even being *questioned* in any way is equal to “slander”. They are the “legends in their own minds” and if one calls into question any of their positions or actions, it is immediately labeled as “slander” or “gossip”. This is the way they attempt to intimidate people into silence. Thankfully, while many are intimidated, many others continue to speak up and refuse to let them be the arbitrator of the Biblical definition of “gossip” or “slander”.
This infuriates them (as we can all see from the Brothers Bayly, the McDonalds, etc.) and so they pronounce us as apostates, slanderers, and gossipers.
Don’t mean to sidetrack the thread, as maybe this has been discussed, but would appreciate views of ATI from those who have been in the system. I know there is a yahoo group for this (know you are there, Corrie), and I just have to catch up on the reading there. My beloved extended family members have dug deeper into the patriarchy pit by going down the ATI road this year. Still praying. Thanks…
“Holiness or righteousness is obtained by faith in Christ alone. We are declared perfectly righteous (justified) by a holy God. The woman with faith in Christ who tries her entire life to have ONE child, and cannot for physical reasons, compared to the woman with faith in Christ who could have MULTIPLE chldren, but does not for contraception reasons, compared to the woman with faith in Christ who DOES HAVE TWENTY CHILDREN because of her quiverfull theology and refusal to use contraception– are ALL equally holy, equally blessed, equally loved by God, and equally honored. To say anything less is a denial of the gospel itself.”
The patriocentrists want us to take back the bondwoman (the Law) when God has commanded that we cast her out. They want us to put us back under the law, instead of walking in the Spirit of promise/liberty. They have put themselves in places of importance and they do this by posturing themselves as teachers who have the truth which is really a basterdized mix of law/works and the new covenant.
Worse yet, they have become peddlers of the word of God and they depend upon people buying what they are teaching to support their lifestyles.
For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.
2 Cor. 2:17
The Greek word for “peddle” is kapalyuo and it means to sell anything; to make money by selling anything; to be a retailer; to corrupt, adulterate- “peddlers were in the habit of adulterating their commodities for the sake of gain”.
Gal 4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?
Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.
Gal 4:23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.
Gal 4:30 But what does the Scripture say? “CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN.”
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.
The Law and its system is not an heir with the Spirit of promise/New Covenant.
The Law is described as a ministry of death and a ministry of condemnation. The Bible tells us that the “letter” (Law) kills but that the New Covenant gives life.
Those who corrupt the gospel of grace by trying to put us back under the Old Covenant (obsolete) are actually ministers of death and condemnation. It will suck the life out of a person.
I learned this, firsthand, when I got into the homeschooling movement soon after I became a Christian in my mid-twenties. I then was introduced to patriocentricity and later joined ATI.
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.”
Gal 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”
Gal 3:12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.”
Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us–for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”–
Wow! EMR, I had written my two posts before I read the one you had posted from Wade’s blog. His post really illustrates exactly what I was trying to say.
“Not all who advocate quiverfull theology have yet experienced the nightmare portion. Sleep has just set in. It will take a while for the logical consistencies of a theological fallacy to eventually corrupt the entire home. It is for the reason of future health that anyone even remotely considering the possibility of adopting a quiverfull theology to read Joyce’s book. ‘
This is a quote from Wade’s article that EMR posted.
This statement is so profound, I don’t know where to start but it resonates with me in a very personal way.
These are some of my favorite points of the article:
“(1). Quiverfull theology is based on an Old Covenant that also had other precepts, commandments and laws from God that we Christians no longer abide by. The Old Covenant laws were “shadows” or “types” to teach us of Christ, and when Jesus came, He fulfilled and abolished the Old Covenant with her types. The Old Covenant command was to “go, be fruitful and multiply.” The New Covenant command, under which we live, is “go and make disciples.”
(2). The notion that anyone “prevents” God from naming the number of kids a family has is anti-biblical, anti-logical, and anti-God at its core. Contraception no more “prevents” God from creating a baby who “could have cured AIDS” or “been the President of the United States,” etc. than a man shouting at the sun can keep it from shining. God ordains the creation of each human soul, and nobody prevents Him from accomplishing His plans. The sheath of a condom, or the dissolution of a pill, is no more an obstacle to God in the creation of a human being than the lack of matter was an obstacle to God in creating the universe.
(4). There are cities full of children who are abused, abandoned, in need. The November 20, 2009 major motion picture release The Blind Side will demonstrate for the country what happens when an evangelical Christian family adopts a needy inner city child. It is as Christ-honoring to be naturally childless and help the needy children in the city as it is to have a dozen of your own naturally born children.
(5). The idea that Christians should have more children because we are losing the “culture” wars, and by having more and more kids one day we will “out-populate” the Muslims, the cults and other pagans is to lose absolute sight of the New Testament truth that entrance into the kingdom of God is not based on flesh and blood (or culture, color or creed), but faith in the good news that is proclaimed about the unique Son of God. We do not need an army of Christian children separate from the world; we need an army of Christian witnesses as salt and light in the middle of a decaying and dark world, leading lost children to a knowledge of Jesus Christ.”
“(8). Quiverfull theology, if followed logically and consistently, leads a husband and a wife to confusion of one’s true and eternal identity in Christ. Confusion about who we are on earth is not good preparation for eternity. There will be no marriage in heaven. There will be no procreation in heaven. It is the individual’s relationship with God that is preeminent, and the notion that a male is to be “the covering” for the female, and the female’s role is to simply procreate the progeny of the male as a helpful subordinate to the male, is to abdicate the New Testament teaching that EVERY believer in Jesus Christ (male or female) is a “priest” unto God and that only when full equality of males and females is comprehrended and experienced on earth will we ever have a taste of what human relationships will be like in heaven.”
Amen, Wade!
Interesting how the whole Old vs New covenant discussion in Galatians 3 is ended with this:
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Wade hit the nail on the head with his summary statements about the Old Covenant being the foundation for QF/Patriocentric theology.
Some patriocentrists are now teaching that males and females aren’t fully equal even in heaven and that women will be eternally subordinate to males in heaven!
This is Mormon theology and not the teaching of the New Covenant.
Thanks for sharing the Wade Burleson post, emr, and for expanding on it, Corrie. So good!
I watched the Joy Behar show (despite her snarkiness). Rachel Scott seemed to dominate most of the segment, but in a winsome way. She really came across as a normal, loving mom who just wants to have more kids. She only briefly got into the culture warrior aspect of this, but said Muslims are also right to have large families. She did say that the family is the answer (to the problems in) our world. Hmmm, I thought the answer would be Jesus Christ.
Don’t think Kathryn Joyce and Vyckie Garrison were able to interject much because Rachel Scott is not a “typical” Quiverfull. She doesn’t homeschool, works part time, hasn’t heard of patriarchy, lives an affluent life and seems to have almost an egal marriage. So unfortunately the show was not able to show the more dangerous face of the average overworked, overwhelmed, oppressed/depressed, patriarchal Quiverfull mother and daughters.
I also see that WeTV will have some interesting episodes on Nov. 10 on Secret Lives of Women: Loved & Controlled, Cults, and Born to Breed. We don’t get this channel, but am passing it along for those who do.
I watched the Joy Behar show and had the same impressions as you did, Kathy.
Rachel Scott is a polished guest in many ways. For the most part, she presents her self-described “gentler quiverfull” in an attractive package. But when somebody disagrees with her, her fangs emerge and she talks over softer-speakers, like Quiverfull author Kathryn Joyce.
Scott suggests that Quiverfullers universally send their daughters to college and are equal partners in marriage, like her. She does, however, use “purpose” as verb–a give away of an ATI-er.
Joyce was quiet and gracious with Scott, even praising her for some of her ideas. But when Joyce suggested that Scott was an anomaly in the patriarchal/quiverfull movement, Scott jumped all over her. I was astounded by how–dare I say it–submissive–Joyce was.
The third guest (whose name I can’t remember) was a former quiverfuller. She probably had the most interesting story to tell, but for some reason, got the least airtime.
Behar clearly didn’t do her homework about Quiverfull–the book, or the movement. By the end of the interview, Scott had Behar eating out of her hand. I’m also not a fan of Behar, but I expected more from her.
I watched the show. I was actually quite embarrassed for Scott as the only professing Christian on the show. It appeared that her attitude was very holier-than-thou, she was very uneducated with QF, patriocentric movement, and she seemed to have no true compassion for those whose lives fell apart after practicing a patriarchal, quiverfull lifestyle. Vyckie Garrison may have left the QF life and possibly Christianity as well, but the facts remain–the fruits of abuse within her family were horrendous. More of Vyckie’s story can be found on her site, nolongerquivering dot com.
The enemy is also preparing his army for battle. Believers do not need to fear
the army of the enemy but we do need to be aware that they exist. On the other
side there are children being born who already desire to promote the enemy’s
agenda. Some are chosen in the womb through demonic rituals or other forms of
evil. Some are birthed into this world and taught to hate. The only hope these
children have is to find Christ, but until they do they will be
increasingly susceptible to the deeds and plans of the enemy.
* * *
We are presently living in the last generations before Christ returns. The
children that we are birthing right now are the beginnings of this end-time
army of Mighty Warriors who will worship the Lord and prepare the way for His
return. “
* * *
Several generations fell into Babylonian thinking (Babylon in scripture
usually refers to human thinking and ideals) and the traditional family of:
mother/father, a loving marriage that produces loving children, fell apart
in both society and in churches. People left God’s “ideal” and what resulted
were 70+ years of pain and suffering for families.
WAS IT SIMPLY “COINCIDENCE” THAT NEARLY 70 YEARS AFTER THESE
RULINGS AMERICA EXPERIENCED A “WAKE-UP” CALL
IN THE EVENTS OF 9/11/01?
————-
A mighty warrior angel appeared to her husband in a dream after the birth of her 4th child and pointed a giant flaming sword at his genitals and told him not to get a vasectomy???
Honestly, I can’t take her seriously after hearing this. This is the basis for her book?
I recorded the Behar show, just haven’t been able to watch it.
I love one of the guests on this show who said that “this guy had a dream that he was going to either use it or lose it” and that the reason he said he had this dream is because he was scared of having a knife put to his most sensitive area. I think she was closer to reality.
True QFrs are against any forms of birth control and see any birth control, even in the face of serious illness as sin.
Hillary you are right that these people are trying to downplay the reality of most QF/Pat women and present an alternate reality for the public. If they really talked about what they believe, they would not be seen as mainstream or moderate. I wish she would have talked about the flaming sword dream or did she?
Oh, Corrie, I sure wish the story of the flaming arrow’s preservation of the private parts had made Joy Behar’s show. She would have been shaken back to reality.
“Scott is a quiverfull author and expert, yet she claims:
1. Ignorance about patriarchy among quiverfulls.
2. Unfamiliarity about patriarchy in general.
3. Uncertainty how to pronounce the word patriarchy.”
Like Debbie and Hillary, I wasn’t buying Scott’s act. And that’s exactly what I think it was: an act. Her mission seemed to be to soften the whole thing and make it look as “normal” and “mainstream” as possible. Her put-on when confronted with the notion that many quiverfuls don’t believe there is any point to daughters receiving a college education was nauseating. Yes, I realize that *some* of these folks do allow their daughters to go to Bible college, but there are some very high profile, influential folks in this movement who do not, and seek to make that a matter of “orthodoxy”, and for Scott to seem to pretend not to be “familiar” with that stretched the limits of believability to me.
Scott also spoke of being a “feminist” and of “God being a feminist” (wow – wonder if the Brothers Bayly will do anything with that, because it’s the sort of thing that normally makes their heads explode). “Yeah, right!” is what I was thinking.
Scott alluded to the fact that they are quite well off, with her husband being a construction executive and all, and them residing in an affluent area (her words). She described enjoying pregnancy and wanting another child if God would just give her one (she’s 48!).
If one chooses to have a large family in those circumstances, the more power to them. But Vickie was never in a circumstance like that. I have read her accounts of her life in Quiverful on her blog, and it seemed that they scraped and scratched just to get by. Her pregnancies were difficult and some of her children have health issues.
It seemed that Rachel Scott was kind of dismissive of the few things that Vickie described as her experiences, and she seemed quite haughty and self-righteous to me, almost like: “Well, if you had done it the RIGHT way (i.e., like *I* did), then you would not have had a bad experience”. That just kind of hit me wrong and I found her to be lacking overall in charity and graciousness. As someone else described, when challenged, her fangs definitely showed.
Okay…just watched the Behar show and I am totally not buying Scott’s shtick, either. There is no way she can be in the QF movement and have written a book and be totally clueless and act incredulous at the some of the things asked of her. Or maybe she is just a Lone Ranger type of QFr?
Does anyone have her book? I think that would be an interesting read.
Savannah, I totally agree with your opinion of the show.
I would have liked to hear more from Kathryn Joyce but it seemed that Rachel pretty much dominated that segment.
I wonder why she was picked to do that show and not Mrs. Hess or another strong QFr?
I have been on the QF Digest for over a decade, now, among other QF type email lists and Rachel Scott didn’t come close to representing the vast majority of QFrs I know.
I think you ladies are right about Rachel Scott trying to make QF look good–I was multi-tasking when I watched the show, so didn’t catch all the nuances. I did think the remark about God being a feminist (wait, isn’t that the F-word?) was over the top.
Either I agree that either Rachel Scott is being purposely deceitful about what QF really means for most people, or she lives an isolated life and assumes that everyone else in QF also has plenty of money, grace to educate her children in whatever works best at the time, healthy pregnancies and a supportive husband.
It is actually possible that she lives such an isolated pretty princess life that she has never met anyone in a bad marriage, living in poverty, struggling with illness whose religion insists that the mom sew their own clothes, grind their own grain and home school while pursuing this QF ideal.
I can relate to her in her personal feminists beliefs about God. I can see that she is just assuming that everyone understands that God loves women, that motherhood is very fulfilling, that pregnancy and nursing are uber-womanly and powerful acts–heck, that sounds exactly like my personal beliefs. I also just assumed that since everyone was reading the same Bible I was, they all pursued motherhood and homeschooling and homemaking with the same sense of empowerment that I did.
And then I woke up to the reality that some of my sisters were being forced into what I reached for willingly. I saw that other families had no grace to do what would work best for them, but felt constrained to home school. I saw that some of these women did not enjoy pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, homeschooling, etc. but their husband’s and church’s taught that it was the only righteous choice.
Can it be that Rachel Scott has not many any woman like that? I find it unlikely, but that would be the only reason she could be so naive and uninformed about what QF is like for the rest of America. Wealthy people do live isolated lives, so it is possible.
I should really edit my posts before hitting the “submit Comment” button. LOL My excuse for the poor spelling, grammar and punctuation is that I was also helping my son with polar expressions and trying to keep the dog out of the trash while I composed my post. :p
I was thinking about the wealth angle concerning patriarchy/QF…..
The people who lead this movement live very well compared to most of their followers. They live in lovely, large houses that accommodate their big families quite comfortably. They are not living in double-wide trailers or 700 sq ft rundown homes like many of their followers. They have people who loan their daughters out to help them because their daughters would be in a celebrity’s home and their families will be rubbing shoulders with the elite in this movement but not so for the regular QF people. They go on many vacations with their large brood, travel around the world and they get to do a lot of other educational trips. All the while many of the other QF women rarely get to leave her home because they just can’t afford it. The regular QF woman has an enormous workload on her shoulders, day and night, and many times because of patriarchal teachings she has little to no teamwork from her husband since that is HER job/role/duty. His duty is to lead his servant, to plow his “field” (aka wife) in whatever fashion he deems fit. She is instructed over and over again that she was made for the man and not the other way around so that means she does it all and should not expect her husband to “help” her around the house (that includes yardwork) because she is his helper and he is not her helper.
Add to that pregnancy after pregnancy and nursing and more pregnancies and sometimes very difficult births and she has little or no time to recover but has to hit the ground running as soon as she gives birth. Many times there is no insurance so she has to give birth and come home right away and immediately assume her duty to make food, clean the home and care for all the other children.
Then she has very limited financial resources to feed and clothe and educate her children and she is told she should be content with whatever her husband makes and live within their means. She often goes without dental/medical care and so do her children.
Well, when you have a LOT of children and little money, going to the grocery store can be a nightmare. Not to mention doctor’s visits, 10 pairs or more of shoes, clothing and all the things that children require in their lifetimes. Many times these households don’t eat very well because they just can’t afford it. I don’t know how many times I have heard of women waxing eloquent about giving the meat to their husbands and sons while she and her daughters just eat whatever is left over as if that is virtuous or something.
So, the general public is left hearing teachers tell them how wonderful the QF lifestyle is and what a blessing it is and they don’t ever hear the reality…the endless nights, the endless work, the endless laundry….They are left with the message that if you live this way your life, marriage and children will all be a Victorian and lace picture of perfection. So, many people get into this without counting the cost before laying the foundation. And when they are so far into it and things aren’t coming together like these teachers have presented, they have more condemnation and burdens laid upon them because obviously they haven’t been submissive enough, or godly enough, or servant-hearted enough.
Rachel Scott talked about a study that showed that people who didn’t use birth control have far fewer divorces. Vickie brought up a good point that, imho, was dismissed. Once you have 6 or more children you are pretty much stuck because there are no options unless you get a large inheritance or win the lottery. I don’t find the no birth control/divorce study to be that impressive because it doesn’t take into account reality and a multitude of other factors.
The QF lifestyle works for some but I have personally seen more often than not some pretty bad situations. But, it isn’t politically correct to talk about these things because you will just heap more condemnation on your head for being honest.
shadowspring said,”…I also just assumed that since everyone was reading the same Bible I was, they all pursued motherhood and homeschooling and homemaking with the same sense of empowerment that I did.
And then I woke up to the reality that some of my sisters were being forced into what I reached for willingly….”
yes! And since then, it seems like it’s been a mission of damage control.
“On the other side there are children being born who already desire to promote the enemy’s
agenda. Some are chosen in the womb through demonic rituals or other forms of evil.”
This is stark raving NUTTINESS — why are these nuts running around loose?
“Some are birthed into this world and taught to hate. The only hope these children have is to find Christ, but until they do they will be
increasingly susceptible to the deeds and plans of the enemy.”
Sort reminds a person of kids born into families that idolize Dabney and teach their kids revisionst history…
One of the things that I struggled with as I was emerging from the fog of patriocentricity was that on the surface everything always looked so good. The smile, the handshake, the “fruits” were all so authentic, right?
I was duped big time. Just because they smile and are sturdily polite, doesn’t mean all is well. To me, patriocentricity is a very good place for the manipulators, the liars, the “smile, but do whatever you want” folks.
I’m not saying that’s the way it is always (I know a very good many patrios who are honorable through and through), but once I realized I had been fooled (and it hit without warning), suddenly I began to look at everything differently.
I say this often to people who were also in Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute program with me who did not have a bad time, who actually loved every minute of it, and who still can’t believe anyone else suffered. “Just because you didn’t, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.”
I think of my brother who (at 23 years of age) was locked in a prayer room for three days until he cried and showed repentance for his “sins” by his sociopath leadership person who is now in a mental facility. (My brother is fine, they sent him home soon after and he has healed.)
They can smile on national television, pretend all is well in their seminars and teaching, but we know there is darkness lurking nearby. Anything that adds to what Jesus Christ did on that cross for us is not of God.
And to those who may be lurking and saying “but the Bible says so!” let me remind you that my Jesus can show me those things Himself without you or Mr. Gothard’s help. Thanks.
“I think of my brother who (at 23 years of age) was locked in a prayer room for three days until he cried and showed repentance for his “sins” by his sociopath leadership person who is now in a mental facility. (My brother is fine, they sent him home soon after and he has healed.)”
Trish,
This is horrible. I am sorry. You are not alone. There are others who know that these things went on, too.
I was dumbfounded at, once again, the arrogance and hypocrisy. What is it slander to wonder about the “other side’s story” when it involves the “rich and famous” but not slander to trash talk a woman who shares her personal experiences of abuse?
“The LORD detests differing weights,and dishonest scales do not please him. ” (Proverbs 20:23)
This is all about differing weights and dishonest scales. There is a hierarchy that they have decided to be true and real and any of us who question it become the infidels. Look at how their rules of “godly womanhood” do not apply to Elosabeth Elliot or Nancy Leigh Demoss or Joni Erickson Tada.
And look at how the eternal subordination of Jesus issue is considered good theology and proof of the 2nd class status of women… Differing weights and dishonest scales.
Trish, there are the horrible, horrible abusive stories like the one you shared about your brother. And then there are the more subtle abusive stories that abound within the ATI program. I know too many who survived and may not even recognize the trips that were placed on then until one day they come face to face what grace really looks like.
I have a really hard time swallowing the notion that Rachel Scott is unfamiliar with the patriarchy and patriocentricity teachings. I believe it is probably all in semantics. Anyone see any commentary on the interview on any quiverful blogs? I know this one and thatmom have had all sorts of hits from people googling “patriarchy” and “quiverful”.
Just discovered music this morning that has really blessed me. So many of the songs address the theology we have discussed here…mercy, grace, freedom in Christ.
Whoa! I just have a few seconds so I clicked on the Rachel Scott linked and I am floored!
She writes:
” It will be evident from birth that these children have a readiness to serve Him (Luke 1:15). Just like John the Baptist, these
children will be born knowing their destiny before them… They will have the faith of Abraham, the humility of Moses, the
conquering spirit of Joshua, the servant’s heart of Ruth, the worshipper’s heart of
David, the prophetic eye of Jeremiah and Isaiah; they will dwell in the miraculous
like Elijah, possess the boldness of Paul, and have the knowledge of Esther that they
have come into the Kingdom “for such a time as this” (Esther 4:14). They will be
lights in the darkness of this world no matter where they go, and they will not
possess the fears of previous generations because they will be firmly rooted and
established in the Lord. Their lack of fear will cause the Lord’s hand to be upon
them (Luke 1:66) as they march in unison and only respond to the voice of the
Holy Spirit. Their lives will not be about themselves or fulfilling their own desires,
but they will be consumed with complete obedience to the Lord.”
Yikes! Talk about pressure! These kid are going to be born spiritual super-beings? Really?!
That is so outlandish and over the top that it’s comical. But there will be nothing funny about it at all for those children who turn out to be normal people with the same fears and struggles the rest of us experience.
And it will not be at all funny for those moms who will be torn between loving the children God gave them for who they are and at the same time feeling deeply ashamed that their efforts (and womb!) failed to produce spiritual super-beings.
Oh no, there is nothing innocent or frivolous about putting such ridiculous expectations on people. I think psychologists call that grandiose delusions?
Thatmom, I don’t believe Rachel Scott either (I read the transcript). Someone remarked to me the other day that “those Quiverfull families are so happy” and I about lost it. Happy? Sure when the television cameras are on. And perhaps there are very happy patrios (I sure thought I was), but it’s just like a patriarchal belief system to ignore the disenfranchised women and children who always get the worst of it.
Re: #242
The Bayly Brothers made two recent posts respectable in demeanor. The difference in tone between these two posts and how they usually write was like night and day and noticeably deflated.
One was an apology to their readers for some incomplete posts which accidentally went up too soon. The second was regarding a family who tragically lost a son in an ATV accident.
Every time I read Bayly Blog I wonder where in the world are the people responsible for keeping them accountable? Their attitudes are terrible. Or is this kind of behaviour by ministers in Presbyterian churches de riguer?
I have real serious questions about them just on their attitudes alone.
Shadowspring writes,
“Whoa! I just have a few seconds so I clicked on the Rachel Scott linked and I am floored!
She writes: ” It will be evident from birth that these children have a readiness to serve Him…”
I would be floored, because this is pure unadulterated heresy, had I not come to expect this sort of thing from the Patrio camp.
What Scott is effectively saying is that these people have bred some sort of “Christian” Master-race, whose Uber-children enjoy a sort of immunity to the effects of Original Sin…. the next logical step in this ideology would be that since these children are inclined toward Godliness (and away from sin) from the womb, they have no need of a Savior.
“Many of these children will be the offspring of Godly bloodlines; the children,
grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the families who followed the Lord
down through time.”
May God help us all, and save the church from heresy….
““From birth I have relied on you; you brought me forth from my mother’s womb. I will
ever praise you” (Psalm 71:6).
This unique generation of children will possess characteristics that remind us of righteous men of old. As the generational bloodlines of history complete themselves, the children and young people will follow in the way of righteous ancestors.”
These people are literally preaching salvation by bloodline. This isn’t salvation by the blood of Jesus Christ, this is promoting something else in place of the sacrifice of Christ.
“This book is dedicated to a new generation, one who desires to rediscover an ancient path that has been lost for generations.”
So what might this “ancient path” be?
It can’t be orthodox Christianity — that hasn’t been lost for even one generation (though it has declined somewhat) and Jesus promised that the Church would CONTINUE, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.
What is this long-lost, “ancient path” that they claim to have rediscovered? This sort of language is reminiscent of the kind of talk that Gnosticism and New Age Paganism use to draw in their converts.
“GENERATION X (1961-1984)
Your grandparents felt that having children was a wonderful thing, but your parents
called themselves the “ME-generation.” With the focus on themselves and not on YOU,
your parents viewed children as a nuisance, a pain, and something that got in the way of life’s
other pursuits. You are a nameless generation whose parents X-out children to pursue
careers, money, power, and material wealth. Large families virtually disappeared in
your generation. If you were conceived it is a miracle, as during your conception phase
the birth control pill was introduced and became popular, abortions became legal and
killed many who would have been your contemporaries. Your parents did not stay
married, causing divorce and creating blended families. The idea that children needed
“quality time, not quantity time,” became popular as parents forced you to suffer long
hours in daycare while they worked. Your generation felt dumped and abandoned. You
rebelled as teens, causing teen pregnancy, suicide, sexual abuse and drug addiction rates
to soar.
MELLIENNIALS (1984-2001)
Your parents were raised with the attitude that children get in the way of their pursuits
and that children must be planned and wanted to have value; otherwise, children should
be aborted or prevented by birth control or sterilization. Your parent’s believed that
creating children was their choice. Your conception was planned and you were wanted.
You were most likely born to highly educated, two-income parents who put-off
parenthood until they were older. Your generation saw very few families with 3 or more
children. Most limited their family size to one or two children. This gave them more
money and time to spend on each child. Many of your parents eventually quit the
working world and made YOU their project. They poured thousands of dollars into you,
and they have been highly involved in every aspect of your life. Your generation is
highly pressured, overscheduled, overindulged and often spoiled. You are used to never
being told “no!” You have always been catered to and have been seriously over-parented.
You are blessed to have been born at the right time in history, during a season of changing
technology. Your generation is a powerhouse generation, full of technological planners,
community shapers, institution builders, and world leaders.”
I copied those two paragraphs because they show the modus operandi of the author — first you alienate the potential convert from his family and from society by telling him how he has been victimized by society and by his parent’s generation, and then you tell him how “special” he is, and how he is now a member of a chosen group of people, destined to do great things.
Very pertinent. I feel that Mr. Gothard’s ATI cult preyed on Gen X (1991 was a boom year for enrollment) and their Boomer parents. Secular writers talk about 1991 (when Nirvana and Pearl Jam–Gen X music–appeared on the scene) as the first time Gen X Boomer parents actually “saw” Gen X and it scared them senseless. My parents along with many other parents immediately took us students “underground.”
I found it especially interesting that a social scientist with no knowledge of patriocentricity or Gothard’s ATI pinpointed that year as an important period of time for this phenomenon.
As a Gen Xer, I definitely feel like a different generation than the Boomers and Gen Y (the Millennials), kinda squished in the middle. I think these patrios had a message just for us and now they’ve switched the message up and have aimed it directly at the Millennials and their parents. Scary! This time, it’s got Anglo-cult, Nazi overtones. Completely turns me off. But I sure believed the message they preached at me. The guilt they stacked on my shoulders. Ah, so glad to be free.
I also just assumed that since everyone was reading the same Bible I was, they all pursued motherhood and homeschooling and homemaking with the same sense of empowerment that I did.
And then I woke up to the reality that some of my sisters were being forced into what I reached for willingly. I saw that other families had no grace to do what would work best for them, but felt constrained to home school. I saw that some of these women did not enjoy pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, homeschooling, etc. but their husband’s and church’s taught that it was the only righteous choice.
Quoting Shadowspring, #231
Yes, just because you’re a Christian does not mean the only righteous choices are motherhood, homeschooling and homemaking. And just because you find your strength and comfort in motherhood, homeschooling and homemaking, that doesn’t automatically *make* you a Christian.
I just find it remarkable how those assumptions go both ways. If you are X then you must be into Y, and if you are into Y then you must be X. When in reality X and Y have nothing to do with each other.
Sorry, I just ran into this again last night at a knitting class. Just because I’m a homemaker, just because my husband escorted me to the class, just because a wear a denim jumper and just because I was the one telling a thirteen year old that she ought not see a particular movie, that does *not* make me a fundamentalist anything.
Ugh. That Generation X rant is so spot-on to my life that I winced reading it. My mom did view us as nuisances who she truly regretted being stuck with. She actually told my older sister that she wished abortion had been legal because her whole life would have been different (better) if she had aborted her. Yes, she actually said this to her face!
Of course I wasn’t shocked. We all sort of figured it was true. My mom was never very affectionate, and she was way more passionate about abortion rights than about anything her children ever did. And so the Gen X rant is true for many people.
That’s exactly how they lure people in. Start with truth and then switch it for a lie once you’ve got them hooked.
What really shocked me was the indictment of the way we raised our kids (Gen Y)! Okay, so my parents didn’t want me- I made sure my kids were wanted! And yes, I am educated, still married to their father, and have spent lots of time and money to give my children all the support for launching into adulthood that I can come up with. How is that wrong?!? She writes it like it is an idolatry or selfishness on our parts, when I call it love and responsibility.
Also I am strongly pro-life. The fact that I have only two children does not mean I support abortion. Where do they get these ideas?
“Many of your parents eventually quit the
working world and made YOU their project. They poured thousands of dollars into you,
and they have been highly involved in every aspect of your life. Your generation is
highly pressured, overscheduled, overindulged and often spoiled. You are used to never
being told “no!” You have always been catered to and have been seriously over-parented.”
So being a stay-at-home parent is wrong? Is home schooling “over-parent”ing?
So what IS okay with these people? If you are only going to have one or two children then you should keep working and put your children in an institutional school so you can avoid over-parenting?
I know, the only right choice is to have lots and lots of children, regardless of your financial situation, the stability of your marriage, the physical and mental health of any/every member of the family- just keep having babies! God will sort it all out if you just “obey” with your militant fecundity.
Yeah right. :\ That’s what they told my husband’s parents about going off into the jungles to share the gospel while shipping their kids off to be warehoused at the Christian boarding school. You do the right thing, and God will make sure everything turns out okay.
Except it doesn’t work that way. I don’t care what Rachel Scott says, QF children are NOT going to be born spiritual giants. The older girls will resent being surrogate moms, the middle children will resent being lost in the shuffle, and if mom abuses her body with multiple close pregnancies, she could still die.
And the QFers will just spiritualize all that too as God’s will or some such nonsense. So unnecessary. So tragic.
All that pain could be avoided if people stopped trying to be heroes with a grandiose calling and just accepted that they little people with little lives who are nevertheless very much loved by God. And that’s all we were ever supposed to want anyway.
“QF children are NOT going to be born spiritual giants. The older girls will resent being surrogate moms, the middle children will resent being lost in the shuffle, and if mom abuses her body with multiple close pregnancies, she could still die.”
Or suffer from birth defects or mental retardation. And, children from very large families usually have lower IQs, due to many factors, not the least of which is lack of parental interaction.
These people think they are going to breed the likes of Thomas Aquinas, but they may well end up with Forrest Gump.
Of course, a mentally challenged person may well have a better chance of being a spiritual giant than does the average genius, due to the fact that in the Kingdom of God the first shall be last and the greatest must be the least of all, but somehow I don’t think that THAT’S the sort of greatness the QF folks have in mind when they speak of spiritual giants.
“All that pain could be avoided if people stopped trying to be heroes with a grandiose calling and just accepted that they little people with little lives who are nevertheless very much loved by God. And that’s all we were ever supposed to want anyway.”
AMEN.
But cults bank on the fact that nobody wants to settle for being a little person.
“Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Oops! I should add that this is Mary from Tennessee!
I’m familiar with the racist doctrines of CI, but Kinism is a new form of racist Christianity I’m not too familiar with. I did come across some websites, and was amused by their “we’re not really racist” protests.
Does anyone here know of the books where they get their racist doctrine?
So I wonder what the Bayly brothers (and CBMW) would have to say about Kimberly Munley, the civilian police officer, wife and mother who courageously drew fire, took down the Fort Hood shooter and prevented more deaths, despite being wounded. Seems to me that she is a great example of a fearless woman, maybe one like Esther who was destined “for such a time as this”.
Shadowspring, there are aspects of Rachel Scott’s generational generalizations that are true.
However — do you think she would say that they are true of her and of her children? I bet that answer is “no”. For the most part, they are not true for me or for my children. They are just that, generalizations. For her to present them as truth for everyone born during those years is, in my opinion, insensitive and silly.
And you are so right, these children are not going to be great men and women of God because of what their *parents* have done or want them to do. If any of them become great in God’s kingdom, it will be because of what GOD does through them — and that may not be outwardly obvious during their lifetimes. Talk about setting unreasonable expectations for parents to live up to!
The point (supposedly negative) that she makes about children being their parents’ project, parents being highly involved in their lives, being overscheduled and “seriously over-parented” — does this not sound like exactly what she is doing???
And, who knows, God just might decide to raise up a mighty warrior from a non-patriarchal, non-QuiverFull, even an unbelieving, family. Incredibly, He can do stuff like that.
“And, who knows, God just might decide to raise up a mighty warrior from a non-patriarchal, non-QuiverFull, even an unbelieving, family. Incredibly, He can do stuff like that.”
You mean, perhaps, someone who’s past looks like this?:
Three cheers for the mom who ended the blood bath at Ft. Hood!
I wonder how long it will take the patrios to whine in their blogs about “where were the men” and how terrible it was that a woman had to be the one to do the deed. They will see it not as the heroics of a fellow human being, but rather that it makes a statement about masculinity and manhood, or the lack thereof, in today’s society.
Recently I discovered a sci-fi program from a few years back called Jeremiah. It is set in a post-apocalyptic world where life is hard and it is a struggle. I have been pleased to see that women are portrayed in a way that would be realistic – often right alongside the men fighting to make the world better.
The first mistake I see in the Rachel Scott book, is her timetable of generations. If you google “the baby boom” most hits will give you the years “1946-1964″… Scott has taken the liberty of changing the dates to coincide with the birth control pill and to support her supposed vision/theory.
I am not a fan of the bc pill, but if one googles “b…. c….. pill history” the first hit may be for a PBS show and there is a thorough timetable which shows research/testing starting earlier than ’61 and that by ’64 “one quarter of American couples using bc are using the pill”. This means that 3/4 of couples are still using other means AND it doesn’t say how many couples are using no bc at all. Her explanations are very over-simplified and wishful thinking on her part, to substantiate her theory.
I can respect their personal testimony of changing their mind to no bc and deciding to have more children and that she thinks positively about all aspects of doing so… BUT just because she wishes that all couples would feel the same way, does not make it so… she has not “walked a mile in their shoes.”
Her writings are just more of the same old, same old… after life experiences, prayer and Bible study they suddenly have a vision which they suddenly think everyone else should comply with. Once again, the irony is that they came to this vision on their own and yet they don’t allow others to come to their own visions on their own.
I would dig around it and see what authors they encourage people to read now. I know Dabney and the agrarian authors are biggies. Check out Mark Holl’s history books that address the Civil War and religious thought.
There is something weird about the Rachel Scott stuff. She she is obviously not your run of the mill patrocentric housewife. I am trying to figure out exactly why she was chosen to speak for this group? I have a hard time believing that the producers of the show didn’t do their homework.
And for that matter, why did the BBC choose to interview the McDonalds and Sanfords? Wouldn’t you think the Duggars would have been a more obvious choice?
None of these things add up to me. I felt somewhat the same way when reading the Quiverfull book. The woman didn’t quite get it.
What she seems to get is that she is just a little more special than all those other Christians who don’t have as close a walk with God or as much faith as she does.
And her children are going to be way more successful- destined for spiritual greatness- because their parents are so special!
And you can be special too, and have spiritual giants for children- if you will just toss out the sinful birth control/family planning you were brainwashed by Satanic forces to think were simply a tool for living, like budgeting or taking medication.
By the way, we must all keep in mind that different super-spiritual faith ministries have proposed budgeting and taking medication as crutches for lesser people, if not outright sin. This QF is just the same guilt-trip with grandiose promises applied to a new subject.
Any time any minister, author, speaker promises that you will will have superior outcomes by following their formula, you are being conned. I think the message first appealed to the pride in the minister/author/speaker, they internalized it and it further feeds their pride to become an expert on the subject.
I believe the messengers are quite sincere, but also very self-centered. They ignore the faithful tithers and sacrificial givers who remain poor, and focus on the story of the guy who started his own business and made millions. So when they teach unbalances prosperity messages, they sincerely believe them because of their selective experiences. Likewise, we all love the stories where God miraculously heals people of terminal illness, but only by ignoring the faith-filled, loving saints who ride to glory via cancer can they honestly preach the faith-healing message as a promise to all in every circumstance.
So, at least in the above circles, the ones whose stories don’t line up with their expected outcome are ostracized. They didn’t have enough faith, they wasted their money or their opportunities, they had secret sin in their lives, etc.
This guarantee of super-spiritual children is an even greater sin, in my opinion, because it is the children who will carry the blame when it doesn’t work out. When they are not the amazing Isaiah-David-Ruth-John-Moses-hybrid that these parents were expecting, how can they not be disappointed in their children? Maybe also themselves?
Maybe even God, since they sincerely believe that’s what the Word teaches? I would say that is exactly the path that Vicky Garrison took. She read everything in God’s Word through extreme conservative Christian QF filter, and when that proved false, she let the whole thing go. I might have done the same if I were her.
This is a very dangerous theology that will cause A LOT of damage to generations yet to be born. The end result will be more pain all around, not a super race of spiritual giants that will usher in the second coming of Christ.
But what an ego boost! You personally are speeding the second coming of Christ by your militant fecundity! You are carrying in your womb so much more than a little lamb that Jesus loves. You are carrying spiritual greatness of the like that no previous generation has ever seen! 0_0 Wow.
How can people not see this as a blatant appeal to the pride of our carnal natures?
“Ms Munley succeeded in bringing him down by shooting him four times, even after being hit by a bullet that passed through both her legs, according to witnesses.
Her swift reaction and courage were being praised last night for preventing many more deaths.
“It was an amazing and aggressive performance by this police officer,” said Lieutenant-General Robert Cone, Fort Hood’s commanding officer. “The critical factor here was her quick response to the situation.””
Wow!!! “Aggressive”…..”quick response’……”swift reaction and courage”…..
All said about a woman??? And all of this after taking a bullet through both legs?
I hope the Bayly Bros write about her….that is after they get done gnashing their teeth since a woman can never hold a position of a police officer because that is a position of authority.
” General Cone said her fearless response to the gunman had saved countless lives. Trained in active-response tactics, she rushed into the building where he was shooting, and confronted him directly. Officials confirmed that she had continued firing even after being hit.”
“Fearless”…surely all of these things are not describing a WOMAN?
“General Cone said that Ms Munley’s actions demonstated that an aggressive response to a mass-shooting can save lives. “She walked up and engaged him,” he said.”
Shadowspring, I think you’re onto something with the “uber-special-ness” that Rachel Scott seems to attribute to herself and her marriage/children. It was written all over her [limited] dialogue with Vickie on the Behar show.
And I also agree with you on the whole premise that if someone is trying to sell you on the idea that “if you would only apply this or that formula, you will have automatic victorious living”, you are being conned. Absolutely! The Christian life is not meant to be lived in a formulaic manner, despite what Bill Gothard says. We must work out our salvation, with fear and trembling — not a haughtiness born out of thinking we know “the special formula/answer”.
Officer Munley rocks. She responded heroically and decisively and she loved not her life unto death. She risked it all for her fellow man, and we are ALL BLESSED that she came through alive. I have no doubt she will continue to serve her community, her country, her fellow man for many years to come.
Corrie, my baby girl is applying for a commission in the Air Force. She wants shooting lessons for Christmas, to help prepare her for field training should she be selected. (She has an excellent chance at it.)
Trust me, we will all be able to sleep better at night with my little girl standing watch. The Bayly brothers should be grateful for Officer Munley, my daughter, and the many other faithful, skilled and talented women serving their country.
Corrie, I’m with you! What a gal! Love it! So proud of her. She is inspiring.
Savannah, this that you wrote: “The Christian life is not meant to be lived in a formulaic manner, despite what Bill Gothard says. We must work out our salvation, with fear and trembling — not a haughtiness born out of thinking we know ‘the special formula/answer.’” Fabulous. I’m cheering over here! Amen!
Shadowspring, good for your daughter! I will sleep better. I am learning to shoot and I can hit a target in a shooting range, but I need a lot more training to even thinking about doing what Officer Munley did for our country last week and what your daughter will do for us in the future.
Lastly, thank you, veterans, who may be reading. Thank you for your sacrifice and selfless defense of our country and our families. You deserve so much more than we can give. God bless you all.
I think the Bayly Brothers and the other patriarchs will revert to their fall-back position regarding Officer Munley.
They will say: Just because a woman can perform a traditionally masculine task well or even brilliantly doesn’t mean she should. God designed Officer Munley to be cherished and protected and to be a keeper-in-the-home. Her actions thwarted the only standard that matters, i.e. the standard set by God. How is she supposed to fulfill her God-ordained role towards her husband and children if she is injured or killed in the line of fire, and how is her husband supposed to protect her if she is running around shooting at mass murderers?
I think this line of reasoning is even more harmful towards women than the notion that women are not competent. This line of reasoning, which I have seen on quite a few blogs, sends the message that no matter how hard you work, no matter how selfless you perform your duties, and no matter what heroism or risk you show, you are still wrong and bad if you are a woman in a role the patriarchs don’t approve. It is even more demoralizing than notions of what women are capable of — which many women see as challenges to be met. This reasoning is that even if you meet the challenge in the most brilliant and amazing way, you are still lesser because you are doing something you shouldn’t be.
Er, sorry for the typos. And yes, that should be “how selflessLY you perform your duties.”
Also, I wanted to note that Officer Munley joins a larger group of women who have shown extreme courage under fire in recent years in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. She is definitely not an anomaly.
Laurie posted, “This reasoning is that even if you meet the challenge in the most brilliant and amazing way, you are still lesser because you are doing something you shouldn’t be.”
Surely you have hit the nail on the head, Laurie, with regard to how the uber-patrios will see things. Ugghhhhh! How demoralizing!
There’s a proverb somewhere in the Proverbs that goes someing along the lines of this:
“There was a wise man who saved an entire city once, by his wisdom. But because he was poor, he was forgotten.”
This is what the uber-patrios are trying to do to women. Make them poor in the terms of hiearchy, thereby making them forgotten, hidden. Even if they have great wisdom or profound contributions to make.
Where as wise men are to be praised, wise women are to be forgotten.
Need to catch up on the rest of the posts. But this post #291 jumped out at me and made me think of that proverb.
So true about trying to make women invisible or hidden — and often literally so.
It reminds me of the story earlier this year about the ultra-Orthodox newspapers in Israel that photoshopped the women Cabinet members out of a group photograph!
If you are wanting a good laugh, this week’s podcast is the “dramatic production” from our annual mom’s retreat and is entitled “Susie Homeschooler Meets Mrs. Van Uppity.” Enjoy!
“It reminds me of the story earlier this year about the ultra-Orthodox newspapers in Israel that photoshopped the women Cabinet members out of a group photograph!”
Sigh… you know, some of these guys remind me of prepubescent boys, who are at that age when they hate everything that has anything to do with girls.
It sort of makes me wonder how some men manage to endure our odious company long enough to reproduce themselves…..
This morning on Jasmine Baucham’s blog she said “I got a question the other day about whether I thought non-stay-at-home daughters or non-stay-at-home moms could be Christians.” She plans to address that soon and I doubt that she will say they can’t, but at the same time I CANNOT BELIEVE someone is actually SAYING that! I left a comment saying I was pretty horrified anyone would ever say that and pointed out a couple of obvious flaws with a statement like that, but wow. I need to pick my jaw off the floor.
BTW, I did email her dad a few weeks ago asking him to clarify that statement we’ve discussed so much and despite it being a very polite and low-key email have not heard back. I wish I could get in touch with him.
Anyway, good comments above, I have not had as much time to participate lately…
I don’t see why you can’t believe it. It simply means that she’s a kook magnet. They’re being drawn to her by her kooky message. They’re just trying to figure out how far to carry on with their elitism.
Anyway, she can play it a number of ways. She can say, that folks who don’t stay home have people wondering if they are really saved. Or, she can feign surprise/innocence that folks following their philosphy will reach such a conclusion.
Someone recently wrote me about her interesting experience.
She had been interviewed to do some menial labor for a patriocentrist. Rather than treating her with respect or even chatting with her as one Christian to another or even as one homeschooler to another, she was totally dismissed. The funny thing to me is that this woman has a thousand times the intellect and grace of the patriocentrist.
I would love to see the requirement list for patriocentrists. How do you qualify to be one of their elite? Obviously intellect and grace are not required.
“Anyway, she can play it a number of ways. She can say, that folks who don’t stay home have people wondering if they are really saved. Or, she can feign surprise/innocence that folks following their philosophy will reach such a conclusion.”
“Sigh… you know, some of these guys remind me of prepubescent boys, who are at that age when they hate everything that has anything to do with girls.
It sort of makes me wonder how some men manage to endure our odious company long enough to reproduce themselves…..”
ROFLOL!
L,
Thanks for trying to contact Voddie so he could clarify his teachings on daughters being given to fathers by God so they can meet their yearnings for the attentions of younger women.
So did anyone watch “Born to Breed” on Lifetime last night? I was unable to finish it, so I won’t comment yet. But I have it recorded so I can see it this afternoon.
First thoughts: rural, rich, white…but looked like a great life for the kids with the two families they did show- Rachel Scott (nice home, nice clothes, able to afford to waterski, etc. which is a rich man’s sport for sure) and some other lady who is also affluent (large home, lots of land with a creek, lots of expensive outdoor gear for the kids to play on, dressed in normal clothes).
Regarding the “can you do x and be a Christian” — just this morning I came across this quote:
If there be any difference among professed believers as to the sense of Scripture, it is their duty to tolerate such difference in each other, until God shall have revealed the truth to all.
–John Milton
Interesting program on Focus on the Family last night. It was on the second half of marriage – what to do when the children have all gone. One of the points made was that many times, the wife has felt like her only purpose was the children and now that they are gone, she has to move on. I wonder how much of that is put on the wife by people who are very concerned about the role of women in a marriage. The Arps were very positive in encouraging women to find something else to do – go to school, be involved in other pursuits, take a job. They also talked about the divorce statistics and it seems that those who have been married 25-30 years have a higher divorce rate – surprising, and I am not sure that I got the complete context. But that statistic was followed by the comment about how things change when your whole focus has been your children. They emphasized that you should strive to be “best friends” with your spouse. It leads me to wonder what the patriocentric families will be doing when all of their children are gone, though I suppose in their model, they might just stick around forever.
Keebler, this is a very real problem. I am now seeing homeschooling moms and dads who invested all their time in the children who are divorcing. So sad.
If you are taught that your only purpose and role in life as a woman is to bear children, what good are you when the womb can no longer give birth? God designed women to have be able to have children for only a part of their lives. “Normative” is to be barren from birth to 13 or so and then again from midlife until death. When you do the math, there are less years of fertility than not. If you have have these burdens tied on your backs, you can become overwhelmed with grief when you can no longer have babies.
I also think this is one of the reasons that they insist that grown children should live nearby, sometimes even on the parents’ land.
I discussed this topic and how to prepare for that seasons of life on two podcasts if anyone is interested: scroll down to The Sweater Years, Parts One and Two
“Can you do X and be a Christian?” assuming X = working outside the home and/or sending your kids to school, then “If you do Y does that automatically make you a Christian?” assuming Y = homemaker/homeschooler.
Clearly being a homemaker/homeschooler doesn’t make you a Christian.
—
“If you are taught that your only purpose and role in life as a woman is to bear children, what good are you when the womb can no longer give birth?”
What if you can’t give birth from the get go? What if you’re attacked somehow and can no longer bear children? What if your mother, or her mother, took DES, for example, and so you cannot carry a child? What if you have hormone problems and you can’t conceive? What if you were treated for cancer as a child and it left you infertile?
There are a whole lot of questions that they simply do not answer.
I here you, Annie C. I have met women who very much wanted to have children and are not able to conceive. Hearing teachings like this in the church only increases their heartache. It’s cruel.
That is one reason that while I do highly value motherhood, I would never focus on that possibility as if it were a certainty in raising my daughter.
You only have to have one friend who endures this heartache to never, ever, ever want to put that burden on anyone else.
here=hear Yes I can spell, but not edit apparently. Grrr. And I wish I knew how to underline, italicize, etc. What do you use, html? My kids know that.
Shadowspring, in case you or anyone else wants to use html, here is a somewhat understandable page I found. I’m no geek expert, but it is fun to use sometimes.
“They emphasized that you should strive to be “best friends” with your spouse. ”
Interesting, Keebler.
I would think it impossible to be “best friends” with your spouse in the patrio model of marriage since it is all about subordination of the female and domination of the male. The major stress of patrio marriage is this: husband as ruler, leader, guide into all things and wife as underling, follower, subordinate.
Can a captain be best friends with a sailor?
Can a general be best friends with a private?
Can a boss be best friends with his employee?
Aren’t the patrios constantly talking about these things as models of marriage?
In order to be best friends there has to be equality and mutual respect and admiration and a sense that the other person is just as smart and capable.
“Don’t walk in front of me, I may not follow. Don’t walk behind me, I may not lead. Walk beside me and be my friend.
- Albert Camus
A friendship is not a relationship of power and control but of mutuality and equality. A friend recognizes our strengths and empowers us to use those strengths. In a friendship, there are no black and white roles because they look at themselves as a team.
Imho, patriocentricity doesn’t allow for the type of true intimacy that is found between two best friends.
I am a lurker who wanted to speak up regarding an interesting trailer I just watched. It seems the Botkins are releasing a new DVD. You can view an excerpt on visionary daughters website.
I found it to be stunningly off base and eerie. I wonder if it is just the editing for this preview or if the whole thing is indeed as bizare as it seems!!!
Home school dropouts? Apostates? They speak as if these two terms are synonyms on this new trailer of the Botkins.
Anyway, they use scary music and scary numbers- 80% of home schooled students are now apostate, er I mean, not planning to home school?
I think they mean many, many students brought up in hardcore patriarchal home school families will never do that again! Certainly not to their own children!
My students were/are being brought up in a more free-range, experiental and nurturing home school environment. In spite of all the grief of my daughters teen years, the one thing she would never change is having been home schooled! She is not sure she will have children (unlike the patrios daughters who believe they all know the future) but if she does she will definitely home school.
I ask my son almost every semester since middle school, do you want to keep doing this or enroll at public school? His answer is always,”Why would I want to do that? I love the freedom, I love the extra time I have. No way, unless you need me to, mom. I know I could handle it if you want to go back to work, but I would prefer to be home schooled.” He’s 15.
However, if my home had been the burdensome place of rules and strict roles that the patrios have come up with, then I wouldn’t blame them if they regretted the whole mess.
On another subject, wasn’t it so nice to see Angel so happy on the Lifetime “Born to Breed” special? =)
Does anyone know who the people were on that trailer? I only recognized Kevin Swanson.
Also, as I usually am with the patriocentrists, I am confused as to who the intended audience is supposed to be. That is how I felt with The Monstrous Regiment of Women. It is how I felt about Passionate Housewives. It is how I felt with The Return of the Daughters. Is this current film geared toward children who are grown and not wanting to homeschool their own children? Is it for their parents? Do they seriously think that any young adults who might watch this and who grew up in patriocentricity and left it will be guilted into returning? That is what I was getting from it. This isn’t about homeschooling, at least it isn’t about normal homeschooling. It is about that group of homeschoolers that R. C. Sproul Jr. wrote about and that James and Stacy McDonald talked about, the ones who homeschoolg “by conviction” unlike the rest of us. It is about the patriocentrists and their legacy. Normal homeschoolers have kids who can think for themselves and make good choices themselves. And many of them are survivors and have discovered what grace actually looks like. They won’t be swayed by this propaganda. So who is the target audience?
I am really offended by this rhetoric that Swanson is using, taking the real and good research that is out there about the alarming numbers of young people who have abandoned the church and the faith by guys like Christian Smith and turning it into family integrated church/patriocentric propaganda. That is what Ken Ham has done in his book called “Already Gone” and the patrios are spinning that to prop up their agenda. I have seen Phillips and McDonald write about this recently and they aren’t looking at what the REAL problems are.
Shameless, these guys are.
Annie G, thanks for that link. There’s a woman who looks like she can do the large family thing well! At least her children are rising and calling her blessed.
Okay, the one interview with the first one man shown: WHO exactly is supposed to be doing the redeeming here???? Is that our job? Or perhaps could it be Jesus’??
Okay, enough sarcasm. I just get sick and tired of people trying to steal Jesus’ thunder; use His ideas and the freedom He bought to act like it was all their idea and their victory. Yeesh.
Oh, and “crank up the discernment” is patrio speak for “crank up the propaganda.” I pray we all DO crank up genuine discernment. And not just my idea of it, but that we are aware of what TRUTH really is… as a Person and otherwise.
I too was confused by the Botkin trailer. What are they saying?
“Our parents didn’t do a good job passing the baton on homeschoooling.”
“We’re shallow and lazy and just don’t want to homeschool.”
“The Government/Culture/Antichrist has won.”
Seriously, what is the message? None of it seems very complimentary or supportive of the job these “pioneering” homeschoolers have done.
“I was offended that they equated apostasy with not wanting to home school. Sheesh.”
Yes, it’s offensive alright, but it IS the light at the end of the patriarchal/homeschooling tunnel.
The fact that most of the kids who were raised in hardcore patriarchal homeschooling families are not planning to raise their own kids this way spells the beginning of the END of the patrio/homeschooling craze….
I just found this blog from the no longer quivering blog…
i’m a mom with seven littles from almost 14 year old to 20 mo baby girl… and a great husband – i’ve been fascinated with the NLQ blog because it seems like a whole different universe! To me, QF seemed like a huge quantum leap *away* from the patriarchy i was raised with, and more a complementarian type of thing. And that’s what it’s certainly been in my 15 years of marriage – but what drew me to that camp all those years ago was the honesty of the women, their willingness to mine the scriptures that the other ladies at my church wanted us to all ignore – i am LOVING this blog! I love that you all are not on the exact same page, but that i sense the same passion for *freedom* in Christ and *wholeness*… a discontent with what is given, and an eagerness to get to the bottom… I can’t wait to catch up with all the posts here
Here is another interesting article that I think would be interesting to discuss. It was written by Andrea Schwartz (anyone know who that is?) and is entitled The biblical Trustee Family. She explains the three philosophies of family life as taught by Rushdooney.
What a great point! It is going to die out of it’s own accord. And I will say that is proof that home schooling is beneficial, because the children are learning:
a) going against norms is possible (not exactly what their parents wanted them to learn-they intended for their norms to be accepted and societies to be rejected. But it is what it is!)
b) you can do whatever you set your heart to do: you are capable of learning anything and accomplishing anything. Maybe your parents wanted to build a weird patrio world, and you want to build something else out of your life. Go build!
Home schooling gave their kids the confidence to go try new ways- which IS following in their parent’s footsteps but not the ways the patrios were expecting. The thought it would be a “do as I say, not as I do” way of teaching. But oh no! Children learng much more globally than that.
Makes me think of one of my favorite songs, Independence Day by Martina McBride.
LOL What a marvelous thing to happen! Cartwheels of joy! Even patrio home schooled kids can become independent learners.
“In Scripture, the family is man’s basic church, state, school, society, welfare agency, and social power. Control of the children and their education rests with the family, but strictly in terms of God’s law. Inheritance is a family power, in terms of faith. Welfare is a family duty, not only with respect to non-related widows, orphans, and strangers (Deut. 14:28–29), but also and especially with all relatives, for “if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [or, kindred], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8). The authority of the husband, and of the wife, is not personal but theological and is a trusteeship for God, first of all, and then the family”
In light of this passage, how do they EVER JUSTIFY kicking out the children who rebel and offering them no help, guidance, protection, love, grace or any support of any kind, least of all financial!
And again here is another outrageous quote, in light of all the teens/young adults kicked out of patrio families for showing some independence from Daddy’s party line:
“Likewise, the modern state has little use for powerful trustee families—those that take care of and provide for their own.”
Uh, kicking your son or daughter out of the house for any reason, is certainly NOT providing for your own! What hypocrisy. Yuck, yuck, yuck.
To everyone branded a prodigal who may be lurking, who never stopped loving the Lord and trying to do what’s right (even if you failed!) and was ostracized by their patrio family- THEY WERE WRONG TO DO THAT TO YOU! Not only that, it is a good thing that you are free from their control now, even though it may be scary and very painful. The Lord lives you, and He will sustain you and provide all you need to heal and move on! ((((the “prodigals”))))
I have been reading, just haven’t much to say. For those of you who are interested, I did contribute to “No Longer Quivering’s” carnival under the name “aussiemama”.
It is interesting that when I wrote on the Generation Cedar blog that I believed all that same stuff she believes before I became a Christian, that she deleted it.
Hmm. Couldn’t find any of your posts on Generation Cedar, but read a little about the blogger Kelly’s plan for saving troubled marriages. Ugh! I am sure my post will also be deleted. Her advice is useless and unprofitable. Basically, woman suck it up, and let’s further ostracize and punish people who decide they want more out of life than a miserable marriage can provide. >:[
My husband and I are digging out of years of bad teaching regarding marriage and gender roles. We are diligently seeking to love the Lord with all of our hearts and love each other as fellow beloveds for whom Christ died. We have decided in recent months to throw out all gender-related commands and focus on living as Christians! What a concept!
I would say that we are happier now than we have been in many, many years. We pray each night that God would make us one, that we would with one mind and one mouth glorify our Father in heaven, that we would each walk in the Spirit and so keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace. We pray for help to honor one another, bear each other’s burdens, accept one another, be kind to one another, tender-hearted and forgiving, to serve one another in love.
My pk/mk hubby has a lot of hurts from his fundamentalist upbringing, and it is a joy to seem him growing in GRACE. He is also attending a 26 week Christian program called Life Skills because he recognizes that his past abusive behavior is deeply rooted in wrong beliefs about Christian gender roles. I am so grateful for this and really respect his courage to admit he needed remediation in basic Christian living.
What a mess all this gender-emphasis has created in so many lives. Sad, sad, sad.
Shadowspring posted, “My husband and I are digging out of years of bad teaching regarding marriage and gender roles. We are diligently seeking to love the Lord with all of our hearts and love each other as fellow beloveds for whom Christ died. We have decided in recent months to throw out all gender-related commands and focus on living as Christians! What a concept!”
Indeed. I’m sorry for all that you and your husband had to go through, but am so happy for you that you are working together to find your way out of all of that nonsense.
When my then-fiance (now husband of more than 27 years) and I went through pre-marital counseling with my pastor at the time, we were fed a lot of that gender stuff. After six weeks of that, I remember us once having a short conversation where we decided that we would just love and respect and care for one another to the best of our God-given ability (and by His grace) and see where that took us.
We never employed strict gender roles in our marriage. We just did what made sense at the time (such as I stayed home with the children for the first ten years, mostly because my husband always made more money than I did and we needed his income more than mine). This has worked wonderfully. We made adjustments as we have gone through our lives together according to what was best for each other, the kids, and frankly, just common sense. We are the best of friends, we laugh and love together, and just enjoy being together. There are no false constructs or gender rules/roles that cannot be bent or broken. It is real, it is organic, and I am humbled and grateful for the testimony, example, and love of this wonderful man in my life. It is truly God’s grace to me, which I in no way deserve.
Now I am aware that there are those who say that we are apostate, that we are in rebellion towards God, and predict every horrible possible thing will go wrong. I can’t do anything about that, other than be sad for those who buy or are forced into their “other gospel”.
When we are approached by young couples in our church, our only advice is consistently, “Love one another, submit to one another. One-another (as a verb) in everything you do, in every decision you make”.
Why some people make this out to be so hard is beyond us. We are dubious of their motives, because if everyone would admit that this is all an unncessary, rigid, gender-role adherence is EXTRA-biblical, then they would lose all of their power over people, which seems to be the most important thing to them.
“And I will say that is proof that home schooling is beneficial, because the children are learning:
a) going against norms is possible (not exactly what their parents wanted them to learn-they intended for their norms to be accepted and societies to be rejected. But it is what it is!)
b) you can do whatever you set your heart to do: you are capable of learning anything and accomplishing anything. Maybe your parents wanted to build a weird patrio world, and you want to build something else out of your life. Go build!
Home schooling gave their kids the confidence to go try new ways- which IS following in their parent’s footsteps but not the ways the patrios were expecting. The thought it would be a “do as I say, not as I do” way of teaching. But oh no! Children learng much more globally than that.”
Shadowspring, that’s awesome! I’ve actually been doing noticing that very thing lately as I’ve realized there are some things in my (wonderful) family that I don’t believe are right or healthy and I’ve been making some changes. Nothing dramatic going on, really, but I know my parents do feel kind of insecure right now noticing that I am believing some different things than them. Overall though I think they are happy that I seem to be getting to know God better and I am trying not to make too big of a deal about what I am changing my mind on. But yeah, having been homeschooled is a large part of the reason WHY I can wrestle with these things and a couple of times say outright that I think this is based on something faulty and we need to do/think that instead.
Thanks for the encouragement, Trish. And I am happy for your husband that he is doing awesome.
And to L., yay for you! Keep growing and learning and building. It’s a good thing. I will pray that your parents will be able to clearly see that.
(It’s hard to see clearly sometimes as a parent. Our own fears and regrets can cloud our vision if we are not careful. “Courage” should be tatooed on my right arm, so I could keep the reminder in front of me. LOL But, I’m against tatoos, so I’ll just have to find some other way to keep reminding myself. )
#336-Andrea Schwartz is connected with Chalcedon as Publications Coordinator, also seems to be heading up Chalcedon Teacher Training Institute. Here is her bio from that: Andrea Schwartz is an active proponent of Christian education. She successfully homeschooled and graduated two of her three children through high school. She has taught in co-op settings, privately tutored and coached students in writing, public speaking, and drama, and has organized and run homeschool choirs and other extracurricular activities. She has written and directed a number of plays including a collaborative musical work, Walkin’ Wise. She has had numerous articles appear in magazines and on national websites. She currently serves on the board of directors of a Christian junior and senior high school, offering her years of experience in applying the Word of God to all areas of learning, and reaching out to homeschooling families with extra activities and programs. Andrea lives in San Jose, CA with her husband of 30+ years and continues to homeschool her youngest daughter.
Her first book is entitled The Homeschool Life: Discovering God’s Way(hmmm to Family-Based Education, and the second book, Lessons Learned from Years of Homeschooling, has a section with the tantalizing title “What to Do With Daughters”.
she should feel that her mind, her body, and her heart are all tucked in at night, with the door cracked just a little so it is not quite so dark, with the low murmur of voices trickling in from the living room telling her that mommy and daddy are still there.
a little girl should feel wanted.
she should make them smile, just because she walks upon the earth. she could sit and do nothing, forever, and make their hearts glad, simply by being. by belonging.
a little girl should have her needs met.
she should hunger for nothing . . . bread, shoes, or love.
a little girl should thrive
and not be required to learn survival
as a constant way of life.
a little girl should be encouraged,
emotionally, intellectually, physically, spiritually.
Makes me think of the J.J. Heller song, Love Me. (http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3359 second you tube on this post) “Who will love me for me, not for what I have done or what I will become.”
she should make them smile, just because she walks upon the earth. she could sit and do nothing, forever, and make their hearts glad, simply by being. by belonging.
My mom was from a farm family (not patriarchal), but she always felt she was a poor substitute for her only older brother who had just died young. It’s extremely difficult to get over that.
“When we are approached by young couples in our church, our only advice is consistently, “Love one another, submit to one another. One-another (as a verb) in everything you do, in every decision you make”.
Why some people make this out to be so hard is beyond us. We are dubious of their motives, because if everyone would admit that this is all an unncessary, rigid, gender-role adherence is EXTRA-biblical, then they would lose all of their power over people, which seems to be the most important thing to them.”
Well, let’s see…today I (at 9 mos. preggo) spent 1/2 an hour bundling them up in snow clothes, then we went out and tromped merrily around in the new snow, then we came in and drank hot cocoa and snuggled on the couch reading books (since tromping in the snow at 9 mos pregnant isn’t all that easy ). See? Not hard to figure out at all. Maybe I should write a book, too….
And now I’ll go back to lurking. I highly enjoy the conversation and links you ladies post here. Keep it up!
What to do with daughters? Let’s see, I just took mine to Ulta and spent an hour playing with make-up and talking. Then we came home and she is getting ready to go out to a dance tonight at her college. I will help her fix her hair, tell her how much we love her, and wave good-bye as she drives off in our car. When she brings it back tonight, we will probably spend about ten minutes talking about her evening and then hug,kiss and go to bed.
My daughter turns 19 in two weeks. Yesterday when we were driving to the store she put the radio on a country station. Then she yelped with glee because her favorite worship song was on. “I know it’s not meant to be about Jesus, but that’s all I think about when I hear it.”
We had awful years from her 13th to 18th, but I praise God that we never stopped loving her and never gave up!
Ugh. What a jerk. I couldn’t even listen to all. How sad that he actually has an audience of people that are paying good money to keep the lights and AC on and pay his salary.
I would hate to have to account to God for my giving if any of it went to this church.
You don’t think Schaap’s hairline might have been a little straighter and his hair quite a bit fuller when his wife married him, do you??? Of course not! Because he’s going to stay exactly the way he was when his wife married him.
I know I can’t judge a man’s salvation, but his motives seem to be right out there: I don’t think it’s love for His benevolent Savior that keeps him in the pulpit and throne of that church. It seems like it’s power, pure and simple; just so he can hear, “Yes ma’am, whatever the pastor wants, ma’am.” That’s a man who doesn’t ever want to be said no to. Yikes…
By the way, that last quote was from another video of him, in which he berates people who question the no open toed shoes and no sleeveless dresses rule for weddings in the church. First he mimics them asking about the reasonableness of it to the wedding coordinator or whomever they are asking, and them screams “NO! NO! NO! NO!” for like 20 seconds before saying, “No, you say ‘Yes ma’am, whatever the pastor wants, ma’am.’”
Okay, I just looked up the website for Schaap’s church (First Baptist of Hammond, Indiana — http://www.fbchammond.com). THEY HAVE SEPARATE BAPTISTRIES FOR MEN AND WOMEN. I have never heard of this before.
AND, they have a women’s ministry/magazine. His wife is senior editor and he is editor-in-chief. I cannot imagine the kind of messages that are being sent to women from a pastor who would say such belittling things from the pulpit.
What to do with daughters? mine’s 24, and a few months ago I said goodbye to her as she moved from sydney to London to go and work in one of the poorest areas there as a social worker in child protection. When people asked her how her mother could let her go, she quoted what I’d said to her, “My mum says that when she brought me to baptism she gave me back to God, and so if this is what he has called me to do, I go with her blessing.” I miss her heaps, but we talk on skype 3x a week, and in january her dad and I are flying over there to spend a couple of precious weeks with her.
What do you do with daughters? you love them with all your heart, and you set them free to follow Jesus wherever He takes them.
I could never have raised my daughter to think the only worthwhile future that God approves would be wife and stay at home mom. I am not omniscient! I have no idea if my daughter will ever get married or have children.
What of Gladys Aylward? Amy Carmichael? Rachel Saint? Marilyn Lazlo? And those are just a few single women in ministry who led many to the Lord.
What about the many unknown single women and working mothers who have touched this world for Christ? The social workers like Lynne’s daughter, those working in criminal justice, pharmaceuticals, other medical fields, home remodeling and decorating, aerospace technologies, banks…really any place that touches the lives of another human being offers an opportunity to serve the Lord by serving our fellow human beings.
Really, if one wanted to be super-spiritual and legalistic, wouldn’t it be better for people not to marry at all, according to Paul’s letter to the Corinthians? I am thinking that this was a tenet of one of the early heretical twists that corrupted the early church, but it’s been a long time since my New Testament Survey class. In I Cor 7:1,8 Paul says it’s better to remain single. Better!
But then that would mean no fiefdom for the patriarch to rule, no woman/family to dominate. So I doubt if we’ll see any movement from the extremist home school crowd encouraging lifelong singleness/celibacy.
I don’t know whether this book has been mentioned before, Homeschooling:An American History by Milton Gaither.
Gaither is a professor of education at Messiah College in PA.
I have really been enjoying this book. It is a very objective look at education since the Mayflower and all the way to the modern homeschool movement. He attributes three people with the modern movement. Holt, Rushdoony and Raymond Moore. What especially interested me is the whole issue with the inclusive movement…Harris vs Moore, the White Papers etc. He also talks about the issue surrounding Cheryl Lindsey. Wow- I had no idea Sue Welch had to pay over a million dollars in damages to her under an anti trust law. Very revealing about certain ‘Christians’ in the movement. After reading this I feel very duped as I was totally taken in by these people back in the 90′s.I highly recommend the book.
I would love to read a scholarly book on the modern homeschool movement. Thanks for the tip!
I have read Moore and Holt, and took good advice from both of them. I don’t feel duped by anyone and I am exceedingly glad that I home schooled and will continue to home school until my son graduates high school sometime in the next 2 1/2 years. I totally love it and so do my kids!
I never heard of Rushdooney until I started posting here and he totally creeps me out! *shudder*
However, I will say that while I started out in a Christian home school support group, very intent on sharing my faith with my children morning, noon and night by living together and seeking God together, it was not long before it was clear to me that home schooling and raising your children for Christ are two different animals. They are animals that live together in peace at our house, but nevertheless they are completely different topics.
God works all things together for good, and as president of a Christian home school support group, I got to experience first-hand the ugly side of religious ambitions, gossip, self-righteousness and people twisting scripture to get their own way and hurt others. It was this experience that changed my mind about so-called “Christian” home schooling and sent me running to grace.
(Actually, John Holt’s and the Moores’ works are quite compatible with grace: let your children learn at their own pace and follow their own interests as they grow and learn. I was never a total unschooler because I wanted to be in full compliance with the law and I dreaded my children blaming me if they grew up to have an incomplete education. But even with the three Rs everyday there was plenty of time and opportunity to unschool themselves in their chosen areas of interest.)
I don’t know any of the other issues you mention- an inclusive movement, Harris vs. Moore, and I have no idea who Cheryl Lindsey or Sure Welch are. Guess I’ve got some research to do!
Well, you take the youngest who is twelve to buy basketball shoes, which is not as easy as it sounds since she has size 11 feet. You finally decide she’s going to have to have men’s shoes but she gets over that quick because we eventually find an awesome pair, all the right colors, that she would be proud to wear as she’s tearing up the basketball court.
When the doctor points out that she’s not only tall for her age, she’s actually outside the graft on his little growth sheet, you smile and say, “All the better to play basket ball with, my dear. And don’t forget Taylor Swift is 5’11″ (famous country sing for those who don’t know)”
When the boys in the Sunday school class tease goodnaturedly that she’s “a beast” I gently remind them that though they meant well and were praising her in their own Jr. High way, that not all girls take well to being called a beast and might think they are trying to insult her. (Then they quicky snap up straight, say they are sorry because half of them have a crush on her. Because beside being tall, lean, and a beast on the b’ball court, she’s beautiful. model material even from my unbiased mom’s point of view )
Do you know why I do this with my daughter?
Because she’s called to be a mighty woman of valor for her God. She will be strong and do exploits.
Oh, and I’ve only begun to tell you what to do with girls. I’m not near halfway done telling about my youngest. And I haven’t even started telling you about my oldest who is also valiant in other ways. She’s been nominate to attend a national youth leaders conference in Washington D.C.
Yes, first you love them, love them, love them.
Then you support and encourage them as they spread their wings like eagles and soar far above the limits that small minded men want to enforce over them.
Oh my, I didn’t mean to say that I felt ‘duped’ into homeschooling.I love homeschooling-and I have been doing it for 19 years with many more ahead.
“Duped” is how I feel when I think about how I admired many of these leaders in the past and thought they were writing and speaking for my benefit and for the Lord. I now believe this is as much of a business for these folks as any secular business. For the past several years I have been rethinking much of what I learned in the 90′s…I am thankful that I have a husband and kids who never let me fall too far into the weird stuff. But I have felt ‘less than’ on many occasions as I heard these speakers. I am free from that now…and how!
Yikes! I just scanned a copy of Raymond Moore’s letter to Michael Farris and white paper of 1994. Now I feel duped too!
I’m glad you didn’t fall too far into weird stuff, too, Mary. At the time of my Christian home school support group disaster, I couldn’t see anything good about it happening. Now I praise God that he got me out of there and into an all-inclusive home school group so early on in this long slide into weirdness.
Thank you Lord! I got to make friends with unschoolers, home schoolers from other religions, home schoolers seeking help for their formerly public schooled, secular students- none of whom were welcome in the “Christian” home school support group. My life is richer for having known these people, whereas I cannot say that about my former associations in the Christian home school support group.
I recently received a home school magazine in the mail, and as I was looking at the angelic face on the cover, I realized it was less about reality than selling an image. The sweet face looked like an angel. I am sure no sin has ever crossed that pure, sweet mind. At least, that is what I thought as I looked at the picture of innocent beauty on the cover.
But that’s not reality! No one is perfect. I imagine most moms looking at that cover feel like I briefly did- I wonder why my children are so far from perfect, unlike this saintly teen.
It made me angry that such a thought crossed my mind, and then I realized that is exactly what they wanted me to think. Then hopefully I would begin searching the pages for a new product that will take my teen from ordinary sinner to saintly model of righteous perfection.
Grrrr. I don’t think this is very pleasing to God at all.
Mara, your insights into girls is brilliant. thank you for saying it so eloquently. I love using the phrase “mighty moms of valor” because that is exactly what we are called to be!!!
shadowspring, in the early years of home education, the Moores’ influence won the rights that many of us enjoy today. What was done to them as evident in the white papers is outrageous. Sadly, their methods and ideas and research has been set aside in lieu of the vast amount of curriculum that is being written and pedaled. I frequently introduce new young moms to the Moores and they are always so glad to tell me how much their teachings resonate.
They gave me a small closet room for my very own and in that room with a borrowed computer in 1995 I started a small editing and writing business (with one client) that almost 15 years later is now a small corporation and pays half the bills of our household each month and keeps this grown-up girl very happy. My husband was delighted to to find a “girl” just like me.
True, I don’t have time to sew as much as I’d like and sometimes I’m flying around cleaning the bathrooms just as company is pulling into the driveway and I forget to buy milk (and the we’re still figuring out if we can parent our own children someday or not), but girls can do amazing things if they are given the chance to flourish.
I couldn’t watch that odious man. Someday someone will get a knock on their front door and it will be his wife and daughters running for their lives. It’s disgusting.
One quick comment about the Hyles-Anderson phenomena…we saw a video promotional for the college years ago and it was quite entertaining. They showed an entire room full of girls…probably 30 or 40 or them…all sewing at once using the same machines. It was showing a course you would take for your preacher boy wife’s major. I am not making this up!
Can I just say that I have had it up to HERE with their hypocrisy and their attitude that people are just too stupid to remember what they taught in the very recent past?
When are their sheep going to start calling them on the carpet for their hypocrisy, double-minded ways, double standards, etc?
You cannot have a biblical betrothal, as described by them, and not have a biblical divorce if the betrothal was broken. You cannot say that being engaged is not biblical and then turn right around and announce an engagement.
Loved your post on what to do with girls! I have a daughter that just made her high school basketball team and I took her shopping for shoes on Friday.
I am so glad I am free from the constructs that I was under. I am no longer trying to shove my 6 daughters into a small, narrow box in order for them to be accepted as a “biblical woman”. They are all so different and I hope I always encourage them accordingly.
“A friend passed along a you tube video to me that shows that the MacDonald girl is engaged again. It didn’t mention a betrothal this time and I wondered if anyone here knows if her parents still teach that being engaged is worldly.”
Well, Marty, since they have not apologized to their public and taken back their false teachings on betrothal being the only biblical way we can safely assume that they still think that being engaged is a worldly endeavor only undertaken by those marginal Christians who want to be able to break off an engagement if they fall out of love or some other trite reason.
We can also assume that they believe that they had good reasons for why they broke off their betrothal since it was as binding as marriage but no one else has good reasons for breaking off engagements.
Ugh!
And now she is no longer “quiverfull” even though she and her husband tried to by the QF Digest back in 2000 or so…she is “Jesus-full”.
Well, it is full of something, alright, but I can say what it is full of in front of polite company.
Insecure men are the ones to blame for cultural decline??? How simplistic! Yawn and an eye roll, in spite of the dramatic music and great graphics.
Gee, and all this time I thought that righteous men would be righteous still, while wickedness would just continue on in like manner, until the second coming of Christ. You know, like the Bible says it will be.
“What of Gladys Aylward? Amy Carmichael? Rachel Saint? Marilyn Lazlo? And those are just a few single women in ministry who led many to the Lord.
What about the many unknown single women and working mothers who have touched this world for Christ? The social workers like Lynne’s daughter, those working in criminal justice, pharmaceuticals, other medical fields, home remodeling and decorating, aerospace technologies, banks…really any place that touches the lives of another human being offers an opportunity to serve the Lord by serving our fellow human beings.”
Shadowspring,
They are all Monstrous Women.
Your whole post, #369, is excellent!
Yes, why don’t we become literal and legalistic and take 1 Cor 7 as it says in black and white?
IT IS BETTER TO NOT MARRY AND YOU WILL BE HAPPIER IF YOU STAY SINGLE…..
That is exactly what it says.
But, the patrios only pick and choose what they will be legalistic about and you are right that it is only the things that suit their own agenda for control and domination over another person (s) which happen to be, for the most part, female.
Seriously, Corrie, they tried to buy the Quiverful Digest? Those people are hard-core quiverfulls. Didn’t the Hess family own QF at one time? They believe no birth control for any reason whatsoever, including illness of the mother. It reminds me of the Phillips/Samaritan Ministries position on ectopic pregnancy.
For the record, I am very supportive of people who change their positions and philosophies. I am one of those people. But I have at least stated publicly those changes of views. How much more important is it for those who are public teachers to be upfront with their changes of heart, if, indeed, they have them. Otherwise, it appears as though these teachers are trying to make themselves palatable to more than one audience.
“The double minded man is unstable in all his ways.”
The sharks are too good for this pastor, throw him to me.
I will show him what an in shape woman can do to a little twit such as himself. My biceps are bigger than his head.
These men couldn’t handle a real woman. They talk big but they would cry like a little baby if they had to go toe to toe with a real woman who isn’t scared of all their stupid blustering.
It bothers him and irritates him when a man marries a “beautiful thing” that God created and she lets herself go?
He apologized for parading his daughter out in front of everyone and for being premature in betrothing his daughter to that young man.
BUT, he hasn’t apologized for his false teaching on betrothal and his flip-flopping ways and his slams against us marginal evangelical apostates who merely engage instead of betroth. He just takes the stuff down and then teaches something totally opposite as if we all will just come down with amnesia.
(Corrie, note that I edited your comment so it wasn’t the entire article. I am uncertain about the fair use laws and am erring on the conservative side with enough information for people to get the drift. Perhaps if anyone wants a copy of the entire post they can contact you?)
I am reposting (part of) their original blog article.
“So, that said, what is betrothal to the McDonald family?
I see betrothal as a covenant promise between a man and a woman to marry. It is a commitment that should not be broken, except in the case of death or sexual unfaithfulness. [I would add that if there were some other bizarre undisclosed situation (insanity, major undisclosed sin, character issue, etc.) that was discovered at this point, it would also be a legitimate reason for not progressing to the actual marriage] Thus, in the case of Tiffany and Jared, they have decided to move from the non-binding courtship phase to the binding betrothal phase.
To those with a secular postmodern mind, the concept of betrothal may seem foreign, archaic, and constricting. In a culture where marriage is redefined to include perverted homosexual unions, and couples divorce because they “fell out of love,” how in the world can the postmodern mind grasp the beauty and purity of faithfulness before marriage?………..
Now, from the world’s perspective, engagement and betrothal are interchangeable. Both may be viewed as a semi-commitment where an announcement is made of an intended wedding and “save the date” cards are sent. But it is not binding – there is no real commitment. It can be broken at any time by either party for any reason. Just as you can break a dinner engagement, you can break a marriage engagement. In fact, if the engagement is broken, most people breathe a heavy sigh of relief. The idea is that it is better to break things off before marriage, so you can save the lawyer’s fees in a future divorce.”
So here we have a grand self-described patrio leader who proclaims to all with ears and access to computer blogs their enlightened plan for their stay-at-home-daughter’s betrothal. They equate said betrothal with commitment to marriage itself, an arrangement broken only by divorce. Jane Austen costumes are involved.
But in time, daughter doesn’t find prince patrio so fun afterall. Following a mumbled “oops,” patrio papa pretends like none of that unpleasantness ever happened.
But if a daughter’s still “married” ala patrio, wouldn’t another engagement/betrothal equal…I hate to say it…BIGAMY?
Another twist of patrios toiling the outskirts of plural marriage.
Shadowspring: “Amen to that, Mara! I would love to watch your daughter play basketball one day. Maybe in a college game on TV?”
Well, not sure if she is going to pursue b’ball or music (can she do both?). Because the only thing she tears up worse that a b’ball court is a piano keyboard. She writes music and wows people with that. This is why Taylor swift being 5’11″ means something to her. Told you I’ve only begun to tell you about her.
Thatmom: “Mara, your insights into girls is brilliant. thank you for saying it so eloquently. I love using the phrase “mighty moms of valor” because that is exactly what we are called to be!!!”
I know you know this. More women need to know that the Proverbs woman was a woman of valor. That the word virtuous in that verse is the exact same Hebrew word used to descibe men. But for men it is translated into English as valor.
And we women need to take that word to mean what was intended. And we need to take it to heart. And we need to encourage one another and our daughters that this word is NOT just for men. God says so. No matter what Schaap has said to deceive himself and his congregation to the contrary.
(It will be a cold day in hell, indeed, before I let that man and his poisonous doctrine anywhere near my beautiful, creative, valiant daughters.)
corrie: “Loved your post on what to do with girls! I have a daughter that just made her high school basketball team and I took her shopping for shoes on Friday.”
We went shoe shopping on Saturday, that’s why it’s fresh in my brain.
Thanks ladies. I’m glad you approve of my ‘methods’ for raising girls. Your few comments carry far more meaning for me than a month of Sunday sermons from Schaap.
(And Hillary, since I forgot to mention it before, let me mention it here. I loved your poem and how it inspire the women here to rise up and declare the beauty and wonder of being the mothers of little girls. Because without our little girls what would us moms ever do?)
“November 16, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Paul Washer is now supporting and promoting the family integrated church:”
ISTM Once churches adopt this idea of being a “family of families”, the next step is that the church is primarily for men because men are leaders of those family units. Single women become out of place and relegated to corners.
I hope Washer is not wholeheartedly throwing himself in with the NCFIC. The tone of his statement made me hope this might be the case, especially this: I want you to listen to some of the things which they are teaching and learn.
I imagine Washer, being a dynamic and popular preacher, has been courted by the patrios, a la Voddie Baucham, in order to get more star power on their side.
Paul Washer will be speaking with Doug Phillips, Kevin Swanson, Voddie Baucham, Ken Ham and I believe Geoffrey Botkin at a conference the second week in December. We have many friends still very much involved with these groups and we have been asked to travel with a few other friends to the conference. We have declined.
I like a lot of what Paul Washer says but I hope he does not continue further down the road with these gentleman. Please Paul DO NOT DRINK THE KOOL-AID!!!
This comment is for Jane since she does not have a proper e-mail address for me to write directly to her:
According to my legal counsel, your repeated comments to me are considered to be harassment and I would ask you to please stop. I have answered everything you have asked me and I will no longer be engaging you.
Also, does anyone know the theological background of Paul Washer? And what denomination currently ordains him? His is a fairly new name to me, as within the last year.
Mrs. M,I am having a hard time getting past the conference title “Sufficiency of Scripture.” Patriocentrists have the longest list of extra biblical rules since the Pharisees. Just looking at the latest Botkin film proves they don’t believe the Scripture is sufficient…it has to be supplemented with their lists to prove you aren’t apostate.
Yes I agree and I am so sad to see Paul Washer fall in with this lot. I had heard he was teaming up with Voddie but I had not seen evidence of this. Well now we see. I am also sad that Ken Ham continues to grow closer to this group. Let us all pray that these men will see things as they really are and flee.
Also for any who feel led, please pray for my friends who are still very much caught up in all of this as they are attending this conference. I am hoping they will begin to see this “movement” for what it truly is.
From info about the conference: This conference will call Christians back to their foundation, affirming that the Scripture alone is sufficient to direct their lives and the life of their families, their churches, and their country in the 21st Century. Whether you are a father, mother, child, common laborer, or an elder in a local church, there will be important messages for everyone with topics including the accuracy of the Scriptures from the very first verse, biblical evangelism, biblical church government, women’s ministry, euthanasia, work, biblical manhood and womanhood, child training, education, music, biblical worship, and much more. Join us with your family, friends and church as we seek to rebuild the crumbling foundations, repair the breaches, and restore the paths to dwell in.
To “rebuild the crumbling foundations, repair the breaches, and restore the paths to dwell in” (taken from Isaiah 58) requires:
“To loose the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the heavy burdens,
To let the oppressed go free,
And that you break every yoke?
7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
And that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out;
When you see the naked, that you cover him,
And not hide yourself from your own flesh?
8 Then your light shall break forth like the morning,
Your healing shall spring forth speedily,
And your righteousness shall go before you;
The glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard.
9 Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer;
You shall cry, and He will say, ‘Here I am.’
“ If you take away the yoke from your midst,
The pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness,
10 If you extend your soul to the hungry
And satisfy the afflicted soul,
Then your light shall dawn in the darkness,
And your darkness shall be as the noonday.
11 The LORD will guide you continually,
And satisfy your soul in drought,
And strengthen your bones;
You shall be like a watered garden,
And like a spring of water, whose waters do not fail.
12 Those from among you
Shall build the old waste places;
You shall raise up the foundations of many generations;
And you shall be called the Repairer of the Breach,
The Restorer of Streets to Dwell In.”
Musing aloud, here: I see a lot from websites like the ones referenced here about “defending the Bible”, “defending the faith”, “defending family” “defending truth”. Not that any of those things aren’t good ~ but why are evangelicals so caught up with defending things? The only thing biblically that I can think of now is having a defense ready for the hope that is in us ~ which is our testimony.
God is our defender.
Scripture equips us for every good work.(2 Timothy 3:16-17)
I think it was Molly (Adventures in Mercy) who pointed out that truth defends us.
Hillary, your thoughts are so good and really reminded me of a sermon I once heard given by evangelist Bob Laurent. He was discussing Matthew 18 and Jesus’ admonition to Peter that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against us.” He pointed out that gates never come running after us, they are in place to protect what is on the other side from the enemy. He said that Christians often act as though the gates of hell are running after us but in reality we are the ones who are to be storming the gates. It is an offensive posture rather than a defensive one!
Along these lines, I would encourage you all to listen to the latest podcast that is a testimony by homeschooling mom Jane Gestrine. Jane is a friend of mine whose family has chosen to live in the inner city and during one school year she schooled not only her 4 sons but 3 other young men who had been wither removed from their school or taken out of it because of their terrible behavior. It is such an amazing testimony and such an example to those who want to hide away from the culture.
I also just uploaded some links to articles on the family integrated church that discuss the problems with the theology involved in this movement. They are good and thought-provoking.
From the latest Vision Forum catalog: “when your son picks up a G.A. Henty historical novel…” What, so if I had a daughter, she can’t read them?
And what do you all make of the choice of film for the next Sherwood movie? I loved Facing the Giants and Fireproof, but is Courageous a move towards patriarchy or do you think it will just be a good movie about the father/child relationship?
I know a lot of Pearl followers had a real difficulty with Fireproof, saying it was a bad movie because not only did the woman work, but it didn’t show all the marriage problems as being her fault, although some were.
Can someone give me a link to an explanation of the Rahab’s Lie philosophy, or whatever they call it? I have some friends who are wondering how “Christians” are excusing their unethical behavior.
thanks!
I hope Paul Washer understands the WHOLE package that comes along with being an NFICr? It might look good on the surface and the teachings seem pretty innocuous but FIC goes hand in hand with patriocentricity and quiverfull theology, especially in the group is getting in with. It is only the TIP of the iceberg.
Paul Washer needs to understand that you must swallow the whole package that Phillips/Botkin/Swanson et al are selling or you are apostate.
It is a whole lifestyle. This isn’t about strong families. Even us feministic, apostate evangelical slobs want strong families!
Corrie, I wonder of Paul Washer et al also have to be in complete agreement with Doug Phillips and his perspective on ectopic pregnancy? Phillips declared that he would have nothing to do with anyone/group who didn’t agree with him completely. So….
Besides that the treatment of women in these particular FIC churches is nothing I would support. We have already heard testimonies of women not being able to ask for prayer publicly, make an announcement at the dinner after the meeting, introduce their own relatives, etc. Women also need a mediator in order to have communion. Women are not allowed in the men’s gatherings that discuss the sermon and if they are they are not allowed to talk.
That photo was fine for Runner’s World and certainly appropriate for that venue, especially because Palin posed for that photo FOR an article on health and fitness in Runner’s World but for the cover of NewsWeek?!
It is sexist and should be insulting to female politicians everywhere.
When do we ever see good looking male politicians’ in such a way on the cover of Newsweek?
SP apparently posed for that photo (she is not claiming it was photo-shopped or anything, as far as I can tell from other sources). My office mate, who taped the Oprah episode with SP on it, claims that SP also did not complain when the Oprah show aired clips of her going to and/or from the gym in workout clothes. Apparently, she has no problem being photographed like this (she could easily slip sweatpants on if she wanted to). Personally, I don’t have any problem with her acquiescing to being photographed in this fashion, either, but I hardly think she has the right to complain about it later.
Also, as far as no male politicians being photographed in similar situations, how about President Obama’s swimsuit-clad body being displayed everywhere when he vacationed in Hawaii. I do not recall if it was on Newsweek or not, but it was it was in plenty of other print media. The only difference I can see is that he did not whine about it, at least that I can remember.
To me, SP wants it both ways – as is her usual MO as far as I can see. Honestly, I am so tired of her and wish she would just go away.
Re: 423
momgodin,
I don’t have a link but have a friend whose eight-year old was taught this in a Sunday school class by a Ref.Bapt. ex-elder, “it’s okay to lie sometimes” and he cited Rahab’s lie as evidence to support this.
I told my friend just because God records it in the Bible doesn’t mean He approves.
This particular man practised what he taught too, as we experienced his lying to cover up major problems in the church with “leadership.”
He was heavy, heavy into Albert N. Martin – I don’t know if that is where it came from.
Karen, I really appreciated the links you posted. The article at http://www.grbc.net/blog (“What Should We Thnk of the Family-Integrated Church Movement?”)is a great reminder that:
“we … need to exercise humble restraint and spiritual wisdom not only to go where the Bible goes but to stop where the Bible stops.”
I had knew she posed for that photo but it was for a running magazine and it was for an article she did for them on health and fitness. If Newsweek wanted to do a cover photo of her then they should have done one more in keeping with the theme of the magazine and their article.
I guess I missed the picture of Obama in his swimsuit. I would bet it wasn’t on the cover of a news magazine, though.
I don’t really know much more about Sarah Palin so maybe I should start doing some reading on both sides of the issue.
Anne2 posted, “I don’t have a link but have a friend whose eight-year old was taught this in a Sunday school class by a Ref.Bapt. ex-elder, “it’s okay to lie sometimes” and he cited Rahab’s lie as evidence to support this.
I told my friend just because God records it in the Bible doesn’t mean He approves.”
The lying thing reminds me of what some fundamentalist LDS churches teach. To them, as long as the lying is for a “good reason”, apparently with the ends justifying the means, then it is permissible. Besides the obvious moral problem with that line of thinking, it seems like it’s up to each individual to decide what’s right or wrong in his/her own eyes.
As far as Rahab and other similar biblical accounts, I think a lot of Christians lack discernment for what is *descriptive* in scripture vs. what is *prescriptive*.
It seems like much of the whole patriarchial doctrine is based on this deficiency of discernment in its leaders and proponents.
The discussion over at Humble Musings is excellent.
Does anyone have the book, Family Driven Faith? I would like to know more about it. Amy Scott made some very excellent points and one of them was how wrong the title was. How is it that our faith is “family driven”? Is that even in the Bible? I thought that our faith is a gift driven by the Holy Spirit?
Jasmine (Voddie’s daughter) commented and stated that many of the reservations surrounding patriarchy are “laughable”.
I don’t find them so funny at all. Especially the ones about daughters being given by God to fulfill their father’s yearnings for the attentions of younger women.
Corrie posted, “I guess I missed the picture of Obama in his swimsuit. I would bet it wasn’t on the cover of a news magazine, though.”
Just a quick search netted President-elect Obama in his swim trunks on CNN (the video is still there, Huffington Post (both are news outlets), and the Washingtonian (he made the cover there), a usually-serious print publication.
I don’t care if either posed or were snapped in these types of apparrel. I don’t see anything wrong with fitness attire. If one puts the photo out there, it’s out there, and that’s really all I’m saying. If Obama didn’t want to be splashed all over in his swim trunks (no pun intended), then he should have taken care not to be photographed in them. Every time a public figure poses for a photo, as SP did, then she knows full well that that can be picked up and used wherever, whenever. She cannot possibly claim to be too naive to realize this. For her, a former beauty pageant type person, to complain about “sexist” photos is just beyond the pale for me.
I think this is another tempest in a teacup cooked up by SP and I’m absolutely falling for it by even discussing it, so I’m going to stop now.
Savannah, I don’t think the quibble was with the photo itself but rather the fact that it was chosen as a cover story that addressed issues that were much more important to Palin and she would have liked to have the first impression of the article about her to have been more businesslike.
I read something else rather interesting. There has been a lot of criticism regarding Mrs. Obama’s choice of outfit for entertaining Mrs. Reagan at the White House.
I have been taken aback at how nasty people are being. I see absolutely nothing wrong with what Mrs. Obama is wearing. In fact, she looks trendy and stylish…three patterns is certainly in vogue right now….and if she were to have dressed like Mrs. Reagan, she would have aged herself into another generation. Just my 2 bits…
“I know a lot of Pearl followers had a real difficulty with Fireproof, saying it was a bad movie because not only did the woman work, but it didn’t show all the marriage problems as being her fault, although some were.”
One of the things I never did get is Vision Forum’s promotion of Fireproof. If we were to look at the patriocentric principles, if Caleb had taken the proper leadership role in his home, his wife would not have been working outside the home (which was the root of her discontentment) and after all those years of marriage she would have been surrounded by a half dozen or so children to homeschool. There was such a one anothering perspective in that film that I could not see how Phillips liked it. I also wondered if the Kendricks and that church subscribe to Phillips’ views of ectopic pregnancy, since he made it clear that he would not associate with anyone who wasn’t “100% prolife” like him.
Someone asked about Family Driven Faith, I have a copy. My husband read the whole thing but I did not. We also attended Voddie’s Family Driven Faith conference. If anyone has questions about the book or the conference I would be happy to answer.
I so agree with Amy what is family-driven faith? Your faith is not driven by your family it is the Holy Spirit. Patrio’s take glory and honor from God and give it family, namely the husband/father. It truly is sickening and I can’t tell you how easy it is to fall for this stuff. That is why I am not surprised about Paul Washer, I just hope he wakes up soon and realizes this movement is plain old-fashioned idol worship only this time the idol is the family with a special emphasis on the father as the head of the family.
Thatmom posted, “There was such a one anothering perspective in that film that I could not see how Phillips liked it.
I also wondered if the Kendricks and that church subscribe to Phillips’ views of ectopic pregnancy, since he made it clear that he would not associate with anyone who wasn’t “100% prolife” like him.”
On the one-anothering aspect, there certainly can’t be any of that, right? ;_)
Uh, I’m almost afraid to ask this question, but what exactly is Phillips’ view of what should happen with an ectopic pregnancy? After all, a fetus cannot grow – for long – in a fallopian tube. Eventually, that tube is going to rupture and put the mother at grave risk for sepsis and even death.
Amy over at Amy’s Humble Musings is calling for Thatmom to show proof of Voddie’s quote on daughters if she receives it she will let her comment stand if she does not she will remove it. Karen if you are online you many want to provide a link. I do not have one although I do remember watching a video clip here I believe, does any one else? If you do please post is at http://www.humblemusings.com
I see Thatmom has already handled it! Hopefully this will spur Voddie to clarify his statement. I can not for the life of me figure out what he was trying to say there.
Yes, I did and I was afraid that was the answer I’d get. How very revolting. Seriously. How incredibly misogynistic. How. . . you name it – I can’t think of enough shame to heap upon this position.
It is fairly universally recognized that an ectopic pregnancy is not viable. Uteruses expand to accommodate the growing human; fallopian tubes do not. The embryo will not survive and cannot be “transplanted” – this seems universally recognized by physicians of all stripes.
So to make a very sad situation worse, Phillips’ position is that the mother should die, too? I cannot believe a thinking, functioning-in-society person could hold this viewpoint.
What about the other children this mother may have? They are supposed to be left motherless for the sake of a baby that never could be?
This frightens me for impressionable women who follow this man’s teachings. I have had two friends over the years who experienced ectopic pregnancies, and although I don’t know the statistics on the frequency of that event’s occurrence, that right there says that they must not be all that uncommon. How many women have or will risk their lives and risk leaving their other children motherless for such a senseless viewpoint?
I just read the “revised courtship and betrothal” link. Even though they say that this is “their belief”, this was in the comments section.
“This is so interesting. Thank you! I commend your courage – after recent “discussions” with ladies who are so resistant to doing things God’s way. Instead, they have a paramount focus on personal freedom. You are brave.
Susan”
What is so bad about personal freedom is what I would like to know. And personally, I don’t think the McDonald’s should be writing any sort of position statement until all of their children are raised and grown. I prefer advice from people who have been there/ done that, even if they made mistakes along the way. I value the opinions of my parents, inlaws, friends and priest at church, and wise women who have gone before me… even if they didn’t have “perfect” results. There is a wisdom that comes with age oftentimes.
I for one personally value personal freedom and teach my children the same philosophy.
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”
Holly posted, “What is so bad about personal freedom is what I would like to know. And personally, I don’t think the McDonald’s should be writing any sort of position statement until all of their children are raised and grown.”
Holly, I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. It is not that I believe that younger women with younger children cannot contribute significantly to “the conversation”. On the contrary. However, I do believe they should recognize, as I did when I was in their position, that ultimately, the proof is rather in the pudding, so to speak. One can yammer on and on about this viewpoint or this practice, but until you *know* the ultimate result reaped from it, you really can’t make a spirited argument for it – unless it is straight out of scripture (and no, not “based” on someone’s view of scripture, like Gothard’s “principles” are “based” on scripture).
I think the same thing when I read things from the high-profile patriarchal daughters. “Daddy-this” and “Daddy-that” – okay, I get it and I think it’s wonderful that they all have such great love and respect for their fathers. But they need to keep in mind that the father in question is *their* father, not *my* father or anyone else’s father. While they might be unwilling or unable to call him out on what may be his EXTRA-Biblical views, I feel no such constraint.
There is really a somewhat limited amount of advice an unmarried young woman living with her parents can offer those of us who have lived the marriage, the children, the whole thing. While we were at one time probably in their shoes, they have never been in ours. I just think it is something of which they should be mindful and a bit circumspect about.
Savannah, these young women who have taken on the mantle of “teacher” rather than just girls who share their opinions are only following in the footsteps of the Botkin sisters who have admitted that they instruct fathers at their conferences.
I find it very funny that Stacy thinks that she can redefine biblical betrothal to fit her own fancy.
It is a promise, it is binding but you don’t need a divorce to get out of one? Well, NOT according to the Bible! You needed a divorce to get out of a betrothal in the Bible.
Why is it that these people redefine Scripture willy-nilly but vilify anyone who does the very same thing?
Offhand, I would have guessed New Zealand and Tasmania, given the dominionist agenda, but they’re talking about the Galapagos Islands:
It was basically a documentary about father and son, Joshua and Doug Phillips, who visit the Galápagos islands. The same islands where Darwin visited and used his findings there to support the evolutionary theory…..Very well made and full of wonderful scientific facts all supporting creationism.
…..from Whatever is True
blog…
“full of wonderful scientific facts”…according to whom? I didn’t know Mr. Phillips was a scientist too?
All he really is a great marketing guru, building a huge financial empire for himself out of the pockets of earnest Christian parents afraid that the love and sincerity of their own love for Christ will not be sufficient to lead their own children to faith.
I know, I know, I was one of those parents! I so earnestly wanted my children to know and walk with Jesus from an early age, never to stray, never to experience the heartache of sin. If only I instructed diligently enough, prayed earnestly enough, chose all the right curriculum, joined the right support groups, attended the right church, THEN it would all work!
My children would know God from the womb, like John the Baptist. They would never sin! (Well, not seriously.) They would lead lives graced with miracle upon miracle until the special chosen spouse appeared! They would be leaders in the church, in the community, maybe even become megastars in the Christian world! Purity and wholesomeness will emanate from their very being everywhere they go in life!
What a scam.
My children are flesh and blood people, born with a sin nature in a fallen world. I cannot teach it out of them. I cannot isolate them from it. Life is what it is.
The Holy Spirit can regenerate their hearts, but they won’t start out righteous nor can I impart it to them through solid Bible teaching. Only the Lamb of God can take away their sins and clothe them in His righteousness. The Spirit blows where it will….
And so the miracle of God’s amazing love for us sinners, they mystery of the gospel, is reduced to books and programs and rules that keep people in bondage and can never produce the results promised.
Ironic, isn’t it? We ourselves came to Christ because of our NEED for a Saviour, and by the wooing of the Holy Spirit in our lives. God concluded all under sin, that He might have mercy on all.
And yet the Christian home school marketing machine is going to keep our children from ever needing grace, because with their program our children will never fall. Or so they imply…
Anybody else see this WIC video? It was on the NLQ site.
It made me cry. Please help me to have the right perspective on this. How can “Christian” men hate such sweet beautiful girls?
Couldn’t get past the first paragraph.
Nothing like maligning people who ask an honest question.
He can say whatever he wants.
Anyone who ever questions any part is evil.
End of story.
Since he wants to malign me for asking an honest question, call me a gossip, slanderer, basically say I have no right to my voice or honest concern, it overwhelmingly confirms to me that this man does not have grace to speak anything useful into my life.
Let the dead bury their dead.
I will pursue life and call out to the withering, quivering daughters that there is a place of freedom IN CHRIST far and above the limits placed on them by the traditions and self-centeredness of men who want to control what belongs to God.
(I may get back to his response, but I’ll have to steel myself to see past his thick defenses first)
Regarding the “revised courtship and betrothal” at S. McD’s website: I find the whole McD betrothal-not-engagement spiel confusing.
A while ago I came across a discarded CD of their talk to a state homeschool convention on the subject. I’ve listened to that talk at least four times and I’ve tried to follow their logic, but I finally gave up.
For starters, much of it seems so backward to me. Why on earth agree to become “betrothed” before you knew you loved the other person? I would never have agreed to marry my husband if I wasn’t sure I loved him and he loved me.
And what’s with all this double talk that on the one hand betrothal is binding, but on the other hand it really isn’t because there are no laws that say so? I just don’t get it.
“Nothing like maligning people who ask an honest question.
He can say whatever he wants.
Anyone who ever questions any part is evil.
End of story.
Since he wants to malign me for asking an honest question, call me a gossip, slanderer, basically say I have no right to my voice or honest concern, it overwhelmingly confirms to me that this man does not have grace to speak anything useful into my life.”
“And what’s with all this double talk that on the one hand betrothal is binding, but on the other hand it really isn’t because there are no laws that say so? I just don’t get it.”
Connie,
That is the problem, you won’t and they are counting on you not getting it. False teachers love to confuse others in order to keep them where they want them- eating out of their hand.
“When and if you see this attack on the net, please know that the attackers are not seeking to correct me, or advance the gospel. These women are seeking to discredit me because of their hatred of what I represent. They hate the fact that a respected, mainstream, orthodox teacher espouses a clear distinction on the matter of manhood, womanhood, headship and submission.”
Mara’s reading my mind!
“Someone asked me a question- they hate me. waaaah!”
Okay, so what did he basically say?
That what he’s saying makes sense because it was in movie once? bwahaha. these big, bad patriarchists are a hoot.
He fails to explain this “need”. If it’s a need, what about men with no daughters?
I don’t understand his logic. He concedes “it is easy to see” how some would be worried about the quote. But the only reassurance he provides isn’t scriptural evidence- it’s that folks who “know him” weren’t worried. Why, they copied and distributed the message! Surely that validates it.
Please, stop insulting my intelligence and suggesting I have a dirty mind. Men have affairs with younger women for sex, not attention.
Younger women seek older guys because they are mature and stable and are not like all the video-game playing slackers that are their ow age.
Older men seek younger women because it makes them feel virile, strong and they like the excitement of being with a younger woman.
This is what I have learned this morning by reading articles on the subject.
One thing that has been glaringly absent from my reading is the daughter aspect. No where did I read that older men go after younger women because they want a substitute daughter.
I did read where the older man/younger woman dynamic reinforces patriarchal conventions. And that makes much more sense than what VB wrote about why men seek younger women.
Maybe all this has to do much more with patriarchy (power, authority, control….it is easier to control and have power over a younger woman than it is with an older woman) than it does with some premise about being confused about what sexual love vs. father love really is.
Also, younger women, especially in patriarchal circles, are taught to devote themselves to their fathers and do whatever it is that he likes because that is their job, to please him and devote themselves to him, until/if he gives her to a husband. I am sure it feels very nice to have females that devote their whole selves and beings to you and who always do everything in order to please you and your desires. I am sure it feels quite good to be Number One and receive this sort of doting attention.
I am shocked at how this man demonizes the women on this forum for simply asking him to clarify his statements, and pointing out how dangerous this off-the-cuff statement was in the first place.
The things he has to say about those of us with questions, our motivations, our character are all so outrageous and mean-spirited.
I was on the fence with his, assuming he would eventually admit that he spoke ill-advisedly off the cuff and that he did not think God gave men either a natural desire for younger women or daughters to fulfill that desire. I assumed he would say that he should have chosen his words more carefully.
But instead he dumps out all this vitriol! Yuck.
That is not the behavior of a righteous man of God. The jury is now is. None of you ladies overstated the case at all. You have treated them with far more courtesy and consideration than they have shown you.
The engaged/betrothal word play is meaningless. They use the word betrothal because its old and King James English. Very religious.
In reality, it means the same to them as the word engagement does to most people. Engagement does not mean “save the date”. To everyone I know, an engagement announcement means “We are really committed to each other and plan to get married! We are so sure right now that we are letting everyone know.”
Yes, I have read somewhere that half of all couples who get engaged do not make it to the altar. I’ll bet the statistics are no different for “betrothals” and “courtships”.
I think that the people who are hard into this lifestyle are going to have a lot of single adult children hanging around for a long time, unless the children find the courage to break away. Any healthy person would run fast and far away from a potential mate so enmeshed with their parents. (I’ve heard tell of it happen!) The pool of potential mates for these kids is small and shrinking as the get older.
I am really having a hard time believing people take this all so seriously that they build their whole lives around this fairy tale scenario. It’s not like there are generations of success stories out there to spur people on. ALL of the personal stories I know end in disaster.
I am mostly a lurker to this board and being European I am not the most well-versed person to speak on matters of American homeschooling/theological developments. I am not the most well-versed person in matters of Scripture either, as I am a new Christian and still very much searching for the shelf that’s right for me in a religious context. But I have felt greatly enlightened by following the debate on this board, as I have read many of the Patriocentric blogs for a long time and I enjoy going here to be reminded that there is a way to be Christian woman, without giving over your own free will.
I read your response to Voddie Baucham, thatmom, and went to watch the YouTube video the entire debate is about and I can say, without a shred of lie, it nearly made me nauseous. The way he speaks about it being wrong for daughters to physically withdraw from their fathers at the season in their life where they become women instead of girls repulsed me. It seemed like he likened the girls withdrawing from their fathers physically to flinging themselves into the arms of boyfriends and I feel like there is such a huge gap between these two things, I can’t even comprehend how he would reach such a conclusion.
I’m not certain exactly how to phrase this right now, but I just want to thank all of you courageous ladies (I do think you are gracefilled, bold ladies no matter the negative implications the patriocentrists might have attached to the word) for standing up for what you believe in and trying to reach out to people who are so steeped in this strange theology. I know you reached me at a critical point.
So thank you for that
I like your response to Baucham’s statement. His explanation didn’t clear up a thing and there was no scriptural example backing up his sermon. I CANNOT get over his claim that a girl’s first boyfriend coincides with daddy not letting her sit on his lap anymore.
Jasmin still sits on his lap, even as a young adult woman. That’s their business. I wonder how many other Christian men/pastors out there think that is appropriate. My dad gave me plenty of affection as a teenager with hugs and words of encouragement, but sitting on his lap at that age would have been creepy. And no, I didn’t run out and start sleeping with some lustful boy because I couldn’t sit on his lap anymore, as Voddie claims. Really……….
“I find it very funny that Stacy thinks that she can redefine biblical betrothal to fit her own fancy.”
After following this for the last few months, it seems like they HAVE to redefine it in order to save face, keep their following and sell books. Did anyone ever hear an explanation for why the first betrothal was broken? I didn’t.
Jumping out of lurkdom to say how shocked I was at Mr. Baucham’s utter lack of humility in his response to being questioned. I was holding out hope that he would at least admit to using the wrong words or something. But to come out with a tantrum like that speaks to more than just his frustration.
I don’t remember ever seeing anyone here say they “”. . . hate the fact that a respected, mainstream, orthodox teacher espouses a clear distinction on the matter of manhood, womanhood, headship and submission.”
No one here has ever even implied, let alone stated, that they “. . . would prefer [he] pastored a church that was not growing.”
No one here has ever even implied, let alone stated, that they “. . . would prefer that [he] did not have a reputation for clear exegetical teaching.”
No one here has ever even implied, let alone stated, that they “. . . would prefer that [he] required [his] wife (and other women) to wear head coverings.”
No one here has ever even implied, let alone stated, that they “. . . would prefer that [he] refused to preach from anything but the King James Bible.”
No one here has ever even implied, let alone stated, that they “. . . would prefer that [he] required [his] daughter to be ignorant and uneducated.”
No one here has ever even implied, let alone stated, that they “. . . would prefer that [he] came across as an ignorant, oppressive neanderthal instead of a man who loves and respects his wife and daughter.”
I would venture to say that most posters here applaud that he is a man who ” . . . changes diapers, shares the homeschooling load, and loves to cook the occasional gourmet meal for his family.”
That post is a reaction I would expect from an immature little boy, not a “respected, mainstream, orthodox teacher”, and most especially not from a disciple of Jesus.
Out of all the teachers of patriarchy, you at least held some of my respect. You appeared less virulent and more sincere. Perhaps that was merely the benefit of the silence you have held when it comes to those who are trying to understand these doctrines and positions you hold.
While not calling you a fool (for only God knows your heart), it still grieves me to say that this illustrates that oft-spoken Proverb that “even a fool is thought wise when he keeps silent”.
Frankly, Dr. Baucham, I expected better from you. Like I said, I did have some amount of respect for you and extended the benefit of the doubt, that your misguided statement was merely that: misguided.
I know that since those that fall on both sides of this debate are human with sinful natures, that it is very difficult not to dehumanize those who dissent from us. It is much easier to imagine that the “others” are not our brothers and sisters in Christ, that we are not obligated and called to treat them with all the admonitions we are given in Scripture of how we are to treat “others”. I’m not above failing in this, and as such, it is something I try to keep close tabs on in myself. Neither are those who comment here above that, though I must say, that for all the times that that mark isn’t met here, I do also see a great amount of grace extended and willingness to own up to comments made that lacked the grace they should have.
However, Dr. Baucham, because of your long silence, I had imagined that you were somehow above this. It grieves me to be proven wrong. I pray that in the future you will think twice before inputing ill intentions into others words.
“Patriarchy hunters”?????
The women here have one very strong thing in common with you: all strive to know God and His ways in their fullness and completeness. And sometimes that means asking questions. Called to be Bereans, we are admonished in Scripture to test the teachings we are given. Would you have any disobey that directive?
Dr. Baucham, as your little sister in Christ, I actually look forward to meeting you in Heaven. It puts a smile on my face thinking about it, that all this dissension will be behind us, covered in our Savior’s merciful blood. Until then…
Confusion… over words that should have clarified. All this confusion over betrothal/engagement and the place of needs of affection in fathers and daughters… makes me think of that verse:
“… God is not the the author of confusion, but of peace…”
Did you notice how Voddie repeatedly references “the women” who exposed his crazy? Wonder if he’d have the same freak-out if a men’s group did the same?
Voddie waited months to respond, and now he responds with a non-response. His tantrum and attempted deflection demonstrate two truths:
1. He has no legitimate explanation, and it’s eating him up.
2. We struck a nerve, big-time. This blog holds sway, ladies.
Well, they could say “Red” and we would quote them saying that they said “Red” and they would come back and say, “No, we didn’t say “Red”, we said “Blue”. How dare you gossip about us and slander and libel us by saying that we said “Red”!” And then we will say but you did say “Red” and here are all the volumes of writings where you did say “Red”. And this will continue until the cows come home.
They teach that college is evil. That daughters who go to college are like loud, harlots whose feet never remain at home. That daughters are mini-helpmeets to their fathers and should even go so far as to ask what colors their fathers like and where those colors in order to please him. They teach that single women on the mission field is sin. They teach that a woman has only one purpose and that is to be a servant to her father until such a time as when he gives her to another authority (husband) where she will be a servant to him and have as many babies as possible. They teach that it is blasphemy for a woman to work outside of the home. They are Quiverfull (but now some claim to be “Jesus-ful”). They teach that betrothal is binding and that engagement is not biblical and is only for people who aren’t serious about getting married but when it is convenient for them, they break off binding betrothals, rewrite Scripture in order for that betrothal not to require a divorce and then get engaged. Then when you question them about the things they teach, they tell us that they really don’t live by those teachings and they are free to live as we have countered.
The patriocentrists have made more converts to egalitarianism by their confusion and chaos and false teachings than any radical feminist has made.
Oh, I forgot to add that when we quote them as saying “Red” they will also retort that they didn’t mean “Red” but if you take it into context “Red” really means “Blue”.
Yes, if anything, VB’s “explanation” (I like Jerzy’s label of “tantrum” better) merely amplifies my original concerns. It explains nothing. It made it worse. And I just can’t wrap my mind around such thinking nor do I think I want to.
If daughters have no effect on their father’s sexuality (ie keeping him from straying with younger women) because this is exactly what he claimed, then why is he saying that they do?
What in the world does a man’s penchant for having affairs with younger women have to do with receiving the same attention from his daughters if daughters do not have some sort of power to keep their fathers from straying on their mothers?
The whole thing is crazy. CRAZY!
If a man went in for pastoral counseling and confessed he was attracted to a younger woman, would the pastor tell him that he is really looking for a surrogate daughter and that he should go back home and develop an affectionate relationship with his daughter so that he could receive that attention he was so yearning for???????
Where does the wife fit into all of this? How does the daughter fit into this at all?
I couldn’t figure out what was bothering me about the whole thing. You just hit the nail on the head.
If a man is married, why should he give in to any yearnings for the attention of a younger woman, daughter or not? His affection should be for his wife. In any case,*she* needs to be first in his heart, before any paternal yearnings for daughters.
Almost everyone has some narcissistic traits, but being conceited, argumentative, or selfish sometimes (or even all the time) doesn’t amount to a personality disorder. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a long-term pattern of abnormal thinking, feeling, and behavior in many different situations. The traits on this page will seem peculiar or disturbing when someone acts this way — i.e., you will know that something is not right, and contact with narcissists may make you feel bad about yourself. It’s not unusual for narcissists to be outstanding in their field of work. But these are the successful people who have a history of alienating colleagues, co-workers, employees, students, clients, and customers — people go away mad or sad after close contact with narcissists.
… Narcissicism is a personality disorder and that means that narcissists’ personalities aren’t organized in a way that makes sense to most people … Interaction with narcissists is confusing, even bewildering — their reasons for what they do are not the same as normal reasons. In fact, treating them like normal people (e.g., appealing to their better nature, as in “Please have a heart,” or giving them the chance to apologize and make amends) will make matters worse with a narcissist.
amoral/conscienceless
authoritarian
care only about appearances
contemptuous
critical of others
cruel
disappointing gift-givers
don’t recognize own feelings
envious and competitive
feel entitled
flirtatious or seductive
grandiose
hard to have a good time with
hate to live alone
hyper-sensitive to criticism
impulsive
lack sense of humor
naive
passive
pessimistic
religious
secretive
self-contradictory
stingy
strange work habits
unusual eating habits
weird sense of time
… The most telling thing that narcissists do is contradict themselves. They will do this virtually in the same sentence, without even stopping to take a breath. It can be trivial (e.g., about what they want for lunch) or it can be serious (e.g., about whether or not they love you). … They will contradict FACTS. They will lie to you about things that you did together. They will misquote you to yourself. If you disagree with them, they’ll say you’re lying, making stuff up, or are crazy. [At this point, if you’re like me, you sort of panic and want to talk to anyone who will listen about what is going on: this is a healthy reaction; it’s a reality check (”who’s the crazy one here?”); that you’re confused by the narcissist’s contrariness, that you turn to another person to help you keep your bearings, that you know something is seriously wrong and worry that it might be you are all signs that you are not a narcissist].
… the surest way I know of to get a crushing blow to your heart is to tell a narcissist you love her or him. They will respond with a nasty power move, such as telling you to do things entirely their way or else be banished from them for ever.
…If you’re like me, you get into disputes with narcissists over their casual dishonesty and cruelty to other people. Trying to reform narcissists by reasoning with them or by appealing to their better nature is about as effective as spitting in the ocean. What you see is what you get: they have no better nature. The fundamental problem here is that narcissists lack empathy.
… narcissists can’t judge what will affect them personally and seem never to learn that when they cause trouble they will get trouble back. They won’t take other people’s feelings into consideration and so they overlook the fact that other people will react with feeling when abused or exploited and that most people get really (angry about) being lied to or lied about.
… Narcissists lack a mature conscience and seem to be restrained only by fear of being punished or of damaging their reputations —
…Their moral intelligence is about at the level of a bright five- or six-year-old; the only rules they recognize are things that have been specifically required, permitted, prohibited, or disapproved of by authority figures they know personally.
…Anyhow, narcissists can’t be counted on not to do something just because it’s wrong, illegal, or will hurt someone, as long as they think that they can get away with it or that you can’t stop them or punish them (i.e., they don’t care what you think unless they’re afraid of you).
… Narcissists are envious and competitive in ways that are hard to understand. … They are constantly comparing themselves (and whatever they feel belongs to them, such as their children and furniture) to other people. Narcissists feel that, unless they are better than anyone else, they are worse than everybody in the whole world.
…Narcissists are generally contemptuous of others. This seems to spring, at base, from their general lack of empathy, and it comes out as (at best) a dismissive attitude towards other people’s feelings, wishes, needs, concerns, standards, property, work, etc. It is also connected to their overall negative outlook on life.
… Narcissists are (a) extremely sensitive to personal criticism and (b) extremely critical of other people. They think that they must be seen as perfect or superior or infallible, next to god-like (if not actually divine, then sitting on the right hand of God) — or else they are worthless. There’s no middle ground of ordinary normal humanity for narcissists. They can’t tolerate the least disagreement. In fact, if you say, “Please don’t do that again — it hurts,” narcissists will turn around and do it again harder to prove that they were right the first time; their reasoning seems to be something like “I am a good person and can do no wrong; therefore, I didn’t hurt you and you are lying about it now…” —
… narcissists are habitually cruel in little ways, as well as big ones, because they’re paying attention to their fantasy and not to you, but the bruises on you are REAL, not in your imagination. Thus, no matter how gently you suggest that they might do better to change their ways or get some help, they will react in one of two equally horrible ways: they will attack or they will withdraw.
— narcissists will say ANYTHING, they will trash anyone in their own self-justification, and then they will expect the immediate restoration of the status quo. They will attack you (sometimes physically) and spew a load of bile, insult, abuse, contempt, threats, etc., and then — well, it’s kind of like they had indigestion and the vicious tirade worked like a burp: “There. Now I feel better. Where were we?” They feel better, so they expect you to feel better, too. They will say you are nothing, worthless, and turn around immediately and say that they love you. When you object to this kind of treatment, they will say, “You just have to accept me the way I am. (God made me this way, so God loves me even if you are too stupid to understand how special I am.)” Accepting them as they are (and staying away from them entirely) is excellent advice.
… The other “punishment” narcissists mete out is banishing you from their glorious presence — this can turn into a farce, since by this point you are probably praying to be rescued, “Dear God! How do I get out of this?” The narcissist expects that you will be devastated by the withdrawal of her/his divine attention, so that after a while — a few weeks or months (i.e., the next time the narcissist needs to use you for something) — the narcissist will expect you to have learned your lesson and be eager to return to the fold. If you have learned your lesson, you won’t answer that call. They can’t see that they have a problem; it’s always somebody else who has the problem and needs to change.
… though narcissists hate their real selves, they don’t want to change — they want the world to change. And they criticize, gripe, and complain about almost everything and almost everyone almost all the time. There are usually a favored few whom narcissists regard as absolutely above reproach, even for egregious misconduct or actual crime, and about whom they won’t brook the slightest criticism. These are people the narcissists are terrified of, though they’ll tell you that what they feel is love and respect; apparently they don’t know the difference between fear and love. Narcissists just get worse and worse as they grow older; their parents and other authority figures that they’ve feared die off, and there’s less and less outside influence to keep them in check.
… Narcissists are hostile and ferocious in reaction
…They have pretty good reasons for their paranoia and cynicism, their sneakiness, evasiveness, prevarications.
… Narcissists are grandiose. They live in an artificial self invented from fantasies of absolute or perfect power, genius, beauty, etc.
…Narcissists don’t see themselves doing anything except being adored, and they don’t see anyone else doing anything except adoring them.
… Sometimes narcissistic fantasies are spectacularly grandiose — imagining themselves as Jesus or a saint or hero or deity depicted in art — but just as often the fantasies of narcissists are mediocre and vulgar, concocted from illustrations in popular magazines, sensational novels, comic books even.
… These artificial self fantasies are also static in time, going back unchanged to early adolescence or even to childhood; the narcissists’ self-images don’t change with time, so that you will find, for instance, female narcissists clinging to retro styles, still living the picture of the perfect woman of 1945 or 1965 as depicted in The Ladies’ Home Journal or Seventeen or Vogue of that era, and male narcissists still hung up on images of comic-book or ripping adventure heroes from their youth.
… Grandiosity can take various forms — a narcissistic woman may believe herself to be the very model of perfect womanhood, the standard by which all others are measured, and she will try to force her daughters to be just like her, she will not be able to cope with daughters who are taller or shorter than she is, fatter or thinner, who have bigger or smaller feet, breasts, teeth, who have different favorite colors than hers, etc.
… Narcissistic men can be infatuated with their own looks, too, (witness John Cheever, for instance; Almost Perfect) but are more likely than women to get hung up on their intelligence or the importance of their work — doesn’t matter what the work is, if he’s doing it, by definition it’s more important than anything you could possibly do. Narcissists I’ve known also have odd religious ideas, in particular believing that they are God’s special favorites somehow; God loves them, so they are exempted from ordinary rules and obligations: God loves them and wants them to be the way they are, so they can do anything they feel like — though, note, the narcissist’s God has much harsher rules for everyone else, including you. [Many readers have questions about narcissism and religion. Here is an interesting article on the Web: “Narcissism Goes to Church: Encountering Evangelical Worship” by Monte Wilson.
… Narcissists have a weird sense of time. It’s more or less like they are not aware that the passage of time changes things, or maybe they just aren’t aware of time’s passing at all. Years can pass without touching narcissists. Narcissists often look, or think they look, significantly younger than they are; this youthful appearance is a point of pride to them, and some will emphasize it by either preserving the styles of their golden youth or following the styles of people the age they feel they “really” are. That their faces don’t show their chronological age is a good sign that they haven’t been living real lives with real life’s wear and tear on the looks of normal people. The narcissists’ years have passed without touching them.
… Narcissists are totally and inflexibly authoritarian. In other words, they are suck-ups. They want to be authority figures and, short of that, they want to be associated with authority figures. In their hearts, they know they can’t think well, have no judgment about what matters, are not connected with the world they inhabit, so they cling fanatically to the opinions of people they regard as authority figures — such as their parents, teachers, doctors, ministers.
…If they get in trouble over some or another opinion they’ve put forth, they’ll blame the source — “It was okay with Dr. Somebody,” “My father taught me that,” etc. If you’re still thinking of the narcissist as odd-but-normal, this shirking of responsibility will seem dishonest and craven — well, it is but it’s really an admission of weakness: they really mean it: they said what they said because someone they admire or fear said it and they’re trying to borrow that person’s strength.
… Narcissists feel entitled to whatever they can take. They expect privileges and indulgences, and they also feel entitled to exploit other people without any trace of reciprocation. Some narcissists spend extravagantly in order to impress people, keep up grandiose pretentions, or buy favorable treatment
…They can be pretty nice, even charming, flirtatious, and seductive, to strangers, and will flatter you shamelessly if they want something from you. When you attempt to get close to them in a normal way, they feel you are putting emotional pressure on them and they withdraw because you’re too demanding.
Corrie, what you have shared about narcissists/narcissistic personality disorder is very enlightening. The unfortunate thing is that I have seen a fair amount of this in the church. One of the most high profile Christian women in my town is almost undoubtedly a narcissist.
On Vyckie Garrison’s forum/blog, I saw a term for these types of people that rings so true: crazy-maker. They make those around them question their own sanity. No doubt, our broken world is rife with these folks; unfortunately, so is the church.
“… These artificial self fantasies are also static in time, going back unchanged to early adolescence or even to childhood; the narcissists’ self-images don’t change with time, so that you will find, for instance, female narcissists clinging to retro styles, still living the picture of the perfect woman of 1945 or 1965 as depicted in The Ladies’ Home Journal or Seventeen or Vogue of that era, and male narcissists still hung up on images of comic-book or ripping adventure heroes from their youth.
… Grandiosity can take various forms — a narcissistic woman may believe herself to be the very model of perfect womanhood, the standard by which all others are measured, and she will try to force her daughters to be just like her, she will not be able to cope with daughters who are taller or shorter than she is, fatter or thinner, who have bigger or smaller feet, breasts, teeth, who have different favorite colors than hers, etc.”
Found this quote on Wade Burleson’s blog (he has a couple of new and excellent posts up):
““Conservatives believe in the priesthood of the believers but not the priesthood of the believer, because it leaves too much freedom for the individual…conservatives are the party of truth while the moderates are the party of freedom.”” Al Mohler
Huh?
Does that even make sense? And where is he pulling that one out of?
He should have made himself God if he is so worried about God slipping up and giving too much freedom for the individual.
“narcissists are habitually cruel in little ways, as well as big ones, because they’re paying attention to their fantasy and not to you, but the bruises on you are REAL, not in your imagination.”
Corrie,that whole article was profound. AS I read, all I could think about was Jesus’ words to love Him and our neighbor AS OURSELVES! Thanks for sharing.
I looked at the Monte Wilson quote on narcissistic worship and thought this quote from poet Annie Dillard quite profound:
“On the whole, I do not find Christians, outside of the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of conditions. Does anyone have the foggiest idea of what sort of power we so blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ladies’ straw hats and velvet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets. Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews.”
Then I remembered Keith Green and worshiping in a service with him one time. It was beautiful and simple and never before and never since have I witnessed the Holy Spirit at work among his people in such a way.
Here is a thought I had never had ever before. On Wade’s blog, someone mentioned that there are churches that will not allowing singing of any hymns that were written by women. Anyone ever hear of this before?
I’ve never heard of a ban on singing hymns written by women. The Baptist Hymnal would take a pretty big hit if you only took out the Fanny Crosby hymns!
I have, however, thought about the fact that many churches seem to have no problem with a woman SINGING the gospel message, inviting people to come to Christ. But somehow it’s wrong for her to SAY it.
“On Wade’s blog, someone mentioned that there are churches that will not allowing singing of any hymns that were written by women. Anyone ever hear of this before?”
Not directly. But ultimately, that mindset can be traced to Genesis 3:15:
“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman….”
If hymns written by women have cooties, these types of bans should naturally lead all sorts of places. Such as:
1. If a woman reads a liturgical prayer out loud along with her congregation, and a man hears her voice, might he be in danger of being inadvertently “taught” by a woman?
2. Should a woman be allowed to play the piano at church? She would be, in essence, leading worship, right?
Debbie, you are not far off with #2–I know where this has been the case. If the male pianist was sick, it would be seen as better to go without accompaniment than to have an equally capable female “lead worship”.
I had such a blessed time in worship yesterday…always helps to put life into perspective.
During the pastor’s message, he quoted the words of a song by a woman songwriter, possibly Fanny Crosby, can’t remember this am. It was not a familiar song and the lyrics were amazing and so uplifting.
How is it that half of the body of Christ isn’t supposed to “teach” what the Holy Spirit has shown them?
Maybe this issue of women hymnwriters is part of the reason so many churches are psalms-only. (I am certain that they feel the same way about men hymnwriters, too, but I wonder if they allow hymns written by women outside of worship, since they don’t believe women are to teach men in any circumstance. I wonder what the Baylys teach about this.)
I wonder what they would say about Jesus sending the Samaritan woman to tell her village about Him, or (especially) Jesus sending the women to tell the Apostles about His Resurrection, and then “upbraiding” the Apostles for not believing the women?
Seems to me that the Baileys and their fellow misogynists will have some “‘splaining to do”, by and by.
Excellent point, Cynthia. Or how about Jesus first showing himself post-resurrection to women. Should they have not passed on that crucial information about Christ because it might be “teaching men”?
Just goes to show that Jesus Himself would be considered a heretic and a sinner by the Baleys and their followers.
It’s interesting, but as soon as a group gets mixed up about gender, the rest of their theology also starts to head south. When groups get too liberal, as my own Anglican/Episcopalian denomination has done, you get partnered homosexuals in the ministry and all sorts of heresy comes creeping in, and when things go too far in the other direction, the same things happen — when ultra-conservativism takes hold, men also despise women, and the rest of their theology soon goes off kilter.
The people who are most extreme about patriarchy are either nonChristians, like the Moslems, or else they belong to heretical fringe groups, like the
Mormons, the Moonies, and the more extreme Anabaptists….. and of course, the Bailey crowd.
How did Baucham change his message? The only difference I noticed was the “sodomization of America” line in reference to death threats. Did he change anything else?
Older men and younger women is not a sickening phenomenon. Adultery and lust is the sickening phenomenon!
I won’t look through Hollywood’s perverted scripts to bolster my points. I’ll just go to the Bible.
I thought the story of Ruth and Boaz was very romantic. Boaz was not taking advantage of a woman looking for a father figure, and Ruth was not seeking a father figure.
And poor Fanny Forrester, that young, budding American poet. Was she seeking a father figure when she married missionary Adoniram Judson, thirty years her senior? When she became mother to his four children, was he seeking another daughter?
My stepmom is two tears older than my older sister. My dad married a thirty-ish WOMAN- a technical writer- his intellectual equal. It had nothing to do with us girls not giving him attention.
As I read it, I couldn’t help but think about all the Jane Austen that girls in this movement are brought up on. The men in her stories are always much older than the girls they marry.
Amy Scott over at humblemusings posed a great question to me which has turned into a suggestion and now a new blog thread. She wondered if there was or could be a “best of” quotes from patriocentrists for those who are overwhelmed at the huge amount of information online regarding the patriocentrists. (This blog alone has nearly 21,000 comments and it is only one of many commenting on the same topic.)
To that end, I am beginning a new thread on this blog that is for direct quotes only, along with links to the quote in context. I believe Amy’s idea is a good one. The most effective way to refute wrong teaching is with the real words of real patriocentrists.
Let’s also refrain from discussing those quotes on that thread and instead if you want to discuss them, bring your comments back over here, listing the quote number you are talking about. I am in the process of going back through all the comments myself and will be posting quotes that fit the criteria. Please feel free to do likewise.
Hi, thatmom. Left a fresh-from-the-oven quote from Tim Bayly in your new quote thread. Oh, dear– I do hope the phrase “fresh from the oven” isn’t too “feminizing.” As for the quote: Hey, HE said it!
“As I read it, I couldn’t help but think about all the Jane Austen that girls in this movement are brought up on. The men in her stories are always much older than the girls they marry.”
Actually, this isn’t quite true. In Sense & Sensibility, Marianne and Col. Brandon are almost twenty years apart, and Mr. Knightley is 17 years older than Emma, but all of the other major couples are less than ten years apart. I’d say most of the men are 5-7 years older than the women, which is larger than typical of modern young couples, but not a big enough difference to come across as May-December IMHO.
(Long-time lurker, and it figures my first post would be about Jane Austen. I’m a relatively liberal Christian (member of a PCUSA church) who used to be far more conservative, and I’ve developed an interest in Quiverfull and patriarchy in a “there but for the grace of God go I” sort of way. I’m also an aspiring author writing fiction set in the Napoleonic era, so Jane Austen is primary source material as well as the author of brilliantly written novels.)
Doug Phillips’ “lifeboat argument” against abortion in the case of ectopic pregnanies:
“What shall we think of Susie? Shall we bless a mother who kills her own child to save herself? 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?”
This was posted on the “best of” topic and it is a subject that I just unfortunately recently realized was true of the patriocentrists and I find it highly disturbing. Maybe I’m missing something, but as far as I know, a baby cannot grow in a fallopian tube. Period. Yes, maybe there was some case once upon a time of some lady in India who didn’t die and the baby was okay, but let’s face it, 99.999999% of the time, an untreated ectopic pregnancy leads to perforation of the fallopian tube, demise of the fetus, and sepsis and shock and finally death for the mother. That’s the reality as I know it. If anybody can refute this, I am open to additional information.
So if we agree that this is the reality, then what shall we think of Susie? What I think of Susie, and feel for Susie, is sorrow at her loss (as it was certainly a loss), empathy for her pain, both physical and emotional, and support for her as she moves forward with her life.
Do I feel “proud” of Susie? Not exactly, not in the achievement sense that I associate with “pride”. “Proud” would be an inappropriate word to attach to the situation in any case. Do I feel ashamed of her? Absolutely not! Surely our lives as women, as wives, as mothers, as sisters, as daughters have worth, too, in the eyes of God! What good can come of sacrificing one’s worthy (in the eyes of God) life for something that can never be anyway?
It’s the ultimate false choice. The baby cannot survive no matter if the mother does or not. To my knowledge, we do not have the medical technology yet to “transplant” this wayward embryo.
My twin pregnancy was very high risk. I started having pre-term labor at 22 weeks, and spent the remaining 15 weeks that I thankfully carried those boys in constant fear and worry (yes, I know I should have felt neither, but I’m human) for their welfare and safety. At one point, before well-established viability, my kidneys began shutting down, but my devotion to these babies was so strong that I told my husband that if I should become very ill and slip into a coma, I wanted more than anything for my babies to survive. More than my own life, more than my own health. Thankfully, God did not present me with that choice to make ultimately, thanks to the able intervention of my doctors.
However, if I had ever experienced an ectopic pregnancy, I would have opted for the only viable path for the sake of my own health, and for the sake of my family. It would have been excrutiating and caused me tremendous grief, but I am sure that’s what I would have done.
I fear that a vulnerable woman may come along who was faced with this terrible situation and the scurrilous words of this Phillips person may cause her further harm and grief. I pray that does not happen. I want to stand up for her now!
Regarding the Baucham quote, I read it to my husband (who is unfamiliar with the controversy) and without missing a beat, his immediate response was, “Ew, dads want to f*@^ their daughters???”
Savannah,
I had the same gutwrenching reaction to Doug Phillip’s hatred and distain of women when I first heard of it.
The shock and horror I felt of his disregard for women took me several weeks to get over.
I couldn’t believe it either.
Now, as for Light’s quote, I’d heard that one before too.
I wish sooo bad I was at home where I could look up the verse that came to mind when I read it again today.
It’s in one of the prophets.
God is asking His children why they prefer the violent waters of aome named river (can’t remember the name) over the waters of a peaceful calm river He also names (can’t remember it either. Could be the Jordan. Not sure).
His point being, He offers gentle, soothing, comforting, refreshing, but His people reject it for the violent rapids of a raging river.
The Bayly quote revels in the violent. It offers no peace for man or woman.
Jesus is the Prince of peace.
The Bayly quote boarders the spirit of antichrist.
I’m not saying THEY have the spirit of antichrist.
But I am definitly saying that glorifying violence as they do, they entertain that spirit, if only in that quote.
Since Kamilla ignored the request not to discuss the quotes in the quote thread, I will ask her here: Do you agree with David Bayly’s quote? Do you agree that pursuing marriage is a “war”? That women are men’s “foes”? That families should be “defeated” and women “snatched” from them? Do you agree that a bride’s first sexual experience should be “velvet-gloved violence”?
The “picture” that Bayly paints is a far cry from the illustration we are given in Scripture of marriage being likened to Christ and his beloved bride, the Church.
I don’t read those Bayly “guys” unless I’m looking at a specific link that someone is directing me to view. I find that their tastes run to the downright prurient, in a weird sort of way. My husband thinks they are seriously gross, too.
Well, it looks like Voddie Baucham will be a speaker at the next True Woman Conference. I attended the very first True Woman Conference in Chicago last fall and John Piper was a speaker there.
I wonder what Voddie’s talk will be to the women of that conference? The same as his words on his Biblical Woman tape series that can be found on youtube?
I read the quote, verbatim, to quite a few men that I bowl with. They are mostly older men in their late 50′s and 60′s and they mostly all have daughters. They ALL reacted quite like your husband.
I guess this isn’t as “ubiquitous” as Voddie would have us believe, except for a couple of movies where he extrapolates a quote and then runs with it. The man, in Psycho, that said to the female character that “you are the same age as my daughter” while allegedly flirting with her was not looking for a daughter. He was flirting and it makes him feel young and vibrant again. BUT, Psycho does have many undertones of incestuous feelings of Norman for his mother and vice versa. Not something I would appeal to in order to make an illustration.
I wonder what we should do with Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, then, if movies are what we go by? Woody and Roman both have penchants for the young things. They yearned for the “attentions of younger women”. Do we suppose they were truly looking for daughters or was it something else?
Yes, emr, and that IS the problem with VB’s statement. It was reckless and inappropriate, especially because of the fact that there are far too many fathers satisfying their “yearnings” with their own daughters.
Re:525 “Sounds like a sick porn fantasy, doesn’t it?”
Indeed it does. it also sounds like giving her a traumatic introduction into marriage to show her who’s going to be boss.
I’ve been reading a lot of educational theory for uni (being one of those evil women who goes back to study when her kids grow up)and this would actually fit straight into something called transformative education. The concept is that you put a person through what is called a disorienting dilemma (ie a major disjunction between their presuppositions and their experience) leading them to question their worldview and change and grow. The irony is that in educational theory this is seen as a way of liberating people, in the strange, dark mirror-world of the Bayleys, it’s used to keep them in bondage.
but then, they couldn’t imagine that a woman could give herself freely and joyfully to the man she loves, that would be giving her some autonomy, wouldn’t it? No, she has to be taken, even forced (nicely of course) because she is a subordinate creature who must be bent to her master’s will.
It sounds like what James McDonald quoted for Valentine’s Day last year concerning his thoughts on love.
The bride, aka “the ravished virgin” would be taken into the bed chamber by her “priest” (aka husband) and she would be terrified, sweetly terrified and gently alarmed.
Virginity is seen to be something that only the wife possesses.
I am wondering where all the terror and alarm is for the ravished bridegroom? After all, wouldn’t this also be the “priest’s” first time?
These guys do know that women know how to ravish a man, do they not? Sometimes a woman’s sexual desire is so terrifying to a man that he doesn’t know what to do with her or how to keep up with her need for sex.
Ravish is also a strange word to epitomize the conjugal union, especially since they fancy old English words and their original meanings. It means to “seize and carry off”. Very much like the Baylys fantasy. It means to “rape” or for a man to force intercourse on a female against her will. It means to sexually assault, dishonor or defile. This is the meaning of the word “ravish” when used in a sexual context according to the original meaning of the word.
So, it certainly seems, Lynne, that these patriocentrists like to think of the first union of husband and wife as a traumatic introduction into marriage to show her who’s going to be boss.
Why all the sword/penis imagery and violence associated with getting marriage?
Do we really want our daughters to read this stuff and come away with the idea that they are to be terrified and alarmed on their wedding night when their “priest” ravishes them?
I’ve got news for you — girls have been reading “this stuff” for nearly 150 years (did you see the source of the quote?) and have survived quite nicely without your concerns about them being terrified. You see, some of us know that life isn’t safe, life isn’t pretty but that life is dangerous and beautiful at the same time. And life is very, very, good.
Writerfriend,
I don’t know that a bride’s first sexual experience *should* be velvet-gloved violence – but I know that it *is*. The taking of a maidenhead is no gentle act. If you don’t see that, you understand nothing of men and women, the way of a man with a maid, of marriage, that wooing is costly and necessitates conquering or it is worthless. And you certainly understand nothing of the importance of the symbolism of the marital act.
I hope it will satisfy the rest of your questions if I simply say I LOVED David’s series on wooing as warfare and wrote him to tell him just that.
I recommend two books by Alice von Hildebrand – “The Privilege of Being a Woman” and “Letters to a Young Bride” along with just about anything by Tony Esolen (but especially his translation of Dante). I adore them both and a woman could do a lot worse than taking Dr. Alice as her mentor and Tony as a co-laborer. They both have a deeper understanding of sex than anyone commenting here seems to.
I forgot to add that, yes, I am guilty of violating the rules in the other thread. I understand my post there has been deleted and have no complaint about that.
I’m sorry, I have to do this. You just hit one of my personal sticking points.
I don’t know that a bride’s first sexual experience *should* be velvet-gloved violence – but I know that it *is*.
No, it’s not. I know several hundred young women personally who would tell you differently. And for the ones for whom it *was* a violent experience, they refused to consider it their first legitimate experience.
The taking of a maidenhead is no gentle act.
It can be, with enough education on both sides. It can even be a deeply pleasurable and unforgettable experience.
If you don’t see that, you understand nothing of men and women, the way of a man with a maid, of marriage,
And if you do see that, I’m sorry, but as near as I can tell you consider the most basic, elemental relationship between a man and a woman to be as rapist to victim. And that is a sad, sorry way to see the world.
that wooing is costly and necessitates conquering or it is worthless.
Actually I would call it worthless if it involves “conquering”. It is entirely possible to build a strong relationship based on love, trust and equality. In fact, if you don’t, you don’t have a strong marriage at all, just a perpetual life of a victim.
And you certainly understand nothing of the importance of the symbolism of the marital act.
I prefer to ground myself in the reality of marriage and life, thanks. I’ll pass on the symbolism, and stick with my equal partnership. And the healthy sex life that goes with it.
Corrie: “Why all the sword/penis imagery and violence associated with getting marriage?”
Because these men glory too much in the flesh, especially that part that makes them different, and in their own minds better, than the weaker vessel?
Because the swords below their belts are exceedingly abundantly more important to them than the hearts and souls of the women they feel compelled to conquor?
Because the Kingdom of Heaven sufferth violence and the violent take it by force?
Maybe it’s because the swords below their belts are more important to them than the Sword of the Spirit with is the Word of God.
Because Writerfriend is right.
There is NO scriptural support for this.
Talks like this appeal to the baser nature, the fleshly nature of men.
Stamping ‘biblical manhood’ on it doesn’t make it somehow magically appear in the Bible. It’s not there.
The taking of a maidenhead is no gentle act. If you don’t see that, you understand nothing of men and women, the way of a man with a maid, of marriage, that wooing is costly and necessitates conquering or it is worthless. And you certainly understand nothing of the importance of the symbolism of the marital act.
OMG.
Sweet young ladies reading–this is NOT TRUE. Perhaps the one who wrote that did not have a good experience and my heart breaks for her . . . I was a virgin when I got married and my husband was the sweetest, most tender and loving gentleman I could ask for. If you are with a man who wants the best for you, who aches to please you–the “marital act” which I call lovemaking will be a beautiful, sacred event.
I’ve been out all day and come back to talk about “velvet gloved violence.” What on earth is going on? God have mercy on anyone teaching this despicable thinking.
I’m a believer x 45 years and have never ever heard such appalling foolishness.
I am the mother of four young men and married 25 years to the same man. I would never, ever, ever, ever teach my sons this stuff nor would their father – a believer x 47 years, who holds an M.Div. from an ultra conservative American university and about whom my 18 year old said the other evening – he is grateful to for teaching him everything he knows about Christ and the Bible.
It is utterly not Biblical to think of the marriage consummation in violent terms. It defaces Christ. I do not understand the Baylys are not thrown out on their heads.
I am having a difficult time trying to understand if the Baylys seriously encourage brand new husbands to “take” their brides or if they are just trying to sound poetic and manly. I cannot imagine what kind of premarital counseling they would give if they really mean for men to act in this way toward a young bride.
The whole notion of “velvet-gloved violence” etc. is so contrary to what the Bible actually does say about how we are to treat each other, which includes how young grooms are to treat and approach young brides:
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” Galatians 5:22-23
Where is the teaching on self-control, gentleness, patience, and kindness in the Bayly sex talk?
Why is it that “biblical manhood” and “biblical womanhood” rarely is? Why are there so many notions and ideas and philosophies passed off as “biblical” and these people write and sell books and speak at conferences and actually have followers who lap it up?
The other day I saw a PDF from a “biblical marriage conference” and was amazed at the author’s lists of “truths” about men and women. None of it could be supported by Scripture and yet it was declared “biblical.”
Earlier this week I saw a video clip of Aretha Franklin singing “Respect” on a blog and the author was making the point that it was feminist notion that women want respect. She said that, biblically, men want the respect not women. Of course, there was no Scripture to support it.
Does adding “biblical” to something make it so? Perhaps this is the greatest lie that is being pulled off in the church today.
The taking of a maidenhead is no gentle act. If you don’t see that, you understand nothing of men and women, the way of a man with a maid, of marriage, that wooing is costly and necessitates conquering or it is worthless. And you certainly understand nothing of the importance of the symbolism of the marital act.
Ok.
I thought that in complementarian-patriarchal teaching, the union of the husband and wife symbolizes the union of Christ and the church. There’s never force, never subjugation, only ever “loving-leadership-authority”.
This sort of stuff is in direct violation of what the Word of God teaches. A husband doesn’t posses his wife in order to violate her, however “velvet-gloved” his violation may be! He is to treat her with respect, as the weaker vessel, as a fellow heir ( iow, respecting her body, her virginity which may be painful to lose, and her fear if she is not prepared to have sexual intercourse)
I wonder how many women have never enjoyed sexual intercourse because they were merely submitting to the husband’s ravishing of their body. Sickening.
And I don’t care for how many years women have been reading this stuff. It doesn’t make it any more right.
Does Jesus ravish us? Does he violate us? Does he conquer us and snatch us away?
Or does he give us freedom to come to him?
Hello! if you are going to give a husband Christ-like status in the marriage, please, pretty pretty please, tell him to model Jesus and the way he loves us!!!!!!
Maybe they are trying to associate their view of salvation with marital intercourse. But why? It seems that Kamilla is the only one who understands this so maybe she can explain it to us. I hope she shows the Scripture they base this on.
You express very well what I wanted to say in comment 245, in your comment 243. Where is the self-control in taking one’s wife “by force”? Where is the gentleness?
And have been wondering about this too:
Does adding “biblical” to something make it so? Perhaps this is the greatest lie that is being pulled off in the church today.
546 comments ago, in comment#3, Corriejo links to a sermon by Mark Driscoll on marriage and women.
I know I’m very late to comment on this on this thread, still I think it deserves pointing out!
Where does God tell men to deal with a wife’s unwillingness to “follow” him in some situation in this way?
Ways a husband can handle disagreements with his wife:
1. Pray and discuss with your wife. Be patient. Wait for her to come around.
2. Appeal to a higher authority (pastor/counselor).
3. If the matter is pressing and/or a decision cannot be reached, the husband must decide. His wife should submit to the decision.
And he contradicts himself:
Submission Does Not Mean:
1. A husband is in ultimate authority.
And where does the Bible say that this is what submission of a wife to her husband should look like?
Submission Does Mean:
2. Wives are to submit like Jesus did in Gethsemane (Luke 22:42).
That is not God/Jesus/the HS/Paul speaking to wives, it is Jesus speaking to God.
3. Husbands are to lovingly lead like Jesus does the Church (Eph. 5:25).
Um… lovingly lead? or was it just plain old LOVE sacrificially?
5. Christian marriage shows the Trinity and the gospel.
Chapter and verse for that, please.
I think I have found a plethora of quotes from not just scary, half-unknown patriarchalists, but from a mainstream, incredibily popular man!
From the Baily “thou shalt not sheath your sword” quote. God made her a woman and dignified her sex with His statement, “Woman shall be saved through childbearing” (1Timothy 2:15)
From Douglas Wilson’s manual on how to deal with a wife who doesn’t live up to her husband’s expectations:
[A husband] may be distressed over [his wife's] spending habits, television viewing habits, weight, rejection of his leadership, laziness in cleaning the house, lack of responsiveness to sexual advances, whatever. But however the problem is manifested, what should a husband do? …
…When a wife neglects her duties, the guilt of the sin is hers. The responsibility for her negligence is her husband’s….
Where does the Bible say that????
…After he has acknowledged his responsibility, and his failures to exercise it properly, he should then make clear what his expectations are for her in the future. He should also make clear his complete unwillingness to step in to do for her what she neglected to do, or to tolerate a lapse into the old way of doing things.
In other words, treat her like a naughty child.
At no time may he lose his temper, badger her, call her names, etc. He must constantly remember and confess that she is not the problem, he is. By bringing this gently to her attention, he is not to be primarily pointing to her need to repent; rather, he is exhibiting the fruit of his repentance.
This is a very strange notion indeed. So HER bad housekeeping,lack of sexual interest, lack of compliance, or whatever is HIS fault? Or what is D W saying here? Is a wife merely the extension of her husband? is he saying that the husband confesses the sin, and now has to get his body to stop committing that sin? bizarre…
He does this, without rancour and without an accusative spirit, until she complies or rebels. If she complies, he must move up one step, now requiring that another of her duties be done. If she rebels, he must call the elders of the church and ask them for a pastoral visit. When the government of the home has failed to such an extent, and a godly and consistent attempt by the husband to restore the situation has broken down, then the involvement of the elders is fully appropriate.
Some situations would be hilarious.
“elders, we need a pastoral visit. My wife won’t do the dishes right after dinner”.
Some would be incredibly embarassing and shaming.
“elders, my wife won’t sleep with me on demand. Come tell her to submit to me sexually”.
In some occasions, this may be what saves the marriage. Wise elders who have learnt to love their wives may be able to reason better with a wife in a situation where she is spending recklessly, clearly rebelling and making her family’s life hell, or where a wife is just plain lazy.
In other occasions, a husband who expects too much from his wife can be helped to see that her situation (new baby, bad tear and many stitches or some other damage to her genital area, etc…) may be causing her apparent “laziness”, lack of sexual desire or a few extra pounds.
Any quotes from the instructions to a wife in similar circumstances?
I actually had to stop reading after Doug’s. I have been through some episodes of depression that looked a lot like the “lazy” wife. My husband lovingly stepped in and helped me. And when it was over, months later, I was able to do everything that I had been unable to do before.
That is probably the most evil thing I’ve ever read from Doug. Well, the willingness to die for an ectopic pregnancy is probably more evil since death is final.
Holly P,
I agree…Doug’s writing is so callous and suspicious of the worst in every occasion!
Goodness!
All I can hope is that there are elders out there who can spot the real problem and actually help out. I’m sad that most churches who would hand out this book will probably lack such elders and wives will be told to pull themselves together and get on with it, else they are in sin.
On the one hand, you can describe losing your virginity as the physical act, as Kamilla seems to be doing. This means that you’re defining this important thing as something that can be “taken” by a rapist. Or by a molesting family member when you’re too young to even realize what is going on. Or by a doctor in the case of some necessary medical procedure (yes, virgins get ovarian cancer too). Or you can even take yourself if you find yourself surprised at a wedding and your cousin only has tampons in her purse.
Think about it, does that really make sense?
On the other hand, you can define it as the first time you willingly give your love and trust to another, and enter into an relationship that is not only physically intimate, but intellectually and emotionally so as well. Which is impossible to do when your afraid, or in an atmosphere of violence.
On the third hand* when you look at the whole raiding daughters/courtship model, or whatever we’re calling it, is this even possible? Think about it:
1) As I understand it, these fathers restrict all access the daughters have to information from the outside world, including all information about human sexuality at all. I believe it was the Pearl’s (but I could be wrong, I have to find the link) who said that all a girl needs before marriage is for her mother to tell her on the morning of her wedding to “Think of a flower opening”, or something like that. And I know that the Focus on the Family people over at Boundless suggest that you wait to start learning about the physical side of things until a few days to at most a couple of weeks before your wedding to “avoid temptation”.
And didn’t one of the Patriocentrists say that once the courtship had started it was okay to start thinking about the opposite sex for the first time in a “romantic” way, or something like that? And yet courtship is supposed to be as binding as a marriage?
How are you supposed to have any clue what you want when you’re not even allowed to think about it? And you’re kept deliberately ignorant on the subject? How are you not supposed to be afraid of this? How are you supposed to willing go for something you know nothing about?
2) In the courtship model it doesn’t matter, because from the sound of things you don’t even get to pick your own husband. Look, the man who wants you comes to your father, or perhaps your father goes to him, or your fathers work it out amongst themselves. Your father decides this fellow is best, not based on your criteria (we already determined in #1 that you haven’t been given the tools to figure out what you might want, and have been forbidden from even thinking about the subject) but based on his criteria.
Now, you have never worked in your life, and that the women that you know who have worked have done nothing but complain about how evil and hellish it is. Literally working outside the home = working for Satan, simple as that. You have no marketable skills. It’s even entirely possible that you only have an 8th grade education, didn’t one of them say that education for girls past that was a waste as they were only going to be wives and mothers anyway? You can’t take care of yourself, you are entirely dependent on your father. And don’t go looking for help, every one you know is part of the same church community and believes you should obey him unquestioningly.
Given that, how are you supposed to say no when he says “Marry this man”? How are you supposed to say no to anything he asks? If you do, will he throw you out into the street? Or worse? Really, what’s to stop him?
So if we define giving your virginity as “the first time you willingly give your love and trust to another”, or something to that extent, how is a girl in one of these families supposed to willingly be doing anything? They are giving their consent to something they know absolutely nothing about, and under the threat of losing every support they have.
How is any of this, in this model, not a violent act from the get-go?
Concerning Barb’s quote number 11 on the other thread…
Do the same rights belong to the wife.
If her husband is guilty of “verbal unkindness” can she go to the elders and get the same support and finally a divorce from the unrepentant husband?
Or must she bear up under the unkindness and find new and improved ways to submit to try to get him to stop. Or just learn to live with his unrepentant sin.
I suppose if it worked right, she should get that kind of support.
Problem is, when you go to a bunch of men concerning this, the temptation to have the attitude “Bro’s before hoe’s” (for lack of a better phrase) might be too great for them and she might get sent back home and told to repent of her unsubmissiveness.
I fear the temptation would be to great for them. They would see all things from the male point of view thereby giving them little to no empathy for the female side of the equation.
“The taking of a maidenhead is no gentle act. If you don’t see that, you understand nothing of men and women, the way of a man with a maid, of marriage, that wooing is costly and necessitates conquering or it is worthless. And you certainly understand nothing of the importance of the symbolism of the marital act.”
Yeah, maybe if you’re talking Harlequin romance novel. That’s not real love or marriage, however. Although I must wonder if that’s what a lot of these authors are reading, as much of imagery seems to be co-opted for prurient reasons in their own writings. Penis as sword, sheath, rod???? Good grief! All of these are implements of war or discipline of some kind (rod? really????). They have no place in the marriage bed. Speaking purely Scripturally here, I would defy Kamilla or anyone to show me this imagery as God’s plan for the marriage bed.
Young, unmarried women, take heart! If you limit your choice of husband to a man who is gentle and kind and a true servant, and you approach your relationship with him as a true servant, this will not be your experience. And without getting into personal detail, I can say that I speak from experience on this matter, as a wife of 27 years.
Excellent idea with the quote thread! My only suggestion would be to somehow group them by category or by speaker. Our dear patrios say so much crazy all the time, I imagine we’ll acrue quite a few fascinating and horrifying quotes.
When I read those definitions of narcissistic personality disorder (the patrios are spot-on NPD’ers, BTW) I realized we couldn’t do much to change them. But we can EXPOSE them. Listing their quotes does that in the best way possible. Let them speak for themselves.
Those of us who’ve been here a while are already familiar with most of these quotes, but to see them all together somehow magnifies them. For new readers here, it’s quite an eye-opener, I imagine.
Another thought about the sex/red velvet nonsense, without getting too graphic: Do patrios not want women to experience pleasure with the marital act? Even after the violent wedding night description, they’re still all about swords and everything. Is that supposed to be pleasurable for wives?
Perhaps they don’t want it to be pleasurable for some reason. Reminds me a little of female circumcision in Africa where one of the goals is to remove women’s desire so that men can better control females’ impulses.
Of course, there’s little concern about managing their own swordly impulses, other than having a daughter or daughter-figure flitting about to fill that God-given need of theirs.
Problem is, when you go to a bunch of men concerning this, the temptation to have the attitude “Bro’s before hoe’s” (for lack of a better phrase) might be too great for them and she might get sent back home and told to repent of her unsubmissiveness.
Or perhaps the attitude of “We don’t want to share the power around here.” Or “We don’t want our wives/daughters getting any ideas that they can stand up to us.” Or something along those lines.
Savannah -
Young, unmarried women, take heart! If you limit your choice of husband to a man who is gentle and kind and a true servant, and you approach your relationship with him as a true servant, this will not be your experience.
This assumes they get to choose their own husbands.
“We don’t want to share the power around here.” Or “We don’t want our wives/daughters getting any ideas that they can stand up to us.” = Bros before hoes
The rights and power of the male are always more important than anything, concerning the female.
It’s been this way in many cultures for thousands of years.
I just used my crass little phrase to show it for what is was.
A filthy, worldly attitude.
Ok, getting back to #544, and ThatMom’s comment. If only because I’ve had enough coffee today.
Why are there so many notions and ideas and philosophies passed off as “biblical” and these people write and sell books and speak at conferences and actually have followers who lap it up?
Short answer, if they didn’t say that God thought they were special, and that God told them to say this, would anyone listen?
Young, unmarried women, take heart! If you limit your choice of husband to a man who is gentle and kind and a true servant, and you approach your relationship with him as a true servant, this will not be your experience.
This assumes they get to choose their own husbands.
Excellent point, and it shows that I cannot fully wrap my brain around these patrio beliefs and views. So much EXTRA-Biblical “stuff” to keep up with. . .
About the definition of virginity, I think that’s actually a little tricky. The girl who has stayed inside the house cross-stitching, playing the piano, and doing housework for her mother may very well have an intact hymen. However, a girl who is just as much of a virgin, who has played outside with her brothers and climbed trees and forged streams and ride horses and bicycles, and used tampons when swimming – well, that girl’s hymen may be in a different state. Does that make her any less a virgin?
Certainly not! I believe a girl can be technically/physically a virgin (with an intact hymen), but not be spiritually or emotionally one – such as the case with the girls who offer boys oral sex in an attempt to save their “technical virginity” (and this seems rather ubiquitous in the church – as the mother of three sons, I can tell you that they have been offered this “service” numerous times by girls who are viewed as fine, upstanding Christian teens).
Moreover, I believe a girl can have a hymen that is less intact physically but who is completely a virgin by virtue of her never willfully choosng to give of herself in that way to another.
Is this really of such impact? I don’t mean to in any way denigrate the importance of virginity until marriage, and it certainly has been a blessing in my own marriage, I think no less of Christian married couples where one or both were not virgins, due to sexual activity before they became Christians, due to divorce, or whatever. Their marriages don’t seem different at all than mine as far as I can tell. And to think they have built healthy marital relationships without all the “ravishing”, etc.!
I read a book called “Jesus Girls” recently, a collection of essays by women who “grew up evangelical”, and one of those essays described how emotionally paralyzed this one young woman was because she had sex with her college sweetheart and spent literally years – into her 30′s – believing this was such an unforgiveable sin that it prevented her from moving on with her life.
And I truly thought that was rather a sad thing that she felt so shameful when there is no hierarchy of sin and if she was truly a believer, which she seemed to be, Jesus had already died for that sin 2,000 years ago and here she spent more than a decade in deep depression and inconsolable sorrow over this sin.
“Then if she (the rebellious, unrepentant, excommunicated wife) departs, the husband is free to get a divorce and remarry a Christian woman.
Brian Schwertley, from quote thread.”
!!! And yet, I have NEVER seen any of the patrios say that a Christian woman with a rebellious and unrepentant husband should get a divorce, much less remarry! Actually, when is the possibility of the MAN being rebellious ever considered?
Please God, we need You to come down and pour out Your Spirit and the fear of you upon Your people again and upon those who claim Your Name.
It’s not like things are that much worse in the world as a whole than they have been in most of history, (better than a lot of history, in fact) but it’s still really painful to me to see the Church being so corrupted. So sad.
I posted a few quotes on the “best of” thread, and then realized that I should probably introduce myself since I’ve never posted here before.
I’m writing a young-adult science fiction novel that takes place in a patriarchal theonomy/theocracy. A lot of my research has centered around Christian Reconsctructionism and Federal Vision theology. The premise is that a group of people leave Earth for another planet, in the hopes of re-creating the Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony, but without the corrupting influences of other immigrant groups. My main character is a teenage girl in the 7th generation of immigrants who begins to see beneath the idyllic surface, and has to sort out what she believes and what she’s going to do about it.
I wanted to talk to someone who had been involved in one of these groups and left. My sister published a request for contacts in her homeschooling newsletter, and someone was gracious enough to forward it to Karen. (Hi, Karen!) (Let me caveat this by saying that anything I say should not reflect on my sister’s feelings or beliefs. We deeply love and respect each other despite some theological differences!)
In any case, I’ve been lurking here for a while, and I truly appreciate y’all’s points of view! (And if anyone wants more details about my story, or thinks they might have some perspectives to add, please contact me!)
FWIW, I am a Christian, although I’m leaning more liberal theologically as I get older! I’m also a former homeschool mom. Two of my kids are in college (one of them went to public high school) and my third is in public elementary school.
Here’s an excerpt from my book (first draft!) inspired by the Douglas Wilson quote about wives and dishes. My main character is watching “The Sharing,” a daily television program in this futuristic patriarchal theocracy. “The cams” are floating cameras that randomly record people as they go about their days.
—–
“Good afternoon,” [the anchorman] says. “For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him.”
This is the way the Sharing always begins. For the first time, I realize that while this verse sounds encouraging, it also contains a warning. It’s not just the eyes of the Lord wandering our world; the cams wander, too.
Then the vid montage begins. Happy children playing in the park. A young woman kneading bread in her kitchen, the image altered to obscure her bare arms and neck. A man picking apples, another monitoring soybeans as they flow into the tofu plant. A mother leaning over a schoolroom table, surrounded her enthusiastic little ones. Me, in the garden, planting seeds. These are the images that are shared with the outside world, to prove to those on other planets that here on New Plymouth we lead a idyllic, joyful, productive lives. And that if they, too, will live according to God’s law, this life could be theirs, as well. Not that they can come live in New Plymouth, of course. That would never be allowed. But they can create their own paradises, elsewhere, if they will trust in the Lord, and do good.
The music turns more serious, more somber, as Mr. Allerton’s figure appears again. “Today’s lesson for Sharing shows us an excellent example of a husband loving his wife as Christ loves the church.”
The image turns to a pile of dirty dishes, and then, from behind, a woman standing near a table, bouncing up and down on her toes, trying to sooth a screaming baby. Several small children are running around and yelling.
The woman’s husband approaches, touches her arm gently. She sits, and he sits beside her. We only see the backs of their heads, from the angle of the cam. The volume of the background music lowers, and we hear the husband speak. “Honey,” he says, “I’m sorry I haven’t been as good a leader of the household as I should. It is totally my responsibility to make sure that everything here runs smoothly. So now I’m going to have to insist that you do a better job of keeping the kitchen clean. I’m tired after a long day at work, and it makes me even more tired to come home to a noisy, messy house.”
I recognize the man’s voice. It is Connor, my sister Victoria’s friendly, cheerful husband. And the woman, of course, is Victoria.
“But Sweetheart, if only… ” she starts. Then she looks around and sees the cam. Her face is slightly blurred, obscured, but I can tell for sure that it’s my sister. She turns her head away from the cam, shoulders slumped.
“Of course, Sweetheart,” she says. “You’re absolutely right, and I promise to do better.”
The music becomes cheerful again, as a voiceover from Mr. Allerton says, “You have just witnessed the correct way to admonish a recalcitrant wife. You must be firm and kind, never blaming her or overwhelming her with too many commands at once.”
Thanks, Savannah. Some things are similar, of course, but this is not A-Handmaid’s-Tale redux. New Plymouth is dystopic with a totally different feel than The Republic of Gilead. For one thing, they started over from scratch and weren’t trying to enforce their theocracy on a non-theocratic world. By the time we get to 16yo Cady’s generation she doesn’t know anything different. She’s never been exposed to a world in which women get choices, or in which other lifestyles are tolerated. And the Overseers of New Plymouth are authoritarian, but for the most part not corrupt in the sense that the New Gilead generals were.
The point here is that patriarchy and theocracy can be oppressive even if they’re NOT corrupt and violent. Although there is a fair amount of violence (stoning for OT capital offenses) in my book too.
Oh, I didn’t mean it was Handmaid’s-Tale-redux, I just meant I got that same kind of chill from reading your teaser. Which is a good thing
And I’m asking this in all honesty – to anyone – does anyone really believe that patriarchy can possibly be NOT corrupt? Because I’m leaning towards “no” on that one. By its very premise, I believe it corrupts God’s Word, His Plan, and His view of His much-adored creation: women.
That’s why I said, “for the most part not corrupt.” I think that most of the men in New Plymouth have good intentions, in that they think they ARE trying to follow God’s Word and ARE trying to “honor their wives” while not giving them a voice.
There are, of course, those who let power go to their heads: Connor (in my clip) on a “small” scale, and some of the Overseers on a larger scale.
And Savannah, you’d be a great one to read mine since you have read A Handmaid’s Tale. Let me know if you’d be interested in reading the first draft of the first half.
Just happened upon your blog looking for something uplifting.
There seems to be a lot of hate spewing from this blog that I thought was a Christian blog.
Don’t take this wrong but I thought I would like to share some things.
Ephesians 4:29 (NIV)
Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
1 Timothy 5:13 ESV
Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not.
Proverbs 26:22 ESV
The words of a whisperer are like delicious morsels; they go down into the inner parts of the body
There’s also a saying.
Evil abounds when good men do nothing.
The scriptural equivalant would go along the lines of something said somewhere in Proverbs. Don’t remain silent when the innocent are being drug off to their deaths.
There’s physical death.
But there is also emotional and spiritual death.
What we are fighting against is the spiritual slaying of the innocent… Women, and children, and yes even men, who are ignorantly following the doctrines of demons, Baal worship, as one poster put so well here. These doctrines have produced only death in families.
Are you telling us that we need to keep it all sweetness and light when people are are being emotionally and spiritually destroyed?
I’m pretty sure you aren’t.
I just don’t think you are aware of what we are dealing with.
You assume we are gossiping. You assume wrong.
If you don’t want to stick around and find out what we battle against, that’s fine. God may not be calling you to fight along with us.
But others here are called to it. They are doing it with words here and also actions.
You mislabeling it gossip doesn’t make it gossip.
“What was it our mothers and grandmothers used to say?
If you can’t say something nice don’t say anything at all.”
My guess is that you are very young, from your words. Another saying from my part of the world is, “if you don’t know what someone is talking about, it is best to keep foot out of mouth”.
Also, the idea that truth seekers may only say sweet things likely had its origination from patriarchal patronizers seeking to silence the complaints of those they abused.
October 19, 2009 at 8:55 am
I came across this article by Jeffrey Botkin today, sadly to say, linked to by someone I greatly admire.
http://www.homeschooltoday.com/news/175/30/Bringing-Up-Teenage-Boys.htm
I consider myself somewhat an expert on raising boys, having 5 of my own and now watching as 6 grandsons are being raised by parents who grew up in my home. There are so many things that Mr. Botkins states as fact that, to me, cannot be supported and are certainly not substantiated in Scripture. I always go back to the fact that King Lemuel’s MOM was the one who instructed her son as we see in Proverbs 31. And shall I talk about Jochabed, the mother of Moses, or Timothy’s mom and grandma, Lois and Eunice?
October 19, 2009 at 9:41 am
“What Fathers Teach Best”
Karen,
Funny, you are right about the fact that Botkin forgot about Proverbs 31 and that the King’s MOTHER taught him about what to look for in a fiance among other things. Not to mention the first part of Proverbs 31 and her teachings on justice and proper conduct for a king.
Also, this article is TOTALLY slanted using highly inflammatory rhetoric in order to shore up his own personal preferences. It is insulting to those who actually think.
October 19, 2009 at 9:49 am
http://blog.marshillchurch.org/2009/03/17/notes-marriage-and-women/
I wonder how he jumps to the wild conclusions he does about egalitarian Christian marriages? That egalitarian marriages are not about “oneness”…only complementarian marriages can achieve that. That egalitarians don’t live integrated lives with one another and that their marriages will end in divorce, most likely, because the only thing holding them together is children.
Also, why are so many complementarian/patriarchal marriages in trouble and ending in divorce?
And where does the Bible say that a man is the leader/ruler of his wife? He says that there is a verse in the Bible that says this but I can’t find it.
October 19, 2009 at 10:02 am
He will be disadvantaged unless you, Mom, are especially sensitive to three things.
• Your son’s need for freedom
• Your son’s need for male mentoring
• Your son’s need for a multigenerational vision (emphasis mine)
Do boys really have a “need” for a multigenerational vision? What is that even supposed to mean? I should raise my son (or, actually, my husband should raise our son) to plan out his children’s and grandchildren’s lives? And if I don’t, I’m not being sensitive to his needs?!
It’s a little bizarre, in my opinion.
October 19, 2009 at 10:09 am
Hey, he forgot the need that men have for the attention of younger women. He must have missed the memo.
October 19, 2009 at 10:12 am
“Also, why are so many complementarian/patriarchal marriages in trouble and ending in divorce?”
That is a good question! And it’s so true, at least in my experience.
Some of the rockiest and most troubled marriages I know of are complementarian, and the strongest ones are the ones that don’t necessarily call themselves egalitarian (because they don’t bother labeling themselves) but the husband and wife both treat each other with mutual respect, and both put each others needs before themselves.
I still don’t get how the patriarchs think that the only way to have a good marriage is if person A fits into this box and person B fits into the box just under and to the left of person A’s box. And if person B’s box doesn’t gravitate around person A’s box good enough, their marriage will fall apart because obviously person B is in rebellion and not submitting to person A enough.
It’s wacky.
October 19, 2009 at 10:34 am
I’m gonna hafta add my two cents here on raising boys, teenage or otherwise.
My sons need me.
They need their father also, but he, right now, is not a good mentor.
I have called on men in the church to kind of hold that place until my husband comes around, if he comes around.
But the reality of it is, they depend on me, A LOT.
They know I’m the one with the level head and reasonable expectations. I’m the one interested in them, their fears, their dreams.
Their father is interested in what makes himself happy right now, and little else.
My one son, in particular, clings to my side of the family and identifies with my side more, and the men on that side.
Anyway, I’m rambling.
The bottom line is that I had, at one time, bought into this, ‘boys need men, Moms, stay out of it’ mentality. Even heard it on Dobson and was prepared to go that way because the ‘experts’ said it was best.
Now I know better. Our lives simply don’t fit into the cookie cutter box the patrios and even Dobson are peddling.
And I thank God that He is much bigger than the box these men want to put Him and all of us in.
I thank God for the example of King Lemuel’s mom, Lois and Eunice, and Jochabed. And I know that my boys are going to be okay in spite of their dad, with a little help from their mom.
If what the patrios are selling is the only hope for boys, my sons wouldn’t have a chance.
But God is much bigger than than.
October 19, 2009 at 11:01 am
last two words should read “than that”
October 19, 2009 at 2:44 pm
According to Botkin (former leader/member of a cult…is he still peddling the cult mentality??) all men are D O O M E D if they haven’t been homeschooled according to his specifications.
I was a single parent of a son for the first 6 years of his life. He is every bit a man at the age of 24. I am not saying that men aren’t necessary but I am trying to counter the damaging rhetoric of Botkin where women are virtually unnecessary.
I taught my son how to be a man and what to look for in a wife and how to have a vision ( he is an engineer NOW because I encouraged that from a young age when I saw his natural talent and abilities).
Imho, Botkin denigrated women and the very important role they have in leading and guiding their sons into adulthood.
I guess all the founding fathers who gave their mothers kudos/credit for their success are a bunch of wimpy failures who had no inkling about how to succeed in the future….according to Botkin.
Every time I read a piece from him or Baucham, I ask myself “Where are their wives?”
October 19, 2009 at 2:48 pm
So, men are of utmost importance to their daughters and they are of utmost import to their sons and that leaves the hidden wife to fix meat, pies and serve up hot, steaming sex upon request?
Do they not realize that women have vision and they instill that vision in their children each and every day of those children’s lives?
I, as a woman, might as well go to work and work hard at my career since my input in my children’s lives is so unimportant.
Why aren’t these guys cheering for the stay at home dad if they believe the stuff they write?
October 19, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Mara,
There are many women in your shoes who read this stuff and, worse yet, try to follow it to the detriment of their children. You are doing what you should do and waiting for some sort of “leadership” that might never come would be, imho, sin but that is exactly what the patriarchalists tell us to do…WAIT. Well, I have to wonder if they live in the real world?
Some of them were even married before and if their formula works out so well, I would like to know if they could apply it to their first marriages and have a great outcome? I don’t think so.
Good thing Timothy’s mother and grandmother didn’t wait for dear old Dad to come around, the one, according to Botkin, who can “best” teach these things to his son, Timothy. It seems that his mother and grandmother were the BEST ones to teach Timothy what he needed to know for is future adult life.
There are some of us who learned some very harmful and negative things from our fathers. Are the patrios trying to claim that fathers are really always the best parent to teach their children certain things? Again, where is reality in any of these teachings?
Bean,
I really appreciate your comments. I was just talking to someone this morning about boxes and how if we stay in our proper box then all will be well according to these teaches. That just isn’t so. I know many, many traditional type comp homes that have come apart and the woman was firmly in her ever-so-submissive box.
I also know many marriages that THRIVE and these couples have no such labels or boxes and each just lives out their strengths in an organic fashion all the while submitting to the other spouse and putting them first.
In patriarchy, you have the “needs” ( I am wary of using that word because some funky things fall under that heading) of the patriarch being the thing that all the others are to focus upon meeting. Totally unChristlike.
October 19, 2009 at 6:16 pm
AS I read the above posts (not the links yet) one women immediately came to my mind- Suzanna Wesley.
I have never heard that Charles and John Wesley’s father had any part in the spiritual training of his sons, as he was busy away writing a tome of theology that no one ever reads.
Yet Suzanna started each morning with prayer, and led Bible studies in the parrish while the parson (her husband) was away as well as run the household which included livestock and growing your own food back in those days.
When John entered the theological realm, is was in the open air to the common people and he insisted that religion be eminently practical over theoretical.
I think the only influence his father had on the Wesley boys was through his absence.
Of course Charles and John weren’t Calvinist, so they probably don’t count as real men.
October 19, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Shadowspring, I’m also reminded of Abraham Lincoln, who said, “All I am, or can be, I owe to my angel mother.”
October 19, 2009 at 8:09 pm
“It is most appropriate for this framework to come from his father, so perhaps you should respectfully ask your husband to read the rest of this article with you.”
1. He acknowledges who is reading this article — The Mom!
2. However, Mom apparently should not even be reading homeschooling articles on her own.
Puh-lease.
October 19, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Aw, I love that Lincoln quote!
October 20, 2009 at 3:29 am
So, according to Mark Driscoll’s notes because I’m in a non-christian, Feminist marriage I’m functionally single? My husband and I don’t even share any “unifying, ephemeral elements”. We’re living as roommates? Wow, I’d better tell him that nine years of happy marriage has really just been a sham.
Methinks the pastor paints with too big a brush. Or doesn’t understand many a thing.
October 20, 2009 at 8:36 am
““It is most appropriate for this framework to come from his father, so perhaps you should respectfully ask your husband to read the rest of this article with you.””
EMR,
I read the article again, after reading your quote…thinking to myself “SURELY! Botkin did not say such a ridiculous thing!”
I was wrong.
“One of the most vital things you will ever give your boy in his education is the intellectual framework from which to make his most important life decisions about his vocation, his estate, his marriage, and his fields of study. This intellectual framework is not the academic stuff; the worldview stuff is what encompasses the past, the present, and a long-term future.
Because the big decisions bear down on him in his teens, he needs more direction in his teen years than at any other time of life. Without a long-term vision that includes his own children and grandchildren, he will not make good plans or decisions.
It is most appropriate for this framework to come from his father, so perhaps you should respectfully ask your husband to read the rest of this article with you.”
And why does Botkin think that it is most appropriate for this worldview framework to come for “his father”? What scripture does he get his assertion from?
Thank God for mothers everywhere who DAILY lay down this framework for their sons!
I would love to tell him what exactly is appropriate but it would have to be censored on this forum.
October 20, 2009 at 9:50 am
“It is most appropriate for this framework to come from his father, so perhaps you should respectfully ask your husband to read the rest of this article with you.”
Just another example of how the patriarchal mindset turns women into children.
Botkin may as well have wrote “Run along and go get Daddy! Because you’re too small and insignificant to understand, let alone teach, this kind of masculine thinking to your sons!”
Balderdash!
He honestly can’t live in the real world. In the real world, women raise REAL men, not “I’m a man so I’m better than you, neener neener” men.
October 20, 2009 at 10:09 am
This statement of asking your husband to come and read the rest of the article with you is extremely prideful. He is saying that what he has written is so vitally different and life-changing that it must be read by the most important person in the house. He wants to be read by all those men who would not normally want to read what he has to say.
But, in some defense of what he says, quite apart from the way that he says it, I have found that there are times that the boys simply will not listen to me because of their age and trying limits to achieve independence. If it comes from Mom, for a period of time, it is therefore not worthy. My husband has had to step in and tell the boys that they are not to treat me in the offhand manner of ignoring me or dismissing what I said. I’m not sure that is what Botkin has in mind, though.
Also, on the issue of apprenticeship, my boys have benefited from jobs outside the home – one in a bike shop and one with a lawn care company. The third has done a little with the lawn care company, but has spent more time in debate, so hasn’t been able to participate as much. It has done them a world of good to have physical labor and get a sense of accomplishment. I have enjoyed, too, that they earned money and were away from home one day a week.
October 20, 2009 at 10:28 am
keebler: “But, in some defense of what he says, quite apart from the way that he says it, I have found that there are times that the boys simply will not listen to me…”
I know exactly what you are saying, keeb.
But the huge difference is, Botkin is saying boys need their fathers therefore mothers need to step back, get out of the way, disappear… whatever.
WE (you and I and the ladies here) are NOT saying boys don’t need their fathers. We know they need BOTH.
Neither become expendible at any time during the child’s development.
I know my boys need me. I also know they need men. That’s why when my husband emotionally checked out for a time (hasn’t come back completely, but seems to be on his way) I called on other men in the church. But even with their help, I was their primary source of nurture, counsel, reason, direction, encouragement.
Their father couldn’t/wouldn’t do it for a time. Still doesn’t fully ‘get’ his sons’ needs. But I do, for the most part. And they come to me for it because they know it’s there for them.
I WISH my husband were more of a partner in this. But wishing doesn’t make it so.
Therefore, Botkin can go take a flying leap. He can take his counsel of darkness with him and crawl back into his dank, enslaving, patrio hole.
October 20, 2009 at 12:00 pm
“In the real world, women raise REAL men, not “I’m a man so I’m better than you, neener neener” men.”
Favorite TW quote of the week!!!!
October 20, 2009 at 12:04 pm
“If it comes from Mom, for a period of time, it is therefore not worthy. My husband has had to step in and tell the boys that they are not to treat me in the offhand manner of ignoring me or dismissing what I said. I’m not sure that is what Botkin has in mind, though.”
I have been through this with each of my now-grown boys. (For the record, the youngest one still thinks the sun sets in my face and I am enjoying it while I can!)
My husband stepped in every time and warned them that “no man would be allowed to speak to his wife in such a manner.” It took the problem out of the mom and authority realm and placed it in the “don’t mess with my woman” realm.
The other way I dealt with this was by asking them to do things rather than telling them. The difference was like night and day.
“Would you please take out the trash on your way out, honey?” Instead of “Take out the trash, that’s your chore you know.”
October 20, 2009 at 12:06 pm
” If it comes from Mom, for a period of time, it is therefore not worthy. My husband has had to step in and tell the boys that they are not to treat me in the offhand manner of ignoring me or dismissing what I said. ”
And this dismissing of a woman’s voice, imho, comes from the fall.
Recently, on the Bayly blog, one very rabid patriarchalist said that men don’t listen to what a woman has to say because her voice carries no authority with men.
That is sin because the Bible tells men (sons) to obey the law and teachings of their mother.
In fact, Botkin is dismissing the authority and voice of women everywhere when he writes what he does.
I agree that hard work is vital to the work ethic of both boys and girls. But, I don’t think Botkin has in mind boys learning how to actually serve around the house by cooking, cleaning and doing laundry, all skills that every boy should have. He is talking about the important dominion-taking work that only men should tackle that leads them on a path to a career.
My oldest son worked in landscaping, on a dairy farm and then apprenticed at a bridge building company which also involved abating abestos from old city sewers. That led him into his job as an engineer where he now designs those bridges.
I hope to give my daughters the same vision and framework that I have given my son and give them opportunities to follow their dreams. Not just teach them how to cook, clean, do laundry, care for children and serve the One Whom All Orbit Around (the patriarch).
My oldest daughter is following her desire to go into the medical field and hopefully someday she will care for the poor on the mission fields (that is her dream). She has also been trained how to cook, clean, care for a home and children.
I wonder if domestic duties are part of the framework that Botkin thinks sons should be trained in?
And you are right that sons don’t always listen to their mothers at a certain age. It is a test and one that I persevere through. Sons are to obey mothers and their law just as much as a father’s teachings. The Bible doesn’t differentiate between a mother and father’s authority. But, the sinful nature wants to harshly rule over women and dismiss them and treat them with suspicion and as much less important in the whole scheme of things.
I think I have an audience with my son and now that he is 24, I think I have much more influence than I did when he was 13. I think this is because he knows that I know what I am talking about.
October 20, 2009 at 1:48 pm
The opinions of these so-called experts amount to little more than manure. They are an embarrassment to the Kingdom, in my opinion.
BOTH parents should meet vital needs in their children. The exact roles of both those meeting the needs (the parents) and those having their needs met (the children, boys or girls) depends largely on the personalities of those involved, the gifting of the individual parents, and the overall family dynamic.
Trying to force people into roles that they were not necessarily created to fill is one of my biggest pet peeves with this whole so-called lifestyle. Trying to make women “dumb down” their gifts and talents to make the men seem “superior” just seems silly and stupid to me.
For instance, my husband is wonderful, a gifted and talented man (and father) in many, many arenas. One of them, however, is not finances. He is not a spender, but he has little interest in researching investment opportunties and looking after our finances in general. His eyes positively glaze over when anyone starts talking finances. On the other hand, I have a degree in business, have always been interested in financial matters, and so I handle our family’s finances as well as our retirement plans, etc. I provide my husband with short summaries on a monthly basis so that he does not remain in the dark. This arrangement has worked very well for us for nearly three decades.
So because their father is not gifted in the area of finances, I wonder: is it better our boys get little or no instruction in finances rather than get it from me, according to these yahoos?
October 20, 2009 at 1:51 pm
“My husband stepped in every time and warned them that “no man would be allowed to speak to his wife in such a manner.” It took the problem out of the mom and authority realm and placed it in the “don’t mess with my woman” realm.
The other way I dealt with this was by asking them to do things rather than telling them. The difference was like night and day.
“Would you please take out the trash on your way out, honey?” Instead of “Take out the trash, that’s your chore you know.””
Very wise advice, Karen!
I wonder if the Botkin mindset which is all over his latest piece actually causes sons to disrespect their mothers, dismiss them and think of women, in general, as lower?
The patriarchalists tend to constantly dismiss a woman’s influence over her children, both male and female, and elevate a man’s influence to realms that just don’t line up with reality.
I don’t read many pieces about how important a mom’s influence is over forming the framework of her children’s worldview but reality shows me that women throughout history are HUGE in developing their child’s worldview and in teaching them a good work ethic and in guiding them in career paths. Who better knows a child’s strengths and weaknesses and natural bents than a mother since she is the one who has spent so much time with them?
Do they want women to want to stay home and raise children? Then they should stop writing denigrating pieces about the role of women in the lives of their children. Or else, why don’t they just have handmaidens who birth children for their own kingdoms and care for the children’s basic needs and leave the important stuff to the men? Or are they already doing that?
October 20, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“BOTH parents should meet vital needs in their children. The exact roles of both those meeting the needs (the parents) and those having their needs met (the children, boys or girls) depends largely on the personalities of those involved, the gifting of the individual parents, and the overall family dynamic.
Trying to force people into roles that they were not necessarily created to fill is one of my biggest pet peeves with this whole so-called lifestyle. Trying to make women “dumb down” their gifts and talents to make the men seem “superior” just seems silly and stupid to me.”
Savannah,
Your whole post is excellent and it really cuts to the heart of the issue for me, personally.
Why isn’t that a woman does what she does best, based on her gifts and the man does what he does best, based on his gifts? Surely they do not believe that all men have the same gifts and that ALL men are better at finances and understanding worldview and guiding their offspring into career paths?
What, exactly, does Botkin think women are good at teaching their children?
October 20, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“What, exactly, does Botkin think women are good at teaching their children?”
How to sew, cook, clean house, and be uber submissive… but only to their female children.
October 20, 2009 at 2:18 pm
http://charitygrace78.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-much-more-by-anna-sofia-and.html
Here is an excellent book review on the Botkin sisters’, So Much More.
October 20, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I don’t read many pieces about how important a mom’s influence is over forming the framework of her children’s worldview but reality shows me that women throughout history are HUGE in developing their child’s worldview and in teaching them a good work ethic and in guiding them in career paths.
There’s an old saying, “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” My husband is a Civil War buff and he has observed that all the famous Civil War Generals had very strong mothers who had a huge influence on them.
Or else, why don’t they just have handmaidens who birth children for their own kingdoms and care for the children’s basic needs and leave the important stuff to the men?
You mean like in Margaret Atwood’s novel, “The Handmaid’s Tale”? It may seem so very far fetched when you read this book, but it could be a natural consequence of patriocentrism.
Why isn’t that a woman does what she does best, based on her gifts and the man does what he does best, based on his gifts?
Corrie, Corrie, Corrie, you just don’t get it. Men may have many and varied calling and gifts, and can use them in any domain or sphere they please. All women have just ONE calling: wife and mother. Anything else is rebellion.
October 20, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I’m in agreement with all the comments so far and wanted to share another resource sample that I just received. It is a new magazine out of Nashville called Home Educating Family. Add a www and a .com for the web. I am cautiously optimistic about this publication.
This is where I “live” and these are the kinds of people I know and learn with & from. I went to their website and left a comment to keep it up and how refreshing it was compared to… those other “leaders”. Bottom line is not that I necessarily NEED this magazine, as a “veteran”… but those starting out or being confronted with the “ugly men’s movement” DO.
First article by Stuart McAllister “When all else fails Worry!” contrasts media, experts, & society fear with God’s Word & a sampling of scripture about trusting Christ & being anxious for nothing. Couldn’t read the next one by Piper. Then a great one by Susan Hunt “Seasons of a Woman’s Life”, then one by Ted Tripp. Next a history of John Winthrop by Rob Shearer(Greenleaf Press) Next a nice interview with a brand new family who homeschool– my editing now– (not homeschoolers, per that you tube video a month or so ago). There are 6 other articles written by women- and some of the bios don’t even mention –gasp– their husband! I’m telling you, compared to the male dominated crisis mongering “leadership” forum trying to take over homeschooling… this magazine is an absolute Oasis. It is … so… N O R M A L !
October 20, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Savannah:
“So because their father is not gifted in the area of finances, I wonder: is it better our boys get little or no instruction in finances rather than get it from me, according to these yahoos?”
Yup.
October 20, 2009 at 7:34 pm
So, what do you think of the announcement today by the Vatican that Anglicans who are so terrified of women clergy have a safe, woman-leadership-free church home with Rome?
Terror of women runs so deep that people would switch denominations to avoid confronting the issue.
October 20, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Ack! My pet peeve with my son:
“The other way I dealt with this was by asking them to do things rather than telling them. The difference was like night and day. “Would you please take out the trash on your way out, honey?” Instead of “Take out the trash, that’s your chore you know.””
I started out an asking kind of mom. I have found just the opposite to be true! When I ask nicely, it won’t get done. When I state it matter-of-factly, he gets it done.
Maybe it’s more the willingness to change approaches that gets their attention?
October 20, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Okay I wish I could delete the previous post, since it is way off topic by now. Sorry. Been trying to catch up with all that’s been posted, but it’s a lot to get through.
Carry on. *sheepish grin*
October 21, 2009 at 10:42 am
Here’s a post from a female grad of one of the IFB colleges on my forum, that I thought was alarming:
“Have you ever wondered why there was so much emphasis placed on GIRLS bragging on the preachers? Why were we not taught to try to be an encouragement to WOMEN in ministry?
I carried this philosophy of exalting men away from HAC with me, and it got me into trouble on the mission field. I taught several classes for girls at a Bible institute in Mexico and loved it! I told the girls in one class to let preachers know when a sermon had been a particular blessing to them; that they could even write notes of encouragement. (Parroting what I had been taught at HAC) A few weeks later one of the girls who was a pastor’s daughter herself told me in front of the class: My father asked me to let you know that writing notes to married men is not acceptable in our culture!!! Turns out she had written a note to a visiting speaker at her home church and told her dad. He did not allow her to give the preacher that note.”
October 21, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Emmy, with many Anglicans, including your s truly, the problem is not so much with women clergy as with partnered homosexual clergy.
THAT’S the straw that broke the camel’s back.
October 22, 2009 at 12:38 am
Thanks for the insight, Cynthia Gee! I have read lots of articles that mention both issues but then harp heavily on the women clergy subject. I think it was sort of taken for granted by the journalists that gay clergy were frowned upon. The interesting “angle” to them seemed to be gender.
So, are you considering taking up the Pope on his offer? I would love to learn more about your decision. Thank you!
October 22, 2009 at 9:07 am
Light,
“Corrie, Corrie, Corrie, you just don’t get it. Men may have many and varied calling and gifts, and can use them in any domain or sphere they please. All women have just ONE calling: wife and mother. Anything else is rebellion.”
You are exactly correct. I just do not get it. Never will. Never have. And, since I decided to live in Reality instead of Denial, I just don’t see that the above teaching is based on truth at all.
I wonder if the patrios see janitorial work as “feminine” since they do not train their sons to clean toilets, scrub floors, do laundry, etc?
October 22, 2009 at 10:43 am
“Men may have many and varied calling and gifts, and can use them in any domain or sphere they please. All women have just ONE calling: wife and mother. Anything else is rebellion.”
I’ve never seen it written so plainly before. And it’s true, that IS what they believe. That is what they teach their sons and their daughters.
I’m just so sad… when I think about all the girls who have squelched their true talents and callings in order to fit into a mold that someone other than God made for them. Girls that could have been “so much more“. They repress their own selves because they believe they are in rebellion if they don’t. And the damage is as real as if they were asked to cut pieces of their flesh away so they could fit inside that small box.
October 22, 2009 at 10:50 am
“Girls that could have been “so much more“.”
I just want to clarify that I don’t think that being a wife and a mother is somehow less than. I just don’t believe it is the ONLY way a woman is supposed to live. Woman can be wives, mothers, PLUS,- or they could be childless, or they could be single, or they could be devoted singularly to motherhood, and can still glorify God and be living out His design for their unique lives.
It’s not up to MEN to decide what God’s design is for all women.
October 22, 2009 at 11:23 am
Exactly, Bean. This philosophy hurts men, too, since they are locked into the provider role that can at times be terribly burdensome. Some men are working two and three jobs and never see their families, when it would be much easier on everyone if their wives could at least take a part time job! Or men who want to stay home for a season and raise their kids while their wive pursues her career: in the patrio paradigm, this would be seen as unmanly.
October 22, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Personally, I love it when my husband is holding/changing/feeding our children. There is nothing sexier than a man that’s good with kids, and that includes diaper changing.
I agree, Light, that the men are being hurt as well. Not only in that they are the sole providers, but that they are without a true partner in life. Someone who never checks or challenges them at all, because they are “submitting”. Whatever happened to iron sharpening iron? Iron won’t get sharper if it’s being dragged over a doormat. The blade will eventually get dull, and the mat will be ripped to pieces.
October 22, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Iron won’t get sharper if it’s being dragged over a doormat.
I think you should put that on a T-shirt and send it to every male ringleader in the patrio movement!
October 22, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“”Trying to force people into roles that they were not necessarily created to fill is one of my biggest pet peeves with this whole so-called lifestyle. Trying to make women “dumb down” their gifts and talents to make the men seem “superior” just seems silly and stupid to me.”"
I think we have the same pet peeve there!
To me its almost like saying, “Ladies if you would please lower yourself down a bit so we could be so higher up!”
Dumbing down doesn’t make them more ‘superior’ etc. Its an illusion they like to embrace I guess.
I was listening to a news story the other night about how men are now more accepting of their wife making more money then they do in the workplace. How it is less of a threat for them to be the breadwinner presently.
I have to wonder how many men didn’t wish to admit it, because it makes them look insecure and prideful. It would be a man that is secure with himself to NOT let such a silly matter like that effect their manhood to begin with.
I seriously have to wonder if all these HUGE leaders in the church that load all of the rules of what NOT to do so you man could feel his leadership…are just THAT insecure with themselves!
I would think learning to deal with it, and finding that it doesn’t strip anything away from you? That would seem like true growth, and they can move on to more important things. I don’t have issues with affirming people, etc. God also wishes us to serve others of course! Things like salary don’t make men MEN! It hardly makes them Godly men either. They use ‘breadwinner’ as ego points in reality. Learning to work, live and serve with the gifts that God gave you, and appreciating those gifts that God gave your spouse is what I read the bible saying. Asking others NOT to take a raise because it would mean your husband isn’t top dog in the salary department? That’s hardly affirming or appreciating anything. Its called don’t slide in the ego mud.
I didn’t mean to bring ‘work’ into it. The program I saw just triggered the thought only. The premise just seemed silly to me.
October 22, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Someone dropped me a note and thought the TW ladies would find the discussion on Voddie Baucham’s daughter, Jasmine’s blog this week to be interesting. The first entry is basically a question by young woman named Kelsey who talks about her mom’s jealousy of her relationship with her dad. The comments are quite telling.
The second entry is Jasmine’s response to Kelsey and her defense of the Botkins, etc.
http://joyfullyathome.blogspot.com/2009/10/we-interrupt-this-scheduled-programming.html
http://joyfullyathome.blogspot.com/2009/10/we-interrupt-this-scheduled-programming.html
What do you all think?
October 22, 2009 at 6:32 pm
The question gave me the ‘ewwww’ factor personally.
Interruption of the scheduled programing (literally) is correct! LOL!
October 22, 2009 at 6:38 pm
http://joyfullyathome.blogspot.com/2009/10/lengthy-reply-to-kelsey-inquiry.html
I found her response to this question as well.
October 22, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Hannha, thanks for poasting that. I thought that was the 2nd one I posted….long day, too tired!
It all sounds to me like people are waking up and realizing how far down the path away from “normal” these teachings have gone. And it certainly sounds as though Jasmine feels the need to defend it all.
October 22, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Man, when she says lengthy she is not kidding around!
October 22, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Okay, I finished reading it! While I will never agree that a godly girls only option in life is to stay home and wait for Mr. Right to come along (excuse me, for God to bring Mr. Right along at the perfect time), I like this girl. As we say in the country, her hearts in the right place.
She finally gives some honor and recognition to mothers, and she has a much more balanced approach to staying home and serving. She serves her Mom AS WELL AS her Dad while waiting for her own marriage to begin.
I do not think that this (staying home) is the only godly option for young Christian girls, but honoring your father and mother, now THAT has been a requirement for godly Christian girls (and boys) for over four thousand years! That part I heartily agree with.
October 22, 2009 at 8:08 pm
When I read the article I was scratching my head. I have to wonder if the mother felt the right to mention to her husband about these feelings. I hope the child wasn’t the one that got to feel that pressure only.
October 23, 2009 at 7:43 am
One of the inconsistencies in Return of the Daughters was the emphasis of daughters helping their dads by working alongside them in their businesses. If the “normative” role of women is to be a keeper at home and a woman working outside the home is compared to the harlot, as per the Botkins, then why are the young women who are running errands, meeting with customers, doing research, etc. for their dads not held to the same standards. Shouldn’t those future homemakers be homemaking with their moms? And even in situations where there are only daughters in the home, wouldn’t you think that an apprenticeship in the working place would/should be done by young men, even from other families? I am trying to see why it is ok for these girls to prepare for a career outside the home when “Scripture” doesn’t allow for it?
I noticed, too, that none of these commenters or Jasmine discussed the “need” for men to have the attention of younger women.
October 23, 2009 at 7:45 am
One more thought about this…perhaps the answer to this is that the fathers know that young single women who aren’t caring for their own husbands and children will naturally long for “something more” and are giving them responsibilities in their businesses to avoid them wanting to go to college or find a life outside the home when they are single. Maybe that is the unspoken agenda. {{{shrug}}}
October 23, 2009 at 8:27 am
To me, it’s just very disturbing that these obviously bright young women believe that this lifestyle is their *only* option. To see one of these young women describe herself as a “stay-at-home-daughter” is doubly disturbing. Stay-at-home-moms? I’m all for it. Stay-at-home-[adult]-daughters? Unless a parent is ill and requires round the clock care, I don’t see any reason for this and cannot imagine what good comes from it for the daughters, although it does certainly seem like a good deal for the dad. And isn’t that what it’s all about???? [please note sarcasm]
October 23, 2009 at 8:34 am
Savannah, hence the word “patriocentricity.” Everything revolves around the dad. We are told that only family member who has a calling from the Lord is the father. No Scripture to back this up. Jasmine refers to this in her article…helping the father fulfill his calling. When that is your purpose in life, as they teach, it IS the only option.
October 23, 2009 at 9:25 am
Delurking again for a quick comment: On one blog I read, a mom referred to her “stay-at-home daughter” as a “housemaiden.” You know, like housewife? Too strange.
October 23, 2009 at 11:44 am
“On one blog I read, a mom referred to her “stay-at-home daughter” as a “housemaiden.” ”
Oh Brother…strange is right. Also, troubling.
October 23, 2009 at 11:49 am
I like Tolkien’s “shieldmaiden” term so much better.
October 23, 2009 at 11:50 am
“Unless a parent is ill and requires round the clock care, I don’t see any reason for this and cannot imagine what good comes from it for the daughters, although it does certainly seem like a good deal for the dad. And isn’t that what it’s all about???? [please note sarcasm]”
Savannah,
Not only is it a good deal for the dad but a very good deal for the mom. Now all these adult “housemaidens” or “stay-at-home-daughters” can do most of the housework, childcare, and cooking.
I often tell Karen that I really think I went wrong (said tongue in cheek!) when I left the patriarchal movement and encouraged my older daughters to pursue their own interests and educations. I am the one who does most of the housework and care of the younger children and all the cooking….but then, again, I am the younger children’s mother.
Leaving the patriarchal mindset and actually looking at my daughters like they are human beings with a purpose other than doing all of my work for me has made my workload a lot heavier!
So, the selfish and fleshly part of me sometimes thinks it would be a good deal for me to make them all stay home and be housemaidens. It would also be cheaper and a heck of a lot easier since I wouldn’t have to worry about college and book costs.
October 23, 2009 at 11:55 am
Karen,
#52 The rule for the game of patriocentricity is double-standards. What they say and what they do don’t make sense nor do they match up, so that is where you are going wrong by trying to figure out any method to their madness.
Really, at the heart of patriocentricity, is egocentrism and selfishness and a false view of self- thinking more highly of one’s self than one every dare ought think of himself.
October 23, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Okay, the ewww factor and my radar went off BIG TIME when reading Miss Kelsey’s question. And, unlike Jasmine, I don’t think it is a good question at all, I think it is unnatural and odd and it should raise HUGE red flags.
Gads. Her question makes my stomach churn.
Her and her dad have the same “love languages”? How “cute”.
She desires to be a “helper” to her dad? Uhhhh, that isn’t her job. That is her mom’s calling.
Making him his favorite foods? Walking next to him while they shop? Where is the mom? Off in the wings? Walking 10 paces behind them?
Why doesn’t Kelsey make her mother’s favorite foods and look for her own husband to be a “helper” to? Why doesn’t she let her mother walk next to her own husband and learn her rightful place as a daughter to BOTH OF THEM?
Sorry, I know of one case where the daughter is much more like a wife to her father than her mother was (especially when it comes to public displays of affection” and it gave me the heebie jeebies. For good reason, too, there is/was something funky going on there.
All this be a “helpmeet to your Daddy” is going to cause some major problems.
“om Miss Kelsey:
Hi Jasmine!
So, the first time I found out that your dad actually even had a daughter my age (I’m 20) was when I watched Return of the Daughters. (Which I love, btw.
I have tried to become more supportive of my parents’ vision as a result of convictions springing from the documentary… (I was already a stay at home daughter and all)… and to be a helper to my dad. Which usually goes over pretty well since my dad and I are very alike, have the same “love languages” etc.
So my question comes here.
My mom started to feel a little “jealous” because she felt like I was taking her spot of helping my dad, making his favorite foods, walking next to him while shopping, and all of that.
And that began my wondering…
How can I be a loving helper to my dad when my mom is his true help-meet and he is designed to only have one, and I am designed to have my own man to support and help but (in God’s timing) he hasn’t showed up yet?
Maybe this is a somewhat unusual question, but I do desire to have good family harmony and help my parents (my spiritual gift is serving)… I really appreciated what you had to say in Return of the Daughters, so wondered if you had any insights for me.
Thanks,
)”
Kelsey
October 23, 2009 at 12:14 pm
“How can I be a loving helper to my dad……..” (shivers up my spine)
Totally weird. I read this to my daughters, one of them is about Kelsey’s age, and they had the same thoughts.
This all comes from the Botkins and throw in a little Voddie-men yearn for the attentions of younger women and God gave them a daughter to fulfill that yearning- Baucham.
We can also add Vision Forum and Raising Maidens of Virtue to the list of lead the “Kelseys” astray and set them up to be either sexually abused (it happens a LOT) or an adversary of their own mother by usurping her rightful place.
October 23, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Whew! I skimmed over Jasmine’s response and it looked pretty good. For that, I am glad.
But, my radar is still going off concerning Kelsey and her “loving helper” role to her father.
October 23, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I just can’t believe that some people cannot see the inherent unwholesomeness of this practice. I am not suggesting that anything is “going on” necessarily in these situations, at least physically, but what about emotionally? The fact that a daughter even has to begin to worry that she has usurped the position of her own mother in the family dynamic should be a huge red flag.
October 23, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Hi Savannah,
I think this whole issue of “usurpring,” along with the examples Corrie pulled from that Q&A, indicate that the men in the patriocentricity movement actually want to marginalize their wives even within the wives’ “natural, mandated” domestic domain.
We know of course that patriocentricity seeks to alienate half of the human species from the majority of vast spectrum of human experiences and endeavors. That’s not news. But what’s so very interesting is how they also want to alienate married women with children from their husbands and families…which is the domain they preach as the only One True Path for all women everywhere.
We see this in the glorification of the father-daughter relationship and the use of unmarried daughters as mini-helpmeets.
The question is why they would do this (beyond the obvious maintenance and amplication of thousands of years of male privilege).
And I believe it is because they are threatened by women who are wives and (biological) mothers. A wife and (biological) mother is, by definition, a sexually experienced woman with a measure of built-in power (over the offspring she carried in her body). A wife and adoptive mother has also been socially and legally vested with authority over her children.
So, this this sexuality and authority is a threat to patriocentric men.
Solution? Surround yourself with sexually inexperienced women with NO authority or control (over herself OR others) whatsoever. This will pose no threat to the fragile web spun by the patriarch…in which he is the “king bee” (no queen bees allowed in patrio-lanf!) and his word is law.
October 23, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I hope it is okay if I butt in because I was really struck by Shadowspring’s comment about feminism in the last thread, which I will quote at length and respond to:
Growing up in the 70s, this really was often what feminists proclaimed. The 80s gave us Andrea Dworkin, who posited that heterosexual sex was by very definition violence against women. I believe it was columnist Anna Quindlen who called SAHMs “glorified prostitutes”. It was an ugly time to be a woman who embraced her body and motherhood and who desired nothing on earth more than to nurture children. In other words, to be me.
Thankfully it appears that those radical voices have been left behind by succeeding generations, and it is much more acceptable today for a woman to choose to be a SAHM without the ridicule and ostracization by their paycheck-earning peers that I endured.
The older I get the more clear becomes the reason for the anger behind the 70s feminist voices, not that it is justified to become a bitter, angry person as a Christian. But I have seen so many injustices against women, even in the church, maybe especially in the church, that I find myself judging my mom’s generation much less harshly.
This resonates with me because I suppose I am one of those 70s style feminists, even though I am not even quite 40 yet. My perspective was heavily influenced by my mother — a woman who relished being a stay-at-home-mom, yet strongly agreed with much of what was said by the Andrea Dworkins and Anna Quindlens of the 70s and 80s.
As you acknowledge, Shadowspring (and I really appreciate it), these kinds of utterances have to be understood in context.
I actually don’t think Dworkin ever said that all heterosexual intercourse is rape, though she is widely quoted as such. I think she made a couple of different points:
1) In many ways, our culture implicitly assumes that all, or most, heterosexual sex is tantamount to rape of a woman. Thus, even consensual sex is often discussed as a conquest, a violation, a penetration, an act of disrespect, or something a man has “gotten” from a woman. Premarital sex, even when consensual, is still interpreted in 2009 as a defeat of the woman. I think she is arguing that we don’t have a cultural vocabulary for talking about truly egalitarian, truly consensual sex, even within marriage. It is not Dworkin’s view that all heterosexual sex is necessarily rape, but rather the view of the dominant culture.
2) When Dworkin spoke, in a world where marital rape was considered legal, a world in which many believed that a woman’s submission to her husband’s sexual demands is always compulsory, and a world in which women did not have options that enabled us to easily forego marriage, sex within marriage could not truly be considered a free act by the woman. Obviously, many of those conditions have changed for many women. Dworkin’s statements in this regard clearly anticipate that sex need not be rape in a more egalitarian world where women truly have free choices.
I am not necessarily a huge Dworkin fan, but she is not as crazy as she has been made to appear in the mainstream media. Here is more on Dworkin for those who are interested: http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/10/andrea_dworkin/
I bet a similar analysis can be applied to Quindlen’s statement about housewives being whores (if it was Quindlen who said something like this). My mother — herself a housewife –used to talk about this concept with me. But my mother was not calling herself a whore. What she was critiquing was the discourse about housewives — the discussions of marriage as a quid pro quo arrangement of financial support in exchange for sex, babies, and housecleaning services. This discourse does implicitly view housewives as whores, and sadly, it is all too common a view even today. The most grating example to me are those who argue that men won’t marry if premarital sex is easily available, i.e. “why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free.” This reductive and insulting view of the relations between the sexes, a view which feminists oppose, is common among patriarchalists. It is the patriarchal view, not the feminist view, that frames traditional wives and mothers as sellers of goods and services.
I don’t doubt that SAHMs have been treated rudely by working women over the years (and vice-versa), encouraged by a media intent on selling the notion of the “mommy wars.” Feminism is easily misunderstood — caricatured by its opponents and bastardized by regular people who have some sympathy with its aims. But the leaders and thinkers of the movement tend to be more thoughtful and sympathetic than they are given credit for — and its basic principles and orienatation are sound.
Hope this rant isn’t too off topic. I guess I think feminists are unfairly criticized for being “strident” and “angry” without regard to the circumstances that provoke us to speak and act as we do. Am I angry? You bet! I am very angry at the grotesque sexism endured by my mother, my grandmother, my great aunts and other women of their generation. I am angry at the more subtle sexism I sometimes encounter. I am furious about the egregiously low status and abuse of women in other cultures around the world, and among the patriarchal set here in my own country. I am not sure that anger per se is such a bad thing — or that feminists, even the old-timey 70s feminists, need be considered the enemies of the stay-at-home-mothers.
October 23, 2009 at 1:35 pm
“But what’s so very interesting is how they also want to alienate married women with children from their husbands and families…”
This is true of mothers and their sons, too, as quoted in the Jeffrey Botkin link above.
I keep wondering why anyone would want to do this to moms. Drive me crazy!
October 23, 2009 at 2:24 pm
“Hope this rant isn’t too off topic. I guess I think feminists are unfairly criticized for being “strident” and “angry” without regard to the circumstances that provoke us to speak and act as we do. Am I angry? You bet! I am very angry at the grotesque sexism endured by my mother, my grandmother, my great aunts and other women of their generation. I am angry at the more subtle sexism I sometimes encounter. I am furious about the egregiously low status and abuse of women in other cultures around the world, and among the patriarchal set here in my own country. I am not sure that anger per se is such a bad thing — or that feminists, even the old-timey 70s feminists, need be considered the enemies of the stay-at-home-mothers.”
Laurie, I am in agreement here, believe me.
The word “feminist” is used because the users know it can be equated with abortion and gay rights and they want to associate anyone who disagrees with them with things they know will get a negative response.
I, took, am angry at what things have caused women to respond in the first place. No vote, having to turn over property to husbands when they married, having to endure abuse in order to stay with their children because they knew a divorce would result in men having sole custody of children etc.
And then there are all the things you mentioned. Where is the outrage on the part of the Voddie Bauchams and Doug Phillips about this stuff?
October 23, 2009 at 3:30 pm
For a detailed and well-worded rebuttal to Andrea Dworkin, I recommend reading Domestic Tranquility by F. Carolyn Graglia. I believe she has an entire chapter dedicated to discussing Ms. Dworkin’s statements.
I read myself the article calling SAH women glorified prostitutes. It galvanized me to despise feminists who claim the title, because feminists openly despised me. I am not 100% sure it was Anna Quindlen, because though I kept the article for many years, I have not come across that box since my last move.
It is modern feminists that started these wars, with Betty Friedan saying SAHMs had child-like minds up to the female columnist who called my relationship with my husband prostitution.
It was women at my husband’s work that sneered at me and looked as if my children were diseased when I dropped by for lunch with my husband. It was a (different) former co-worker of his who met my husband and I out for a walk who said,”That’s right, you don’t do anything.” when she found out I was still at home with my kids.
I am afraid your post has stirred up a lot of memories for me that are strongly unpleasant. I would like you much better if you did NOT try to pretend that it was someone other than feminists who started the Mommy Wars and continues to stoke the fires.
My daughter is being raised to follow her own heart and be strong, just like her mother. But she also is raised to value her womb, and to value children. Right now she is seeking a commission in the Air Force, and the USA will be better off for her winning it.
But if/when she decides to have children, I know she will value her children as worthy of her time. Then the USAF will have to take a back seat, because children of women in my family are worth more than any amount of money, prestige, and public good.
And that has always been my response to the feminists who mock me: my children are just worth more than theirs. And they are the ones who did the valuing.
(Yes my blood is boiling. Can anyone tell? Grrr.)
October 23, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Having got that off my chest, let me say that earlier feminists (Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth, Carrie Nation, Catherine Booth, etc.) have my undying appreciation. They were courageous woman who made the world a better place.
I firmly believe in equal pay for equal work, the rights of women to vote, own property, live free from abuse, choose any career they can pull off, marry who they choose, divorce if they feel it necessary, live as free moral agents subject to the same laws as any other citizen.
I did not reject feminism; modern feminism rejected me. I thought I might be acceptable to the younger set, as I am actually consider myself a more true feminist- more truly a believer in the individual woman’s right to control her own destiny and in her intrinsic value as a person.
So thanks for setting me straight Laurie.
October 23, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Thatmom,
Hmmm . . . now you have me re-thinking my own point.
I think there is truth to the stereotype that feminists generally support gay rights and abortion rights. I fall into that mold myself and yes, I view gay rights and abortion as very closely related to my belief in women’s equality.
Every so often, a feminist blog will debate the issue of whether someone who opposes the right to abortion can really be a “feminist.” The consensus on the blogs is that opposition to abortion rights is never a feminist position, that is, that such opposition is not consistent with the feminist belief in women’s rights to autonomy, bodily sovereignty and societal equality. But that’s not the same thing as saying someone is not “a feminist” if he or she disagrees with certain discrete aspects of mainstream feminism. (I am aware, of course, that groups like Feminists for Life would disagree with the mainstream feminist analysis.)
In other words, I don’t think feminism requires doctrinal purity. Feminism describes a general orientation of strong concern for women’s autonomy and dignity. Anyone who holds such a strong concern should be included in the definition of feminist — even if he or she holds certain discrete views that could be argued not to line up with feminism.
Problem is, I can definitely see how feminist discourse can give the impression that doctrinal purity IS required. That plays into the hands of people who want to dissuade women like you from advocating respect for women. That is, it plays into the hands that want people to assume you must believe in abortion and gay rights. We do need a word — “feminism” is as good as any — to describe what you all are doing here on this wonderful blog and this word should not be owned exclusively by people like me who match up with the Gloria Steinem-type feminist.
I am sort of thinking out loud here. But mainstream feminists ought to do a better job of fostering unity among women across
the political and religious spectrum. I worry that there are so many women who are afraid to speak or write about issues of women’s status because they fear that the “feminist” label does not describe them. This is a fear that has been fostered not only by patriarchs, but by feminists ourselves.
No matter where you stand on gay rights or abortion, most modern American women DO oppose the notion of being second class citizens, whether politically or culturally. On the other hand, it may be a lot to ask a lesbian to join forces with a woman who does not support her right to live as a lesbian; and it may be a lot to ask that woman to join forces with a lesbian if that woman believes the lesbian’s lifestyle to be an affront to her an entire belief system. Still, I harbor some hope that women across the board can disagree vigorously on some issues while still considering each other allies in such endeavors as criticizing rigid gender roles, notions of female inferiority, etc.
Not sure this is coherent, but I am so used my own generic feminist mold, that you got me thinking.
October 23, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Shadowspring,
Confused by your last comments: You say you had hoped that you would be more acceptable to the younger generation of feminists, but that I have somehow set you straight. Let me say: I absolutely in no way meant to imply any rejection of you or how you have lived your life. I usually only lurk on this blog (probably a good idea) but I ADMIRE you enormously and I admire the crucial work you and the others on this blog are doing. You are confronting the little known problem of real harm done to women in patriocentric communities. It is not up to me to confer labels, but when I read your writing and those of others on this blog, I think of it as “true feminist” thinking and writing.
October 23, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Laurie, thanks for joining in this discourse. I appreciate your openness and your willingness to see other viewpoints.
October 23, 2009 at 5:21 pm
The “mommy wars” are of particular interest to me, for some reason. I think I am somewhat fascinated, overall, in women’s general willingness to turn on one another and try to place themselves in positions of superiority over one another. So much for sisterhood – LOL.
My own experience, having been both a SAHM for a decade and now being back in the work force for almost the same period of time, has been that both working women and SAH women are often perfectly willing to throw the other under the bus. Shadowspring, when I was a SAHM, I was on the receiving end of a few of those sneering-type comments,, too. But the contempt of the SAHM towards the working mother is no less intense, because as a mother in the workforce since 2000, I have also been on the receiving end of nasty remarks about my working from SAHMs. In my view, neither group has a corner market on viciousness.
I think this whole unfortunate phenomenon has been whipped up and sustained by the media, no matter “who started it”. Both sides have been very happy to keep it going. My approach, from the beginning, has been to refuse to take part in it. I did not feel the need to defend my choice to be at home with my children to my snooty neighbor or my husband’s colleagues, and I do not feel the need now to defend my choice to use my talents and education to fully partner with my husband in providing financially for my family to nosy church acquaintances. Both are legitimate choices and it is up to my husband and I to decide what is best for OUR family. At least, that’s the approach that has worked for me as I’ve navigated these troubled waters.
October 23, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Light, I apologize for freaking out on you.
It would be a ,ajor understatement to write that I personally am very hurt by 70s feminism. It happened long before I ever became a mother.
My mom is a 70s feminist, who couldn’t stand her children or being a mother. I grew up with that burden already piled onto my little shoulders before I left the crib. Children to her were parasites, like the aliens in the famous movie of the same name.
I am quite open about my life as a SAHM being a personal political statement that children have value, that *I* had value. I see my mom as weak, a sham of a woman, who in her zeal to bear the title feminist gladly shed every bit of maternal sentiment she might have ever had.
So again, Light, I apologize for freaking out on you.
I’m not sure even now I can read what your words actually say, but what I got out of it was that you respect and admire my mother and her heroines, that my mother was admirable somehow, and it should be pretty obvious to everyone that her lifelong rejection of me as a person still smarts.
I am quite sure that is why the sneers and putdowns from other women hurts/angers me so much. I do take it personal. It is personal.
Ideas have consequences, and there is a lot of ruin in my past as a result of the idea that mothering is for simpletons who can’t get a real job. (An actual comment from an e-mail sent out last week to a friend of mine who is a mother of eight, leader of a large home school support group and volunteer in the community and in her church).
So while I admire the cool detachment of Savannah, it is not something I can create in myself. These words of condemnation that working women toss out touch a very painful spot in my heart. I didn’t put it there. I don’t want it there. But there it is nonetheless.
So, sorry, Light. I heard a defense of the teaching that children are not worth much, just little leeches that will suck the life out of you and drain your bank account. You never said that, but you said you did admire 70s feminists. And that sounded to me like you agree with the rhetoric they were tossing around at that time, and that was about the gist of it concerning children.
October 23, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Whew! Well, I think that’s enough for me for awhile. I hope you accept my apology Light. And I hope some other poster will come along and put the thread back on track.
I’m checking out for the rest of the night to take my son to a pumpkin-carving teen scream event and to spend some time with my daughter. I hope everyone else also enjoys their families tonight.
October 23, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Interesting. I don’t think feminism in Australia was ever quite as virulent as that. And the “Mommy wars” were certainly less intense. the worst I ever got from working mothers for being an SAHM was a raised eyebrow and a sense of confusion. That’s probably why I’m happy to call myself a feminist today — because in the circles i’ve moved in it’s had a lot less to do with whether you were in or out of the workforce, and a lot more to do with having a choice about your role and not being squeezed into a particular mould just because you’re a woman. The only time I really experienced prejudice was at the Christian school, where a certain subgroup of women who had large families made it obvious that I wasn’t one of them since I only had 2 kids.
But then, even now, the stats in Australia and America are very different. i understand that something like 85% of American mothers with children under 5 are back in fulltime employment (I may have thew exact figures wrong, it’s a while since I’ve seen them) Here it’s still less than 20%, I understand. That makes a huge social difference
October 23, 2009 at 8:20 pm
I hope you accept my apology Light.
Hey, Shadowspring, I think you meant Laurie.
As for me, I define a feminist as someone who believes in and works for the equality (not superiority) and self-determination of women.
This is why I am now, and alway will be, a feminist:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/magazine/23Women-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1
October 23, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Shadowspring, I truly apologize if what you described as my “cool detachment” came off as uncaring towards the pain you have obviously suffered. That was not my intent in any way.
October 24, 2009 at 12:02 am
Yes, thatmom–it’s almost as though the patriocentric patriarchs (sorry for redundancy) reserve their most acute fear of women for the mother’s authority over her sons.
Talking of feminism, it reminds me of the clip played on Meet the Press this past Sunday. For our overseas viewers, this is a political talk show that likes to re-play clips from early on in the show’s history. The 70s clip had an aggressive male interviewer attacking a sober and calm Gloria Steinem.
“Isn’t it true Miss Steinem,” he said forcefully, “that women actually have more power than men because they have power over their sons from their earliest years? Isn’t it true that women BRAINWASH men from a young age?”
Ooooh, those fighting words wouldn’ve had me delivering a set-down. But Steinem was very cool and collected in her answer and refused to engage with his misogyny. The man was plainly terrified of women and transferred his fear into aggression.
Same dynamic with the patrios.
October 24, 2009 at 12:29 am
Laurie: “This reductive and insulting view of the relations between the sexes, a view which feminists oppose, is common among patriarchalists. It is the patriarchal view, not the feminist view, that frames traditional wives and mothers as sellers of goods and services.
… Feminism is easily misunderstood — caricatured by its opponents and bastardized by regular people who have some sympathy with its aims.
Emmy:
YES!
I can only shake my head at the self-indulgent ignorance of the G. Botkins and D. Phillips of the world when they rail against “feminism’s devaluing of women and exploitation of female sexuality.” It is patriarchy–IMO a very un-Christ-modelling paradigm–that devalues women and exploits their sexuality. Patriarchy is the carnal, earthly, clannish/tribal code perpetuated by power-hungry humans.
I prefer Jesus’ commitment to the equality and dignity of all human beings–Gentile or Jew, Woman or Man, Slave or Free.
October 24, 2009 at 12:30 am
Well, the stuff after “emmy” was not supposed to be in italics!
October 24, 2009 at 8:07 am
If I remember correctly, a certain male author in the 40′s sparked the feminist movement (or a few women to start it) by writing about housewives and how they were leeches/parasites who sucked off of their husbands and didn’t contribute to society and how staying at home with children proved that they were simpletons.
I will try to find the book that I read a few years back that I am referring to.
October 24, 2009 at 9:29 am
I apologize as well. I didn’t mean to push anyone’s buttons!
October 24, 2009 at 11:38 am
Emmy wrote about a ’70s interviewer questioning Gloria Steinem:
“Isn’t it true Miss Steinem,” he said forcefully, “that women actually have more power than men because they have power over their sons from their earliest years? Isn’t it true that women BRAINWASH men from a young age?”
Same dynamic with the patrios.
Funny you should say that — when the patrio was beginning back in the early 1980′s, it was often yuppie WIVES who sold their husbands and families on the paradigm.
Another thing, too –
I think a lot of women, (and yours truly) were attracted by the prairie-style clothing, and the whole county-chic, blue-kerchiefed-geese (remember them?) stenciled, Hallmark-Little House on the Prairie kitsch of it all, and by the fact that they could be following the latest fashion/homemaking/mothering trend, and be on the cutting edge religiously speaking as well …. in other words, they could be IN STYLE, and be approved of God and Man at the same time.
October 24, 2009 at 11:42 am
A little off topic but in honor of Voddie’s ideas on needing the attention of younger women, here is something fun from Andy Rooney:
As I grow in age, I value women over 50 most of all. Here are just a few reasons why:
A woman over 50 will never wake you in the middle of the night and ask, ‘What are you thinking?’ She doesn’t care what you think.
If a woman over 50 doesn’t want to watch the game, she doesn’t sit around whining about it. She does something she wants to do, and it’s usually more interesting.
Women over 50 are dignified. They seldom have a screaming match with you at the opera or in the middle of an expensive restaurant. Of course, if you deserve it, they won’t hesitate to shoot you if they think they can get away with it.
Older women are generous with praise, often undeserved. They know what it’s like to be unappreciated.
Women get psychic as they age. You never have to confess your sins to a woman over 50.
Once you get past a wrinkle or two, a woman over 50 is far sexier than her younger counterpart.
Older women are forthright and honest.. They’ll tell you right off if you are a jerk, if you are acting like one. You don’t ever have to wonder where you stand with her.
Yes, we praise women over 50 for a multitude of reasons. Unfortunately, it’s not reciprocal. For every stunning, smart, well-coiffed, hot woman over 50, there is a bald, paunchy relic in yellow pants making a fool of himself with some 22-year old waitress. Ladies, I apologize.
For all those men who say, ‘Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Here’s an update for you. Nowadays 80% of women are against marriage. Why? Because women realize it’s not worth buying an entire pig just to get a little sausage!
October 24, 2009 at 11:43 am
“blue-kerchiefed-geese (remember them?)”
Cynthia, this really made me laugh this morning. Sadly, we still have people in our town who dress their front yard geese! Right now the are witch geese!
October 24, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Cynthia and Karen, you both made me giggle this morning!
Cynthia, your “blue-kerchiefed-geese” thing made me remember that my mother-in-law, who lives several hours away, once presented me with a concrete goose and outfits she had actually made for it (a different for every holiday and season). My husband was trying so hard to suppress laughter while I was unwrapping all of this stuff that he blew soda out of his nose and had to excuse himself (because one doesn’t even have to know me that well to know that that just isn’t me – LOL). I, thankfully, was more composed, as it really was a sweet gift into which she had put a lot of work, and I thanked her nicely and sincerely. However, when we got home, we promptly shelved the whole kit and kaboodle until she visited, at which time we had to search frantically for the box, etc., all the while hoping that one of our toddler sons wouldn’t sell us out to grandma. Very funny memory!
Karen, your list from Andy Rooney is hilarious, as well, and I think mostly true. I am not quite fifty – just a few years shy – but I can already relate with much of the list, and I can see those attributes in most of my friends that age, too. I don’t think I’m going to mind the big five-OH too much at all
October 24, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Oops, yes, Laurie, not Light.
Apologies accepted all the way around, mine included,and we can move on?
Even my mom’s virulent brand of feminism was a response to the patriarchal upbringing she suffered. Remember, my grandfather threw away the letter awarding her a college to business school because women had no need of education? That’s the same mom.
So the excesses of resentment she was attracted too had deep roots in being dismissed as a person because she was female. I do get it. The limitations put on her life by men in power were very real, very destructive, very wrong.
That is one reason that just adding a Christian veneer to sexist behavior stands out so plainly to me. Sexism is just another word for sin, a certain classification of sin. When one uses feminism as an excuse to hate tit-for-tat, to be just as selfish and greedy and ugly as men have been, then it becomes sin too.
However the demand that all people be treated as people of value and worth is NOT sin! It is standing up for righteousness and justice. We have a clear mandate from God to pursue righteousness and justice in the earth.
In this aspect I myself am a “feminist” and am proud to wear the label. However, I tried to join the pro-life feminist group iFeminist once, and they rejected. Apparently you can’t be against porn (acceptable among some feminists), pro-life (which to me means pro-womb, pro-child but certainly not anti-birth control or family planning) and be admitted to their ranks unless you are also not religious.
Seems I get rejected by everyone! LOL Can’t be a patrio, can’t be a feminist. *sigh* What’s a girl to do?
October 24, 2009 at 1:44 pm
College= should read scholarship
October 24, 2009 at 2:15 pm
“Seems I get rejected by everyone! LOL Can’t be a patrio, can’t be a feminist. *sigh* What’s a girl to do?”
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you!”
October 24, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Oh good grief, I thought blue-kerchiefed-geese only existed as outdated, decades old home decor figurines, or worse yet, wallpaper! Kay
October 24, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Haha, my toddler jumped on me as I attempted to fix that last part!
It was supposed to say, Okay, I’m dating myself now!
October 24, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Cynthia Gee,
This is off topic but did you happen to hear FOF about two weeks ago ? Carolyn McCulley and Candice Waters were on the air. If go to FOF ‘Boundless” website you can hear it. Just wondering your thoughts. Both were talking about their book and the state of singleness . I have been single a very long time now and have read most of the books out there. I don’t know that I buy into Soverign Graces/Boundless approach or versions of married life and motherhood but I sensed Mr Dobson wasn’t 100% aware or on board with some of what they had to say….
October 24, 2009 at 3:41 pm
LOL Karen! That was an unexpected and brilliant lyric to drop. And I am happy for the company.
Yes it was tres cool to be all Charlotte Mason, gingham-checked picnic tablecloth with real linens and home-made everything home school mom in the ’80s! I definitely remember the trend, even though it was not my style.
I read Charlotte Mason and all her gushing about fresh air and I thought, “Well of course in the early nineteenth century England people were dying of CO2 poisoning with gas lamps and coal heat! You had to go outside every day the weather was decent, and leave a window cracked at all times. But there’s nothing especially virtuous about it. Just common sense.”
The Charlotte Mason fans around me in hot sticky Florida didn’t seem to think that through. And just try to spread out a gingham picnic blanket on the grass in Florida! Fireants will eat you alive. South Texas too. LOL That didn’t stop the fashionable home school mom from trying, a la Karen Andreola!
October 25, 2009 at 7:47 am
HHHMMM, I don’t think this would be allowed in a regulated worship service but I thought you all might enjoy it.
I just love it when people send me the things they trip over while they are online!
October 25, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I don’ get it. Is this man taking up for Rich Lusk within a denominational dispute?
Rich Lusk is a federalist (which I had to look up-LOL!) and he wrote a book that I think is advocating infant baptism as a means of salvation? I’m not sure. I haven’t read the book.
I know a lot of PCA homeschoolers are into the covenant theology thing. I guess it really matters them that there is some guarantee on their kids salvation, although theologically they believe a person can lose their salvation.
So in the end, there are no guarantees. You might just not actually be one of the elect after all, surprise surprise.
October 26, 2009 at 8:39 am
Karen,
“For all those men who say, ‘Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Here’s an update for you. Nowadays 80% of women are against marriage. Why? Because women realize it’s not worth buying an entire pig just to get a little sausage!”
ROFLOL! I LOVED it.
October 26, 2009 at 11:25 am
LOL…. just a note, I have nothing against blue-kerchiefed geese, just all the baggage that went with them…. and their omnipresence, ad nauseum.
Given time, I might even come to appreciate those geese again, as part of a Beatrix-Potter-meets-1980s nostalgia trip, but for now, I’m happily into Delft windmills and blue roosters…
October 26, 2009 at 11:48 am
Ugh.. I remember those apron and bonnet-wearing geese. My Aunt had her kitchen full of the fake ones, and her yard full of the real ones! I didn’t like geese, they were loud and scary and tended to pick on me because I was small and easy to chase.
Bad memories for me, too, but of a slightly different kind, lol!
October 26, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Bean, that is too funny, because I think I was “emotionally scarred” by a goose when I was a little girl, too. My old Uncle Seamus lived way yonder in the hills and my folks always took food out there for them as his wife was sickly. They had a watch-goose instead of a watchdog and I was completely terrified of this animal, with good reason. It was completely mean, though and through, and I was always afraid to get out of the car. LOL – I am still not that crazy about geese, and we have such a proliferation now of the Canada geese that they’re everywhere!
That was not why I didn’t go for the concrete goose in various clothing, though. I just never was into the country thing that much.
October 26, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I always thought they were cute…
… in somebody else’s yard.
I never had the time or patience for them.
October 27, 2009 at 9:16 am
http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Feminist-Pirates-Thoughts-on-Children-s-Books-Housework-and-Biblical-Womanhood
Apparently the feminist-ish pirates were what made this book objectionable not the fact that they were PIRATES that steal, pillage, and plunder or that they were drunken and caroused. Really, where is the clear thinking? Men peeling potatoes, scrubbing floors, and shining shoes is the offensive part because that would make them more like women??????????
October 27, 2009 at 11:07 am
I’m sure the author’s intent was to break down the oh-so-clear and biblical barriers between manhood and womanhood, to blur the lines, to confuse young minds into thinking “Is that boy pirate a girl? He’s peeling potatoes, so he must be!” /sarcasm
Ridiculous. I bet if it were the other way around, if the boy pirates took over the girl pirates ship and made THEM wash the floors, etc etc, that would be fine. Because those unruly women would be put in their rightful place, under the men.
Just another reason for me to roll my eyes today.
October 27, 2009 at 11:18 am
That was an interesting review of the pirate woman book.
As I read, I kept thinking that I do not want my children to see peeling potatoes or scrubbing floors to be thought of in a negative light but really shouldn’t anything we do in our homes for others be a demonstration of serving one another? Why is it better to have one chore over another?
I also remembered that in the army, KP (kitchen patrol) is often used as punishment for infractions. (Not always, as every recruit takes turns peeling potatoes and scrubbing floors and latrines!)
October 27, 2009 at 11:23 am
Holly,
That is the most inane thing I have ever read. And your commentary on her book review is right on the mark. Yes, where is the outrage about raping, pillaging, drunken, carousing and plundering male pirates? The outrage is that female pirates take over the ship of the male pirates and make them shine shoes, peel potatoes and scrub floors and then she goes into how those are the things she is doing as the service of the “quiet, hidden service of women in the home”.
As if peeling potatoes, shining things and scrubbing floors are the work reserved for women? She has two sons, why isn’t she training them how to scrub floors, peel potatoes and shine things?
And, somehow these female pirates have morphed into “feminists”? It’s okay, I guess, for males to be pirates and rape and molest women and force others to do their work for them because being a pirate and oppressing others, especially women,is biblical manhood? But, may it never be that a bunch of fictional female pirates with Bertha at the helm oppress oppressors!
She then issues a prayer about catching worldly messages. I don’t think she really understands at all.
Biblical manhood/womanhood???? Thoughts on “housework”? Huh? CBMW is grasping for straws.
October 27, 2009 at 11:27 am
I had a HUGE revelation over the weekend.
I have been preparing to give two devotionals at a retreat for homeschooling moms in a couple weeks and have chosen this verse as the them for what I am doing:
“She opens her mouth with wisdom and the law of kindness is on her tongue.”
I began pulling out all the resources I have on my shelves on Proverbs 31 and doing some online digging as well. I was so disappointed to see so many commentaries and writers approach Proverbs 31 as instruction for women in how to behave to SO THAT their husbands can be “known in the gates when he sits among the elders in the land.” I don’t see where that is ever given as the reason. If I have missed that, someone please show it to me.
Amazingly, when I chucked all the commentaries and did my own word study on wisdom and kindness, I was blown away.
I am also not using the pink letter edition Bible.
October 27, 2009 at 11:30 am
Okay, the CBMW article is worse than I thought. Here is one of the reviews from Amazon:
“From School Library Journal
Kindergarten-Grade 2–Molly is sailing off to visit her grandmother when she is captured by ferocious Captain Firebeard and his cutthroat crew. Their intention is to hold her for ransom, but the stalwart girl refuses to divulge her parents’ names and address despite endless chores and threats of being fed to the sharks. Instead, she waits until the pirates fall asleep and tosses messages tucked into bottles out to sea. Caught in the act, she is about to be thrown overboard when rescue arrives in the person of her mother, the pirate Barbarous Bertha. Firebeard and his crew must now take over Molly’s chores, and she sails happily off to Grandma’s house. ”
So, this woman isn’t outraged that a bunch of ruffians kidnapped this little girl and forced her to do endless chores and threatened her with death. It is only when she is rescued by her grandma, Bertha, and Grandma gives them their comeuppance for torturing her grand-daughter does this woman have a problem?
So, the message from CBMW is that it is wrong for Grandmas to deal out punishments to nasty male pirates because peeling potatoes, scrubbing floors and polishing shoes are women’s work? It was okay when her grand-daughter was being treated thus by a bunch of males but when Grandma comes and gives her grand-daughter’s captors a taste of their own medicine it is bad?
Laughable.
October 27, 2009 at 11:33 am
I guess this woman didn’t have a problem with all the talk about on the part of the males about partying and drinking rum and the “worldly message” it sends to her boys?
This article is so out in left field it is unbelievable. There are so many messages in this book but one that I would not get out of it would be that men should not do housework.
October 27, 2009 at 11:36 am
Just wait until she reads this same author’s book, The Princess Knight. She will come undone.
October 27, 2009 at 11:39 am
Karen,
And if the CBMW author would have actually read the book instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to her own pet “sin” of feminism, she would have seen that Grandma Bertha was punishing the pirates by giving them a taste of their own medicine. She was not punishing them with housework only reserved for that of hidden females. She was punishing them by making them do the SAME thing that they did to her own granddaughter.
Why isn’t she outraged that these men kidnapped this little girl and made her a slave? Why isn’t she outraged about the drinking, carousing and partying and the using of females of these male pirates as it is depicted in this book? This happens MUCH more in this world than Grandma Berthas taking over pirate ships and making male pirates do the work of females! LOL
October 27, 2009 at 11:59 am
Corrie, Corrie, Corrie,
You are forgetting. Those pirates NEEDED the attention of a younger woman so they HAD to kidnap a little girl.
October 27, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Makes me wanna go out and buy the book to read to my daughters.
Too bad they are a little old for stories like that.
I am trying to teach them (my daughters) how the world is so hard on women in so many cultures and how God doesn’t approve the bad treatment of women. And that there are places (few, but more than two) where God calls on the women to do something about the oppressed poor. That some spoiled, rich, women are actually under God’s judgement because they turn a deaf ear to the cries of the poor and oppressed.
And I don’t think, “my husband says I can’t” is an excuse that would hold water with God.
His answer might look like, “So in other words, your husband was and idol you had and worshipped over Me.” Just guessing on that one. But it’s more of a result of me trying to work out my salvation in fear and trembling and relearning that I’m responsible for my own actions and inaction, not my husband, not matter how the patrios rage.
October 27, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Karen,
Thanks for setting me straight!
I say that we form a “Grandma Bertha” club that sends a message to men who want to kidnap our granddaughters that they had better not mess with our granddaughters (or daughters, for that matter) or they will be messing with “Grandma Bertha”.
I think THAT is the message, if I were Kim Schmidt/CBMW, I would want my sons to get out of that book.
But, the author of that book review somehow skipped over that very important message being conveyed to her sons and was upset that very BAD MEN were being punished for kidnapping a little girl and forcing her to be a slave. After all, I am sure that CBMW reasons that this little girl should have been happy to serve those men in the role that God has ordained for her, doing the housework of a “hidden woman” and considering it all joy when she is oppressed and abused and suffering as a victim of drunken pirates/criminals.
If I was Grandma Bertha, I may have strung those pirates up by their important bits to teach them a lesson but then it would not be a children’s book of fiction.
The message that CBMW is sending loud and clear by posting this review is that they really don’t care about the oppression of women and that the really important thing is that BAD, BAD MEN are never to stoop so low as to peel potatoes and scrub the decks of pirate ships as punishment for their crimes. After all, CBMW seems to be saying that men will be men and being a pirate is a man’s role and that Grandma Bertha and her gaggle of feminists are trying to be like men when they take on the role of pirate. How dare she punish BAD, BAD CRIMINALS with the hidden work of a housewife (in other words, Grandma Bertha gave them a taste of their own medicine and forced them to do what they forced her granddaughter to do).
If CBMW is so far gone as to not see that this is what the book is about and it is not about women’s roles and women’s housework then I don’t know what else to say.
And, as I type all of this I am laughing because the whole thing is just so stupid, I can’t believe it was even posted on their site.
CBMW has lost a LOT of credibility with this one and I don’t think I can trust them to represent another work of child’s fiction much less trust them to deliver the truth of God’s word, esp. when it relates to men and women.
They are also the ones who posted an article about how we are married in heaven and that females are in eternal submission to their earthly husbands. If it sounds like Mormon theology, it is but that doesn’t stop CBMW from wanting to ignore what the Scriptures actually say and stop them from keeping the men first and the women last in their war against the female gender.
October 27, 2009 at 2:03 pm
“I am trying to teach them (my daughters) how the world is so hard on women in so many cultures and how God doesn’t approve the bad treatment of women. And that there are places (few, but more than two) where God calls on the women to do something about the oppressed poor. That some spoiled, rich, women are actually under God’s judgement because they turn a deaf ear to the cries of the poor and oppressed.”
Mara,
Exactly!
And I will not shrink back when I see the oppressed needing to be delivered from their oppressors. Just because I am a woman does not mean that I am exempt from God’s word telling us that we are to deliver those who are being oppressed. That is NOT only men’s work.
Real women don’t need smelling salts!
October 27, 2009 at 2:15 pm
“It’s the story of the fierce pirates of the Horrible Haddock. All are men, given to drunkenness and carousing. They get overtaken by Barbarous Bertha and her band of all women pirates. Bertha and her crew conquer the men and sentence them to a life of scrubbing decks, peeling vegetables, and polishing Bertha’s shoes.
I explained to my two young sons, “This book does not please God. It’s trying to teach us that women should be more like men and men should be more like women. But God teaches us that He made men and women different, and that’s a good thing.”"
Let’s just examine what Schmidt said on CBMW about this child’s fiction book.
It’s trying to teach us that women should be more like men…….
Okay. How is this book doing this? That men are the ones fit to be drunken and carousing pirates and that this is a man’s role? And this is a good thing?
This book does not please God…..
Because, according to her, women want to usurp a role that is rightfully reserved for men. (In this book it is that of being a pirate, that is what SHE is saying.)
This is so warped and it shows me that patriocentricity clouds the view of the REAL issues so much so that they cannot see the forest for the trees. The little girl is delivered from her captors and the criminals are punished but this book is not pleasing to God.
Hmmmm….we should be very alarmed for the true victims in the patriocentric movement when we have people like this making out the heroes to be the bad people and the truly bad people to be the oppressed victims.
October 27, 2009 at 2:25 pm
One more thing and then I will go back to my hidden work…
Karen, I guess this makes the supervising male officers in the Army and the Navy feminists because they use peeling potatoes, scrubbing latrines and swabbing the poop deck as punishment for underlings?
These MALE officers are sending their feminist message that woman’s work is punishment, right?
Also, I thought that Paul Newman looked mighty manly in “Cool Hand Luke” as he peeled potatoes but now that we have been enlightened with the wisdom from on high (CBMW), it was all a feminist plot to send the message that woman’s work is a punishment.
I think CBMW should just come up with a list of acceptable chores – one for males and one for females so we can all make sure that we are walking accordingly in our gender-assigned roles. I am sure that these lists are in the Bible somewhere?
Did Esau peel his own potatoes when he prepared meat for his father? Did Jesus have a woman throw the fish on the fire when He made breakfast for His disciples?
Why didn’t Jesus rebuke Mary for not doing the hidden work that belongs to every female? Why wasn’t Martha praised for doing what she was born to do…hidden away in the kitchen doing the woman’s work while the men did their (out in the open?) work?
And what does this word “hidden woman” mean and where does it come from? I hear it all the time amongst patriocentrists and I have no idea where it comes from?
I wonder if that makes Lady Wisdom bad for not staying hidden and for wandering out into the town’s square crying with a loud voice and teaching the simpletons about wisdom? Why was wisdom personified as a woman if women are to be hidden? That makes no sense.
October 27, 2009 at 2:34 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/magazine/23Women-t.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1
Light,
This is an excellent site! Thank you for posting it.
Reading some of the things on that site should open our eyes to the REAL issues facing our world!
I am so sick of listening to the patrios rage on and on about feminists when these sorts of things are going on all over the world and they have been for centuries! Where is their outrage over what so many women have suffered and are suffering right now?
If we are not careful, the patrios will marginalize women to the point that we are just like these other countries where oppression and marginalization of women and the paltry eduction of girls cause chaos and every evil thing to run unfettered.
October 27, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Hidden woman to me sounds like a figurative burka. Why must women be hidden?
And may I say, I love doing laundry for my family. It’s hidden in the basement. I’ve got all the tools. I’ve got the primo washer and dryer set up. I love it. I love looking at my kids’ clothes and remembering how they got mud on them at the pumpkin patch or how they hugged me while wearing this or that article of clothing. I save special things in a little box to remember the cuteness someday.
It’s NOT punishment to do work. It’s the attitude. It’s not beneath me. It’s not beneath my husband. He puts ALL, I mean ALL the laundry away. He’s got a military precision about it, that cracks me up.
Families work together. Families do menial labor because it’s great to have clean clothes to wear and delicious food to share.
I feel SO MUCH BETTER about housework since I’ve transitioned to more egal then comp. Now I do it out of love not obligation.
I wish I could tell this young mom that. She really needs to hear it and to chill out a little. She’d be a lot happier, I bet.
October 27, 2009 at 3:33 pm
If it’s “hidden service” then why is she talking about it? Kind of negates the whole “quiet, hidden” aspect.
I’m fascinated by the attitude of “Let me tell you all about how I don’t want to draw attention to myself.”
October 27, 2009 at 5:28 pm
“I am so sick of listening to the patrios rage on and on about feminists when these sorts of things are going on all over the world and they have been for centuries! Where is their outrage over what so many women have suffered and are suffering right now?”
Corrie, you’re missing the point… women all over the world wouldn’t suffer if only they would submit joyfully to their men at all times and in all circumstances. Sure, the men could be kinder, you know, love them as Christ loved the church… but in the end, if they mistreat their wives, it’s because they aren’t being respected enough.
October 27, 2009 at 5:52 pm
“Families work together. Families do menial labor because it’s great to have clean clothes to wear and delicious food to share.”
Exactly!
October 27, 2009 at 6:38 pm
” women all over the world wouldn’t suffer if only they would submit joyfully to their men at all times and in all circumstances. Sure, the men could be kinder, you know, love them as Christ loved the church… but in the end, if they mistreat their wives, it’s because they aren’t being respected enough.”
Bean, I almost don’t know what to say or how to say it. The more abusive a man is, the more he wants and demands submission to his wishes. The more he gets the more he wants. This is not the description of Biblical submission which is for all believers. Biblical submission for all believers (including those married and those not) is an attitude of arranging oneself under another in order to lift them up. It is not about what the other wants or demands. Biblical submission gives into the lives of others not for selfish gain, but for the benefit of the other, what God gives us to give.
Men who mistreat their wives cannot blame their sinful actions on their victims, although they would like to. It is their own fault and no others. If anything, the more a woman submits to a willfully abusive man whether in actions, words or treatment, the more the man will mistreat her. A fool will not be corrected by words or getting his way. He must be released to God for judgment.
October 27, 2009 at 7:00 pm
“Corrie, Corrie, Corrie,
You are forgetting. Those pirates NEEDED the attention of a younger woman so they HAD to kidnap a little girl.”
ROFLOL… Karen, you crack me up!
October 27, 2009 at 7:03 pm
“Hidden woman to me sounds like a figurative burka. Why must women be hidden?”
Holly, I hope you stick around! I like the way you think.
And I have to second the rest of your comment. It’s been my thoughts exactly. It’s so good I had to post it again:
“And may I say, I love doing laundry for my family. It’s hidden in the basement. I’ve got all the tools. I’ve got the primo washer and dryer set up. I love it. I love looking at my kids’ clothes and remembering how they got mud on them at the pumpkin patch or how they hugged me while wearing this or that article of clothing. I save special things in a little box to remember the cuteness someday.
It’s NOT punishment to do work. It’s the attitude. It’s not beneath me. It’s not beneath my husband. He puts ALL, I mean ALL the laundry away. He’s got a military precision about it, that cracks me up.
Families work together. Families do menial labor because it’s great to have clean clothes to wear and delicious food to share.
I feel SO MUCH BETTER about housework since I’ve transitioned to more egal then comp. Now I do it out of love not obligation.
I wish I could tell this young mom that. She really needs to hear it and to chill out a little. She’d be a lot happier, I bet.”
October 27, 2009 at 7:21 pm
“Holly, I hope you stick around! I like the way you think.”
Thank you! I read all the time, but I never post (obviously). I might come here more often now that another blog I followed went offline.
It looks like you have a lot of fun here!
October 27, 2009 at 7:41 pm
TL… I was being completely sarcastic. I thought my comment was ridiculous enough that everyone would get that. Sorry if I seemed to be sincere… it wasn’t at all!
October 27, 2009 at 7:48 pm
“TL… I was being completely sarcastic. I thought my comment was ridiculous enough that everyone would get that. Sorry if I seemed to be sincere… it wasn’t at all!”
Thank goodness!!
I felt so sorry that anyone would actually believe that. LOL
October 28, 2009 at 8:54 am
Bean wrote:
“Corrie, you’re missing the point… women all over the world wouldn’t suffer if only they would submit joyfully to their men at all times and in all circumstances. Sure, the men could be kinder, you know, love them as Christ loved the church… but in the end, if they mistreat their wives, it’s because they aren’t being respected enough.”
Well don’t stop being sad TL because people actually DO BELIEVE that! People in authority in churches teach exactly that to abused women. Don’t ask me how I know, but I assure it happens exactly that way. That is THE explanation for why your husband has not yet been won over to obedience for Christ by your quiet, gentle spirit.
Yep, the woman ain’t doing it right. People seriously use that scripture to spiritually abuse women who go to the church for help in an abusive relationship.
Heck, non-Christians do it too (but he seems like such a nice guy! are you sure you didn’t provoke him?) but it’s far far worse when people use scripture to back them up.
They are using God’s holy name in vain is a BIG WAY, when they attach God to their hard hearted love of doctrine that trumps justice or mercy.
October 28, 2009 at 9:07 am
“I’m fascinated by the attitude of “Let me tell you all about how I don’t want to draw attention to myself.””
Emr,
LOL!
Holly,
Re: #125, I echo what Alisa said to you. You stated it beautifully! I think it is great when families have this sort of work ethic and they look at the tasks to be done around the house as a team sort of thing. Also, when a family works together it makes the work much easier to do. When it is all one one person’s back (the “hidden woman” at home), it is a daunting task, especially the more children that woman has. I am trying to teach this to my children so they are truly a blessing to their spouses when/if they get married. I often said, about myself, that working full-time as a single mother was far more easier and restful for me than it is being a full-time stay at home mom of 10 who has 99% of household tasks resting squarely on her shoulders (that includes mowing the lawn and a lot of other things not deemed woman’s work). I start early in the morning and don’t finish all of the jobs that need to be done until late into the night when everyone has been in bed for hours.
I, too, see no work beneath me. I do what needs to be done when it needs to be done for the benefit of my family. I do what needs to be done anywhere I am for the benefit of others. I also take great pride in my work whether it be scrubbing toilets, folding laundry, ironing, painting or whatever.
But, I think your point about it being a team effort is very important, emotionally, for the health of the family.
October 28, 2009 at 9:21 am
Bean and Shadowspring,
You are exactly right that these things are taught.
In fact, I can’t get over the irony that the woman needs to basically make her husband the leader “God meant him to be” and if he isn’t (ie., respected in the gates, etc) then it is because she isn’t doing something right. Vision Forum even has tapes that teach women how to make their husbands godly leaders.
My question is this: Who really is the leader according to this sentiment? It is the woman.
If a person is not a great leader they can’t blame the underlings for that problem. I happen to believe that not all men are naturally born to lead. I think that true leaders have special gifts/talents that they are born with and that they develop over a period of time. But, since the patrio paradigm doesn’t allow for all members of the body of Christ to exercise their gifts/talents and lead/guide in the areas that they are most strong in, they have to make all sorts of gyrations to prop up the man as the “leader” by putting pressure and responsibility on the woman to make him that leader he is supposed to be.
A leader decides he/she wants to be a leader and then does puts their mind to being that leader. It is all about a person’s will, doing what needs to be done as far as educating one’s self and training one’s self and then practicing what one learns.
Sometimes I feel like the patrios want us to prop up our husbands like Richard and Larry tried to prop up their dead boss and make it look like he was still alive, in “Weekend at Bernies”. Some women have to pretend that their husbands are leaders all the while doing all the work but making it look as if their husbands are leading.
October 28, 2009 at 9:45 am
Corrie, this is exactly what they do with Proverbs 31, turning it into commands in order for husbands to be viewed as leaders.
October 28, 2009 at 9:54 am
What kind of men are these that they must be propped up in such artificial ways?
Seriously – I would have rather remained single than to be yoked with one of these types. I thank God for *real* men, like the one He gave to me, who doesn’t need his ego stroked constantly or for me to pretend I am way dumber than he is to prop up his fragile male ego. If our sons turn out to be half the man their father is in this respect, it will be something good.
October 28, 2009 at 10:32 am
TL, sorry for not warning you about the quirky and fully entertaining sense of humor around here when I told you about this thread.
I take it for granted sometimes.
And shadowspring, don’t worry, my friend TL knows what you are talking about.
October 28, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“What kind of men are these that they must be propped up in such artificial ways?”
Savannah, aren’t those called “dummies?”
October 28, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I feel sorry for those men being manipulated by their wives to be something they are not.
I once had a woman break an important commitment to our home school group and totally claim she was righteous for patrios sake. Her husband needed the car, therefore she was free -no, obligated- to break her word and skip out on her work. She said her husband needed the car to go to a Promise Keeper’s meeting.
Please tell me I am not the only one to see the irony in that?
Well, as president I took over her task, even though I was very sick, made sure that her obligations were met because other people were depending on us as an organization. But I also told her that it was unacceptable to bow out at the last minute without making some other arrangements to keep her word. (Mind you if it had been an emergency that would be different, but I don’t think they hold emergency Promise Keeper’s meetings.
A few days later I received a letter with no return address. Hmmmm. I can’t stand hate mail so I asked my hubby to read it for me and summarize in a sentence or two. “So and so’s husband hates you and will not allow his wife to be part of the organization as long as you are president.”
Anyone but me strongly suspicious that his wife made him a) go to Promise Keepers and b) write that letter? LOL
Poor guys. Why do women do these things to them?
October 28, 2009 at 1:29 pm
“A few days later I received a letter with no return address. Hmmmm. I can’t stand hate mail so I asked my hubby to read it for me and summarize in a sentence or two. “So and so’s husband hates you and will not allow his wife to be part of the organization as long as you are president.”
Apparently, neither of them had read the Bible lately. That sort of attitude is totally unacceptable. Often in patriarchal households the Bible is seldom read. When it is read the husband chooses what is read and what it means. Thus for all practical purposes they really don’t have a grasp of the whole of Scripture.
October 28, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I don’t know, in this family I believe that mom was pushing the whole patrio thing, trying to become the perfect Christian family.
Hubby never came off as the sort of person to write hate mail in our earlier meetings. I think wifey was behind the whole thing, under cover of “submission to her head” of course.
October 28, 2009 at 2:54 pm
It is interesting how a woman can get into the “submission to her head” idea, yet really be the neck to “turn the head”.
October 28, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Shadowspring, that is so odd, because I had a situation where supposedly the husband had told the wife to meet with me and “break up” with me – LOL. I honestly don’t know to this day who was behind it – him or her.
I didn’t really know the woman all that well, but we were in several church groups together and we had gotten together socially a number of times. Apparently, she (or her husband) did not approve of the fact that I made decisions without consulting my husband about things that she supposedly had to consult her husband about (silly things such as which furniture polish to use – I wish I was joking, but that’s the example I was given by her).
Anyway, she called me up and invited me to meet her for frozen yogurt and I happily agreed and while we were sitting there enjoying our frozen confection she told me that her husband “was allowing” her to meet with me this one last time to tell me that I was not a good influence on her and that she would no longer be allowed to see me socially. It would have been funny had it not been really sad.
So I got dumped by this woman who considered herself so much more spiritual than I was because I made basic household decisions *all* *by* *myself*.
Jezebel!
October 28, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Yep. I got dumped like that. Only the poor lady had to call me to tell me she could no longer communicate with me, as her husband thought I did not have a meek and quiet spirit and was a bad influence.
Thing is, we had homechurched together for two years til her husband was tragically killed in an accident. We helped them through that, and she remarried. The new guy was an old bachelor with weird ideas:
I gave her some blush and a lipstick before the wedding. also, my favorite nail polish (she had NO manicure. I was just trying to help) She told me later he was incredulous, saying “You DISOBEYED me! I told you I didn’t like makeup, and you disobeyed me!!” gulp.
October 28, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I love that the Bible says an excellent wife is the CROWN of her husband. Doesn’t a crown sit on TOP of a head? And has no other purpose than to adorn, signify significance, and be a thing of richness and beauty to behold and treasure? Many singular scriptures are taken from Proverbs; why not this one?
Joking aside, if everyone would JUST LOVE, I don’t think this would be such a hot debate. (I don’t mean this forum, just the issues in general.) There wouldn’t be a battle over who does what–everyone looks out for the well-bring of others, and does what needs to be done. Just love.
October 28, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Yes, Hillary. What if the church taught on true spiritual unity, that we would be one as Jesus and the Father are one, being like-minded, loving with the same love, having the same spirit of faith, in humility considering one another above ourselves…I am sure that is what Christian marriage really should be all about.
A man as a head, a SOURCE: of courage, comfort, humility, service, faith and a wife as a CROWN, an adornment of beauty, her well-loved countenance a testimony to all of her husband’s true spiritual “authority”- that he is taking authority over all the power of the enemy, crucifying his flesh and rejoicing that his name is written in heaven.
Dreamy…*sigh*
October 28, 2009 at 7:07 pm
http://amish-online-dating.com/
October 29, 2009 at 12:07 am
I thought the Amish didn’t have electricity, much less computers or even the internet… ??? Shows what I know.
October 29, 2009 at 7:39 am
Alisa, I think the Rasmussen brothers are probably out back peddling as fast as they can to keep their generator operating!
October 29, 2009 at 7:41 am
Savannah,
I could relate to your “break up” story.
I can remember years and years ago a man who didn’t want his wife to hang out with me because he thought I was “always pregnant” and a homeschooler and he didn’t want his wife to get any of those bad ideas.
Then, more recently, I was labeled as having “latent feminist tendencies,” another reason to steer clear of me. It seems I can’t win.
October 29, 2009 at 7:45 am
momgodin, this whole spin that is put on the “meek and quiet spirit” admonishment drivers me nuts. I know plenty of women who are reserved in demeanor who are not meek and quiet in their spirits yet they are “approved.” I used to struggle with this notion all the time since I am naturally gregarious and outgoing and friendly. And since I have this fierce radar that goes off when I see injustice. It wasn’t until I realized that God has given me the personality He chose for me that I was able to be quiet in my spirit. Big difference than being outwardly quiet and sometimes sniffely.
October 29, 2009 at 10:56 am
Karen,
I totally agree with the “meek and quiet” stuff. I was on a mission trip for young adults, and I was constantly being upbraided for some defect or another. Only one time was it accurate (ouch) but most of the other accusations were just ridiculous and I was always able to defend myself scripturally and honestly. This is because I love God’s Word and study it regularly and I love God and seek Him in prayer and personal worship regularly.
On the other hand, there was another young missionary who was immoral, unethical, lukewarm in her faith- but quiet. She was never once called on the carpet for anything as far as I know, because she was quiet. This was seen as godliness, when that girl was guilty of unrepentant immorality on a scale that would make a Hollywood movie star slap her face.
Quiet= holy Exuberant and outgoing= rebellious
October 29, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I’ve noticed that being intellectually curious can also be equated with the lack of a meek, quiet spirit.
October 29, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I guess they translate meek and quiet to mean passively silent, sort of like the old English butler who stands still in a corner of the room until called upon for an act of service.
October 29, 2009 at 1:30 pm
And yet whom does the Bible describe as “very meek, above all the men which were on the face of the earth”? (Numbers 12:3)
Moses — not someone I would describe as passive, or silent, or weak.
I have a note in my Bible by Matthew 5:5 (“Blessed are the meek”)that meekness is “putting my will under God’s control.” That does not equal powerless or passive!
October 29, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Yes, yes, yes, emr! Great point.
If Moses is the example of meekness personified, then meekness could never mean passive, silent or weak.
October 29, 2009 at 1:41 pm
“So I got dumped by this woman who considered herself so much more spiritual than I was because I made basic household decisions *all* *by* *myself*.
Jezebel!”
Savannah,
LOL!
That story is all too familiar.
It sounds as if your friend was not a Proverbs 31 woman at all. After all, the Proverbs 31 woman considered a field and bought it.
Your friend couldn’t even go to the store and consider a furniture polish and buy it without getting permission from her husband.
October 29, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Internet Monk has an interesting post on marital abuse which is followed up by a very interesting discussion:
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/when-bad-people-need-a-crutch#more-4901
October 29, 2009 at 1:54 pm
“Anyone but me strongly suspicious that his wife made him a) go to Promise Keepers and b) write that letter? LOL”
Or (c) she wrote the letter herself and signed his name to it.
This is the way that many patriocentric wives act.
I have had women tell me that their husbands didn’t want them to do something and then when I spoke to their husbands about it (as in, I told the husband that I missed their wife at a certain event), they told me that they had no idea that their wife wanted to do that thing and that they wished they would have known about it because they would have encouraged her to go.
They use their husbands to hide behind in order to say “no” instead of being a grown adult and saying “no” or “yes” all on their own adult authority. So, they make their husbands look like a big ogre when he really isn’t.
October 29, 2009 at 3:27 pm
You ladies might find this interesting
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/2009/10/28/D9BKDLC01_us_polygamist_trial
Some of the headlines on the side are a bit adult, just so you know.
October 30, 2009 at 10:10 am
Annie,
Interesting article. Makes my skin crawl just to think about the setup these men have and how they have orchestrated a religion in order to satisfy their own flesh, egos and lusts for power and perversion.
“A 38-year-old man from a polygamist sect sexually assaulted a teenager less than half his age at the Yearning For Zion Ranch, a prosecutor charged Wednesday to open the first criminal trial since the ranch was raided.”
Or, better called “Yearning For the Attentions of Younger Women Ranch”.
October 30, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Have finally caught up on the last comments after being away–lots to go through! Very interesting, and I loved TL’s comment about the neck to turn the head. Karen, the picture of the Rasmussen bros. pedaling furiously to keep the generator going was great–glad I wasn’t eating or drinking, or I would have spewed…
October 30, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Coming out of lurking to ask a quick question!
A lady at church recently suggested the book Captivating by Eldredge. I was thinking that somebody had commented on TW about this book but I can’t seem to remember what was said…Do any of you have a reccomendation for or against this book?
October 30, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Hey, y’all, look at this:
http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7231
I don’t think he likes us very much…
….though I’m not sure I’d WANT to be liked by a “Thulean Alchemist” with a handle like “Faust”.
October 31, 2009 at 10:17 am
Wow, cynthia, I didn’t know such open hatred of women existed on the net. I will not ask God to have mercy on their souls but will instead pray for His divine justice to be evident to all.
I am quite sure you DON’T want to be liked by anyone who chooses Faust for a handle! LOL
An openly wicked man trying to pass his arrogant, hateful attitudes off as righteous? That is so transparently ludicrous it deserves no further comment from me.
By the way, I have never read that you hated home schoolers. I feel pretty sure we would be friends IRL if we lived in the same place. And thatmom is WAY into homeschooling. Methinks this “man” is not that smart…
October 31, 2009 at 10:20 am
Ooh, he’s OPENLY wicked, racist and into witchcraft! (Thulean link)
No wonder he’s full of hate. Explains a lot.
October 31, 2009 at 10:27 am
I have not read Captivating, but I have read Eldredge’s book Wild at Heart and loved it. I am know not sure if I was supposed to have read it/loved it or not-LOL. Perhaps it was only meant for men?
I stay away from all Christian books written for woman only, ever since cracking up laughing at some Elizabeth Elliot book in the ’80s. She was going on in the book about how there were no female chess grandmasters because women just weren’t as smart as men in that way.
My husband is really into chess. The month I read this book Judit Polgar, homeschool prodigy from Eastern Europe, had just achieved grandmaster status in the world chess community.
Both my husband and i had a great laugh over that book! Later an earnest friend of mine watched her DVD series, wanting so hard to be godly woman. When she got to the part about keeping your family’s clothes drawers organized as a measure of your holiness, even my sincerely earnest young friend cracked up laughing.
I am so glad to be a woman today! I am so glad I wasn’t born even ten, much less twenty years earlier! I love being who I am, who God made me to be. I would hate to live in a world where my value and worth as a Christian wife and mother is measured by my family’s clothers drawers!
October 31, 2009 at 10:28 am
*her DVD series* meaning Elizabeth Elliot
October 31, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I loved Wild at Heart too.
And I know several other women who have read it and loved it and felt God talking to them about being more ‘wild and free’** in Christ.
No, I’m not sure we were the ones that were supposed to get that message. But God sent it to us through that book anyway.
**(the term ‘free’ in so many Christian circles has just completely lost it’s meaning, especially to women.)
October 31, 2009 at 6:13 pm
In post #155, I posted a link to what I thought was an interesting discussion on the reactions in Chistendom to abuse in marriage on Michael Spencer’s (the Internet Monk) website.
I discovered this afternoon that the Brothers Bayly have some very strong thoughts on Monk’s post:
http://www.baylyblog.com/2009/10/the-dangers-of-insomnia.html
Of course, all of the problems are either because the original commenter is lying and/or egalitarian, according to these. . .uh. . . “men”.
October 31, 2009 at 9:05 pm
http://songoffaith.com/mp3s/Albums/OnlyLoveIsSpokenHere/OLISH_Pants_DonFrancisco.mp3
A smile for everyone…
November 1, 2009 at 12:22 am
I just read that Bayly Blog article. I’m going to go see how many creative combination of four letter words I can create over one cup of tea. But out of respect I’ll go do that out of hearing range.
November 1, 2009 at 4:32 pm
“Ask an Egalitarian and I’ll bet you’ll find a tale of some sort of past abuse. Go ahead, try it.”
Okay, I was never abused. Next!
November 1, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Me either, Momgodin. In fact, 10 years ago I would have insisted I was a complementarian … until I read Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood so that I would be able to explain why. That pro-comp tome actually changed my mind, because the logic was so faulty, the eisegesis rampant, that I realized it was all built on a house of cards.
November 1, 2009 at 6:19 pm
No abuse here. It just didn’t quite make sense.
I wouldn’t say I’m a particularly strong egal, I’m sort of out of the comp camp, and dipping my toe in the egal camp. I think there are some good points made in compism about the distinct complementary features of the sexes, but I completely disagree with how the sexes are put into tiny boxes (male=leader, female=follower). Also, I totally support female pastors, so that excludes me from the comp camp.
Annie C #169
Can I join you over that cup of tea?
Maybe after we are done creating four letter word combinations we can have an intelligent conversation and restore each other’s faith in humanity?
November 1, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Maybe (probably) this is just pride on my part, but I don’t understand why I need some teacher/preacher to tell me how to be a Christian woman. I can read the Bible, I have the Holy Spirit, I am married to a loving godly husband whom I trust and respect. I don’t really see how this is anybody else’s business.
November 2, 2009 at 7:58 am
Whether or not someone has been abused actually has little to do with their understanding of Scripture. There are plenty of abused people who are still patriarchal in belief system.
November 2, 2009 at 8:05 am
shadowspring,
I had a light bulb moment reading your thoughts about Elizabeth Eliott. Can you give me the names of the resources where she talks about a woman’s godliness being measured by the tidiness of the clothing drawers?
The reason I ask is because I remember when I heard this concept about 20 years ago from Bill Gothard. He has sent out a newsletter and it highlighted the McKim family,who had 14 or 15 children. They had hosted a delegation from Russia who came to their home. Gothard talked about how impressed the Russians were because they could open any drawer in the McKim household and it was spotless.
That was the beginning of my escape from patriocentricity. It really was. I was just trying to keep my head above water, homeschooling six kids, one of them with learning disabilities and a “holy terror” on some days. Both of my parents had had strokes and couldn’t drive so we had to completely shift our schedules around to meet their needs, eventually taking my mom into our home when my dad died. In the meantime, Clay’s parents both had major health issues and we were traveling back and forth to Michigan, 8 hours away from us) to help them, too. AND, our church situation was awful. My daughter had 50 piano students coming into our home every week for lessons and I was trying to get three kids prepared for college.
And this guy wanted my sock drawers to be spotless? Gothard was a huge fan of EE and I imagine that is where that all came from. Anyway, I can now look back and be thankful that the Lord used that one statement to wake me up!
Any resources for that quote would be great. I have been wanting to write about this on thatmom.
November 2, 2009 at 8:15 am
Speaking of Elisabeth Elliot, a few months ago I read an interesting and irritating devotional from her.
She was telling a story about staying with a family she had never met while she was speaking at their church.Not preaching, I am sure!
Anyway, she went to great lengths to talk about the perfection in this household, the perfectly clean home, the perfectly behaved children, etc. etc. etc.
I felt ill reading this. And then, she went on to say that anyone who wants a household just like that one could have it. You just have to make it happen. It was all within your power as the wife and mom to see that it did.
First of all, I would not want a perfect household, as per her standards. A household with absolutely every single thing spotless and perfect means that no one can feel at home there.
But more than that, why would she lay such a trip on mothers? I honestly don’t think I am a lazy person, but at the end of the day my home would never be as she described. I am a sinner and everyone in my family is a sinner. We argue. We make messes and leave them for other people to clean up after and we have to remind each other to change that. My laundry is NEVER done. Sometimes we eat fast food. I sometimes use cream of mushroom soup instead of always making my own white sauce. I don’t always iron and even put a shirt in the dryer with a damp cloth for 10 minutes to get the wrinkles out (works great!) We read the Bible as a family 4-5 nights a week but it isn’t morning and night every day as she says it must be.
What I want to know is why women allow these sorts of trips to be put on them? Why? It breaks my heart to think of all those young moms who are struggling, just trying to do the basics of life and then they hear how the standard of measure for their godliness is this nonsense! This was at the core of my total disdain for the Passionate Housewives book. It was a book chalk full of platitudes and impossible standards masquerading as Biblical womanhood.
Rant over.
November 2, 2009 at 8:19 am
One more thing…
This weekend is our annual homeschooling mom’s day of encouragement and I would ask you all to pray for the moms who are coming. I want to see them built up in the faith and encouraged. My presentation is on wisdom and kindness, how they go hand in hand. Please pray that I can inspire them with the Word.
Thanks.
November 2, 2009 at 10:45 am
Karen,
I am not sure how I would find that old friend. I can remember her first name but not her last. I will work on it though.
November 2, 2009 at 10:59 am
I am combing through Focus on the Family offerings but I can’t find any video series by EE. Hmmm. Wonder if it was a weekly series or something? It would have been in the second half of the ’90s.
On the other hand, it’s very likely the book I read explaining why women would never be chess grandmasters was probably Let Me Be A Woman. It was published in 1976 and I would have been reading it in 1988.
November 2, 2009 at 11:02 am
The video series was probably “A Peaceful Home”
http://www.elisabethelliot.org/Book-Video-orderform.pdf
Yes, I am quite sure that would be the one.
November 2, 2009 at 11:03 am
Thatmom, thank you for your rant!!!! Now here comes mine:
If every woman would just reject this attempt to place them under man-made law, these people would cease to have a voice. Elisabeth Elliott or any of these people have no say over how my home should be run. As emr said, it is NOT THEIR BUSINESS! If someone approaches her or any of the rest of them for organizational assistance, then they should feel free to share their “wisdom”. Otherwise, they should shut their yaps!
This subject really gets me worked up. Not because I am a bad housekeeper, but because I find it extremely offensive that people would try to lay this guilt trip on others. What gives them the right??? Does scripture give us specifications for sock drawers? For impressing the Russians? Really? Is that what our faith is about?
Honestly, this insidious message needs to be REJECTED!
Most moms (and dads) I know are doing the best they can. Some days go well, and some days do not go so well. That is called “life”.
When my boys were little (three of them, including a set of twins), there were days when the laundry was folded and the storm doors were free of fingerprints, and the dinner was on the table at 5:30.
And then there were the other days, such as when one child scaled a basketball pole, stood on the rim of the basket for a couple of seconds, and then JUMPED OFF, necessitating a trip to the ER for six stitches in his chin (which, being that was all that was wrong with him, we considered a gift of God’s grace).
Or when one brother shaved a big strip of hair off of another brother during nap time.
Or when the 2-year-old twins removed their diapers during a still-famous naptime and “raked” the number two contents into the carpeting with a plastic toy rake and hoe (hey, they had just had a birthday and these were gifts from a friend who gardens – what can I say?)
Or when the car broke down, or the dishwasher leaked suds all over creation, or a mystery incident by an invisible fourth child left a big ink stain in the middle of the couch. And sometimes those things happened all in one day.
And that was called a pizza night in our house.
If you are a mom of young children – please, as someone who has been there, I implore you: give yourself a break. Your child will not necessarily remember all of your hard work in getting sock drawers just right and gourmet meals on the table (trust me on this – mine don’t have much recollection of these very real efforts on my part when they were growing up). What your child will remember is the time you took to read to them, to play with them, to make cookies with them even though it was a recipe for mess-disaster in the kitchen and always necessitated a floor scrubbing afterwards. They will remember the times you spent laughing together as a family, not whether strangers were impressed by your neatness. They will remember the times you talked to them about how growing up was for you, and how you shared with them your own struggles when you were twelve, soothing their own twelve-year-old anxieties.
These things are some of the truest things I know. Please don’t be taken in by those preaching another gospel.
November 2, 2009 at 11:54 am
Among other things, the home is the launchpad for the rest of our lives. Our time, focus, and energy are finite. There is no point to order just for order’s sake; we invest in getting things in order to launch us into whatever else we have to do. As long as socks can be located in a reasonable amount of time, who cares how the sock drawer looks? I spend hours a day in the kitchen, but about 30 seconds putting on socks. Why would I invest so much time in the perfect sock drawer when there are so many other things which require my finite attention?
November 2, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Light wrote:
“In fact, 10 years ago I would have insisted I was a complementarian … until I read Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood so that I would be able to explain why. That pro-comp tome actually changed my mind, because the logic was so faulty, the eisegesis rampant, that I realized it was all built on a house of cards.”
Me too! I could easily agree with comp-light. Men and women do have biological differences, even ones that go beyond reproductive organs. There are muscle mass differences, neurological differences, the whole testosterone effect that occurs in the womb.
If that’s all complementarians were saying, that men and women have complementary differences that suit them for different tasks but are of equal standing in Christ and in human relationships, them I would have remained in that classification.
But turns out that is NOT what CBWM is proposing. They are not just acknowledging differences that influence the roles men and women play in society (childbirth, breastfeeding, heavy lifting =) but claiming that those roles are clearly set and unbending with women eternally subordinate to men.
That’s not what Jesus taught!! Nope, I am now an egal if I have to have a label at all. Jesus came to give me life, abundant eternal life that is not second or subordinate to what he offers males. Whosoever will, that’s who this life is for! I will! I will! I will!
November 2, 2009 at 12:42 pm
But turns out that is NOT what CBWM is proposing. They are not just acknowledging differences that influence the roles men and women play in society (childbirth, breastfeeding, heavy lifting =) but claiming that those roles are clearly set and unbending with women eternally subordinate to men.
Exactly. I think it was in that book that Piper (or was it Grudem?) gave the example of women’s brains being more wired for multi-tasking, and therefore it was clearly God’s design that they should be the ones home with small children. I can think of several things wrong with this pronouncement. First of all, I cannot multitask. Have never been able to. My husband can do about five things at once. So if the criteria for who raises the children is multitasking ability, he should have been the stay at home parent. But no, that’s not what Piper/Grudem say. Their argument instead goes, “Since most women are X, ALL women must fit into that mold.” Second, I can think of a million other places where multitasking is of incredible benefit. Say, as head of the Emergency Room at the hospital. Maybe we should kick all the men out of these positions, since they supposedly don’t multitask as well, and put women there.
Grudem and Piper pretty much take every generalization about women’s characteristics, and then use that to “prove” why they should be subordinate, stay at home moms, etc. If men were better multitaskers in general, they’d use that against women.
November 2, 2009 at 1:02 pm
“If you are a mom of young children – please, as someone who has been there, I implore you: give yourself a break.”
Savannah, God bless you. This is what struggling young moms need to hear.
One of the most encouraging things I ever read as a young mother was an editorial in a Christian magazine on the topic of “inconsistency.” The writer said that, although it is a good thing to strive for consistency in parenting, it is not always achievable. And what do our children learn from this? That life is not always consistent. That your efforts do not always have the effect you want them to have. That people are not perfect. And that is a necessary and good thing to learn. So don’t kill yourself for consistency — use your occasional inconsistency with your kids as a teachable moment.
What a sigh of relief I gave at reading that! I don’t remember the name of the man (yes, a man) who wrote it, but I was so grateful for his insight.
November 2, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Hi everyone,
Im new to the forum and just wanted to introduce myself, my name is Mark and I’m form UK. I’ve been a long time lurker who has finally decided to make an account and contribute.
November 2, 2009 at 1:24 pm
“The writer said that, although it is a good thing to strive for consistency in parenting, it is not always achievable. And what do our children learn from this? That life is not always consistent. That your efforts do not always have the effect you want them to have. That people are not perfect. And that is a necessary and good thing to learn. So don’t kill yourself for consistency — use your occasional inconsistency with your kids as a teachable moment.”
That’s great advice! So true. It would be so hard to go through life, thinking you had to be perfect all the time (even in how you fold your socks). What a terrible, huge burden.
Shame on Elisabeth Elliot (and others like her) who tie such huge stones around the necks of others, then throw them into the river asking them to swim.
I am SO not perfect. My house is clean-ish most of the time, and if I have a spectacularly good day with everyone in the house in a good mood willing to pitch in and help, then most of the chores get done pretty quickly. But I’ll never win the battle against dust bunnies, cobwebs, and dirty laundry. Not even when I’m 80 with an empty house. And I’m pretty sure that’s okay with God. I can’t clean my way to heaven…. and He doesn’t ask me to.
November 2, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Welcome, Mark from the UK! I’m glad you de-lurked!
November 2, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Nicole @172
Now that my computer is back you’re more than welcome to join me for tea.
November 2, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I think we need to remember that EE only had one child.
Even in my comp days I couldn’t bring myself to read her book on womanhood. Her books on other subjects were so harsh they appalled me. I’ll never forget how she wrote in glowing terms in her book on Amy Carmichael about the way the future missionary was brought up. Amy as a child was not offered any comfort, physical or emotional if she was in any kind of pain, but told that it was something she just had to learn to bear. Would you say that to a little child in tears from the pain of a stomach ache?
November 2, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Yes, I can totally believe that EE would think withholding compassion and comfort to the hurting is somehow virtuous.
Aren’t we all glad God is not so harsh?
The whole missionary model she was part of pioneering to indigineous peoples has always struck me as more posturing than true compassion or concern for the unevangelized. Her husband and his friends seemed to have a true vision for the people they risked all to connect with. Not so all who followed in his footsteps.
I thank God this is not always the case. Rachel Saint, Marilyn Lazlo and some others have had great success because they loved the people they served and spent their whole lives on the foreign field, living with the people they loved as dear family. That is the love of God. Languages were preserved, cultures were set free from demon placation and people came to love the Lord of love, Jesus.
Many many others, like my father-in-law, were not successful. They are unable to connect with the indigeneous peoples they went to serve. They left frustrated and with little to show for their years of hard work and sacrifice.
My opinion: they failed mostly because they didn’t really care about the indigenous peoples. They DID want to serve the Lord, but how that ended up happening the way it did was in many cases just a result of the teachings going around in the ’50s.
Their calling was taught by men, and they went to the mission field because they were incited to do so by public speakers like EE. It was the way “true Christians” could prove they were really serious about their faith. The banner of Jim Elliot was used to incite young people at Christian colleges who wanted to serve the Lord to go to the mission field to primitive tribes.
I think they were sold a pig in a poke. There were no miracles. Families were ripped apart. Mother’s hearts broke as little children (5,6,7) were shipped off to boarding school in the name of God. And this was to demonstrate to the indigenous people how much God loved…?
The indigenous peoples didn’t buy it. Least not my father-in-laws gospel witness. And the legacy of pain from this austere legalism and demanded sacrifice is still around.
Heroes? Not always.
November 3, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Toddlers with rakes – too funny.
Why were the Russians looking in people’s sock drawers? Just wondering.
November 3, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Thought you ladies might be interested in this upcoming episode of the Joy Behar show
Actress Jodie Sweetin, former co-star of “Full House” and author of the new book “unSweetined” talks about her struggles with addiction. Plus, author Kathryn Joyce, author of “Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement,” along with Rachel Scott, mother of eight and author of “Birthing God’s Mighty Warriors.” And, comedian Caroline Rhea. Tonight at 9 p.m. ET/PT on HLN.
I might tune in to watch it, it could be pretty interesting.
November 3, 2009 at 12:40 pm
According to the No Longer Quivering site, Vyckie Garrison has also been invited to be on that show today. I think I will watch it.
November 3, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Shadowspring, if the missionaries who preached the Gospel to the Indians had taken Galatians 3:28 to heart, most of Native America might have been converted. As it is, though, they lost that opportunity, and may well have to answer for it.
It’s pretty hard to stomach preaching from people who tell you all about salvation, and who preach that all men are brothers, but ONLY in the Spirit.
Would you listen to someone who invited you to share their afterlife, but who told you in no uncertain terms that as long as we’re still in this life, forget all about living in our neighborhoods, eating at our tables, or marrying into our families.
You can’t honestly call someone a Christian brother, unless you’d welcome him as a brother-in-law.
November 3, 2009 at 3:12 pm
As for some comments on iMonk’s blog about abuse being in both camps, that may be so but where is an abusive, control-freak going to go to get bolstering for his/her abusive behavior? The camp that tells him that his wife is a field and he is to plow it and use it the way he sees fit or the camp that tells him that he is to share power and to give up control for the sake of one-anothering?
Imho, patriarchal teachings, such as “commenter” outlined in Doug Wilson’s book about women being fields and the husband being the farmer sets up a perfect storm for control-freaks and abusers and even normal, run of the mill men to treat their wives as children and use them for their own purposes (which I find to be abusive as well as physical and emotional).
I also think it is condescending and patronizing to women to believe this…to approach another human being as they are lacking vision, insight, knowledge, wisdom, direction, worldview, etc and that you are the one to instill it, direct them, guide them into ALL things and that your will is to be obeyed in all things. To approach them as if women are less than men and that is exactly what this field/plow/farmer business does.
If you take the teachings to their logical conclusion, what are you going to get?
Well, you take Voddie Baucham’s and the Botkins’ teachings to their logical conclusion, you get “Kelsey” writing to Voddie’s daughter about how to deal with her jealous mother and how to be a “loving helper” to her father.
Why are these people so shocked when people actually put into practice what they teach and then turn around and say that they do not support controlling behavior on the part of husbands?
The Proverbs 31 woman considers a field and buys it….she is NOT a field but one who BUYS a field.
November 3, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I agree, Corrie. Sure, there is abuse in situations where people identify as “egals”. No doubt about it. Only difference is they do not turn to Scripture to get a pass on the abuse, or even to fully justify it.
November 3, 2009 at 6:19 pm
So, does anyone have the link to the egal blog where all there people are repeatly slandered? And who exactly is FR Bill who claims to have been slandered along with them. I must have missed this spot on the internet. Please post a link if you have it.
November 3, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Corrie, you summed up my impression of that entire conversation quite well.
November 4, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Just wanted to delurk and say hello to everyone.
Without thatmom’s blogs (and all the blogs I’ve found since), I’d be wondering if I was talking in a vacuum. I’m 35, married, an ATI survivor (my entire family ran for GRACE after 10 years of it), married another ATI survivor (preacher’s son), and am working with a writing teacher on a memoir(s) of how I went in and how I got out.
Praise God for freedom. Praise God.
Keep praying, keeping talking truth, keep running to God. He is NOT what the patriarchs say He is. He loves us no matter what.
November 4, 2009 at 2:13 pm
What is ATI again?
I forgot.
November 4, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Yeah, Trish, so glad to see you delurking!
Looking forward to your great insights and contribution to the conversation!
November 4, 2009 at 2:54 pm
ATI is Advanced Training Institute…Bill Gothard’s homeschooling program. Corrie and I are mom survivors of ATI,too.
November 4, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Almost forgot…Mark from the UK…welcome!
November 4, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Thatmom posted, “So, does anyone have the link to the egal blog where all there people are repeatly slandered? And who exactly is FR Bill who claims to have been slandered along with them.”
To these guys, even being *questioned* in any way is equal to “slander”. They are the “legends in their own minds” and if one calls into question any of their positions or actions, it is immediately labeled as “slander” or “gossip”. This is the way they attempt to intimidate people into silence. Thankfully, while many are intimidated, many others continue to speak up and refuse to let them be the arbitrator of the Biblical definition of “gossip” or “slander”.
This infuriates them (as we can all see from the Brothers Bayly, the McDonalds, etc.) and so they pronounce us as apostates, slanderers, and gossipers.
November 4, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Don’t mean to sidetrack the thread, as maybe this has been discussed, but would appreciate views of ATI from those who have been in the system. I know there is a yahoo group for this (know you are there, Corrie), and I just have to catch up on the reading there. My beloved extended family members have dug deeper into the patriarchy pit by going down the ATI road this year.
Still praying. Thanks…
November 4, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Y’all need to read this. Really hits the nail on the head.
kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2009/11/honoring-god-in-city-full-of-needy.html
“Holiness or righteousness is obtained by faith in Christ alone. We are declared perfectly righteous (justified) by a holy God. The woman with faith in Christ who tries her entire life to have ONE child, and cannot for physical reasons, compared to the woman with faith in Christ who could have MULTIPLE chldren, but does not for contraception reasons, compared to the woman with faith in Christ who DOES HAVE TWENTY CHILDREN because of her quiverfull theology and refusal to use contraception– are ALL equally holy, equally blessed, equally loved by God, and equally honored. To say anything less is a denial of the gospel itself.”
Preach it, Wade.
November 4, 2009 at 5:24 pm
The patriocentrists want us to take back the bondwoman (the Law) when God has commanded that we cast her out. They want us to put us back under the law, instead of walking in the Spirit of promise/liberty. They have put themselves in places of importance and they do this by posturing themselves as teachers who have the truth which is really a basterdized mix of law/works and the new covenant.
Worse yet, they have become peddlers of the word of God and they depend upon people buying what they are teaching to support their lifestyles.
For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.
2 Cor. 2:17
The Greek word for “peddle” is kapalyuo and it means to sell anything; to make money by selling anything; to be a retailer; to corrupt, adulterate- “peddlers were in the habit of adulterating their commodities for the sake of gain”.
The root word is kapelos which means huckster.
November 4, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Gal 4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?
Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.
Gal 4:23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.
Gal 4:30 But what does the Scripture say? “CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN.”
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.
The Law and its system is not an heir with the Spirit of promise/New Covenant.
The Law is described as a ministry of death and a ministry of condemnation. The Bible tells us that the “letter” (Law) kills but that the New Covenant gives life.
Those who corrupt the gospel of grace by trying to put us back under the Old Covenant (obsolete) are actually ministers of death and condemnation. It will suck the life out of a person.
I learned this, firsthand, when I got into the homeschooling movement soon after I became a Christian in my mid-twenties. I then was introduced to patriocentricity and later joined ATI.
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.”
Gal 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”
Gal 3:12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.”
Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us–for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”–
November 4, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Wow! EMR, I had written my two posts before I read the one you had posted from Wade’s blog. His post really illustrates exactly what I was trying to say.
November 4, 2009 at 5:47 pm
“Not all who advocate quiverfull theology have yet experienced the nightmare portion. Sleep has just set in. It will take a while for the logical consistencies of a theological fallacy to eventually corrupt the entire home. It is for the reason of future health that anyone even remotely considering the possibility of adopting a quiverfull theology to read Joyce’s book. ‘
This is a quote from Wade’s article that EMR posted.
This statement is so profound, I don’t know where to start but it resonates with me in a very personal way.
November 4, 2009 at 6:11 pm
These are some of my favorite points of the article:
“(1). Quiverfull theology is based on an Old Covenant that also had other precepts, commandments and laws from God that we Christians no longer abide by. The Old Covenant laws were “shadows” or “types” to teach us of Christ, and when Jesus came, He fulfilled and abolished the Old Covenant with her types. The Old Covenant command was to “go, be fruitful and multiply.” The New Covenant command, under which we live, is “go and make disciples.”
(2). The notion that anyone “prevents” God from naming the number of kids a family has is anti-biblical, anti-logical, and anti-God at its core. Contraception no more “prevents” God from creating a baby who “could have cured AIDS” or “been the President of the United States,” etc. than a man shouting at the sun can keep it from shining. God ordains the creation of each human soul, and nobody prevents Him from accomplishing His plans. The sheath of a condom, or the dissolution of a pill, is no more an obstacle to God in the creation of a human being than the lack of matter was an obstacle to God in creating the universe.
(4). There are cities full of children who are abused, abandoned, in need. The November 20, 2009 major motion picture release The Blind Side will demonstrate for the country what happens when an evangelical Christian family adopts a needy inner city child. It is as Christ-honoring to be naturally childless and help the needy children in the city as it is to have a dozen of your own naturally born children.
(5). The idea that Christians should have more children because we are losing the “culture” wars, and by having more and more kids one day we will “out-populate” the Muslims, the cults and other pagans is to lose absolute sight of the New Testament truth that entrance into the kingdom of God is not based on flesh and blood (or culture, color or creed), but faith in the good news that is proclaimed about the unique Son of God. We do not need an army of Christian children separate from the world; we need an army of Christian witnesses as salt and light in the middle of a decaying and dark world, leading lost children to a knowledge of Jesus Christ.”
November 4, 2009 at 6:19 pm
And, this one:
“(8). Quiverfull theology, if followed logically and consistently, leads a husband and a wife to confusion of one’s true and eternal identity in Christ. Confusion about who we are on earth is not good preparation for eternity. There will be no marriage in heaven. There will be no procreation in heaven. It is the individual’s relationship with God that is preeminent, and the notion that a male is to be “the covering” for the female, and the female’s role is to simply procreate the progeny of the male as a helpful subordinate to the male, is to abdicate the New Testament teaching that EVERY believer in Jesus Christ (male or female) is a “priest” unto God and that only when full equality of males and females is comprehrended and experienced on earth will we ever have a taste of what human relationships will be like in heaven.”
Amen, Wade!
Interesting how the whole Old vs New covenant discussion in Galatians 3 is ended with this:
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Wade hit the nail on the head with his summary statements about the Old Covenant being the foundation for QF/Patriocentric theology.
Some patriocentrists are now teaching that males and females aren’t fully equal even in heaven and that women will be eternally subordinate to males in heaven!
This is Mormon theology and not the teaching of the New Covenant.
November 4, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Thanks for sharing the Wade Burleson post, emr, and for expanding on it, Corrie. So good!
I watched the Joy Behar show (despite her snarkiness). Rachel Scott seemed to dominate most of the segment, but in a winsome way. She really came across as a normal, loving mom who just wants to have more kids. She only briefly got into the culture warrior aspect of this, but said Muslims are also right to have large families. She did say that the family is the answer (to the problems in) our world. Hmmm, I thought the answer would be Jesus Christ.
Don’t think Kathryn Joyce and Vyckie Garrison were able to interject much because Rachel Scott is not a “typical” Quiverfull. She doesn’t homeschool, works part time, hasn’t heard of patriarchy, lives an affluent life and seems to have almost an egal marriage. So unfortunately the show was not able to show the more dangerous face of the average overworked, overwhelmed, oppressed/depressed, patriarchal Quiverfull mother and daughters.
The show’s transcript is here http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/03/joy.01.html
I also see that WeTV will have some interesting episodes on Nov. 10 on Secret Lives of Women: Loved & Controlled, Cults, and Born to Breed. We don’t get this channel, but am passing it along for those who do.
November 4, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Corrie,
Great quotes. Love it.
Kathy, I’m praying for your family. God is big enough to change hearts.
November 4, 2009 at 8:12 pm
“The Proverbs 31 woman considers a field and buys it….she is NOT a field but one who BUYS a field.”
Haha, Corrie, I love it!!!!!
November 4, 2009 at 8:14 pm
I watched the Joy Behar show and had the same impressions as you did, Kathy.
Rachel Scott is a polished guest in many ways. For the most part, she presents her self-described “gentler quiverfull” in an attractive package. But when somebody disagrees with her, her fangs emerge and she talks over softer-speakers, like Quiverfull author Kathryn Joyce.
Scott suggests that Quiverfullers universally send their daughters to college and are equal partners in marriage, like her. She does, however, use “purpose” as verb–a give away of an ATI-er.
Joyce was quiet and gracious with Scott, even praising her for some of her ideas. But when Joyce suggested that Scott was an anomaly in the patriarchal/quiverfull movement, Scott jumped all over her. I was astounded by how–dare I say it–submissive–Joyce was.
The third guest (whose name I can’t remember) was a former quiverfuller. She probably had the most interesting story to tell, but for some reason, got the least airtime.
Behar clearly didn’t do her homework about Quiverfull–the book, or the movement. By the end of the interview, Scott had Behar eating out of her hand. I’m also not a fan of Behar, but I expected more from her.
A very odd and frustrating show.
November 4, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I watched the show. I was actually quite embarrassed for Scott as the only professing Christian on the show. It appeared that her attitude was very holier-than-thou, she was very uneducated with QF, patriocentric movement, and she seemed to have no true compassion for those whose lives fell apart after practicing a patriarchal, quiverfull lifestyle. Vyckie Garrison may have left the QF life and possibly Christianity as well, but the facts remain–the fruits of abuse within her family were horrendous. More of Vyckie’s story can be found on her site, nolongerquivering dot com.
November 4, 2009 at 9:41 pm
From Scott’s blog: (rachelscottsblog dot com)
The enemy is also preparing his army for battle. Believers do not need to fear
the army of the enemy but we do need to be aware that they exist. On the other
side there are children being born who already desire to promote the enemy’s
agenda. Some are chosen in the womb through demonic rituals or other forms of
evil. Some are birthed into this world and taught to hate. The only hope these
children have is to find Christ, but until they do they will be
increasingly susceptible to the deeds and plans of the enemy.
* * *
We are presently living in the last generations before Christ returns. The
children that we are birthing right now are the beginnings of this end-time
army of Mighty Warriors who will worship the Lord and prepare the way for His
return. “
* * *
Several generations fell into Babylonian thinking (Babylon in scripture
usually refers to human thinking and ideals) and the traditional family of:
mother/father, a loving marriage that produces loving children, fell apart
in both society and in churches. People left God’s “ideal” and what resulted
were 70+ years of pain and suffering for families.
WAS IT SIMPLY “COINCIDENCE” THAT NEARLY 70 YEARS AFTER THESE
RULINGS AMERICA EXPERIENCED A “WAKE-UP” CALL
IN THE EVENTS OF 9/11/01?
————-
November 4, 2009 at 9:44 pm
But what she presented on the show was a very June Cleaverish ideal far removed from the daily reality of most QF/Pat women.
Shew! Back to lurking.
November 4, 2009 at 10:03 pm
A mighty warrior angel appeared to her husband in a dream after the birth of her 4th child and pointed a giant flaming sword at his genitals and told him not to get a vasectomy???
Honestly, I can’t take her seriously after hearing this. This is the basis for her book?
I recorded the Behar show, just haven’t been able to watch it.
I love one of the guests on this show who said that “this guy had a dream that he was going to either use it or lose it” and that the reason he said he had this dream is because he was scared of having a knife put to his most sensitive area.
I think she was closer to reality.
True QFrs are against any forms of birth control and see any birth control, even in the face of serious illness as sin.
Hillary you are right that these people are trying to downplay the reality of most QF/Pat women and present an alternate reality for the public. If they really talked about what they believe, they would not be seen as mainstream or moderate. I wish she would have talked about the flaming sword dream or did she?
November 4, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Good points, Hillary. You oughta come out of lurking more often!
Scott is a quiverfull author and expert, yet she claims:
1. Ignorance about patriarchy among quiverfulls.
2. Unfamiliarity about patriarchy in general.
3. Uncertainty how to pronounce the word patriarchy.
November 4, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Oh, Corrie, I sure wish the story of the flaming arrow’s preservation of the private parts had made Joy Behar’s show. She would have been shaken back to reality.
November 4, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Oops. Meant flaming sword, not arrow. Patrios love their swords and all the special associations therein. I’m ashamed I made such an error.
November 5, 2009 at 11:10 am
Debbie from CA posted:
“Scott is a quiverfull author and expert, yet she claims:
1. Ignorance about patriarchy among quiverfulls.
2. Unfamiliarity about patriarchy in general.
3. Uncertainty how to pronounce the word patriarchy.”
Like Debbie and Hillary, I wasn’t buying Scott’s act. And that’s exactly what I think it was: an act. Her mission seemed to be to soften the whole thing and make it look as “normal” and “mainstream” as possible. Her put-on when confronted with the notion that many quiverfuls don’t believe there is any point to daughters receiving a college education was nauseating. Yes, I realize that *some* of these folks do allow their daughters to go to Bible college, but there are some very high profile, influential folks in this movement who do not, and seek to make that a matter of “orthodoxy”, and for Scott to seem to pretend not to be “familiar” with that stretched the limits of believability to me.
Scott also spoke of being a “feminist” and of “God being a feminist” (wow – wonder if the Brothers Bayly will do anything with that, because it’s the sort of thing that normally makes their heads explode). “Yeah, right!” is what I was thinking.
Scott alluded to the fact that they are quite well off, with her husband being a construction executive and all, and them residing in an affluent area (her words). She described enjoying pregnancy and wanting another child if God would just give her one (she’s 48!).
If one chooses to have a large family in those circumstances, the more power to them. But Vickie was never in a circumstance like that. I have read her accounts of her life in Quiverful on her blog, and it seemed that they scraped and scratched just to get by. Her pregnancies were difficult and some of her children have health issues.
It seemed that Rachel Scott was kind of dismissive of the few things that Vickie described as her experiences, and she seemed quite haughty and self-righteous to me, almost like: “Well, if you had done it the RIGHT way (i.e., like *I* did), then you would not have had a bad experience”. That just kind of hit me wrong and I found her to be lacking overall in charity and graciousness. As someone else described, when challenged, her fangs definitely showed.
Just my opinions.
November 5, 2009 at 11:33 am
Okay…just watched the Behar show and I am totally not buying Scott’s shtick, either. There is no way she can be in the QF movement and have written a book and be totally clueless and act incredulous at the some of the things asked of her. Or maybe she is just a Lone Ranger type of QFr?
Does anyone have her book? I think that would be an interesting read.
Savannah, I totally agree with your opinion of the show.
I would have liked to hear more from Kathryn Joyce but it seemed that Rachel pretty much dominated that segment.
I wonder why she was picked to do that show and not Mrs. Hess or another strong QFr?
I have been on the QF Digest for over a decade, now, among other QF type email lists and Rachel Scott didn’t come close to representing the vast majority of QFrs I know.
November 5, 2009 at 11:41 am
Perhaps Joy Behar needs to hear our feedback. Maybe she will do another show at some other point on it!
November 5, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I think you ladies are right about Rachel Scott trying to make QF look good–I was multi-tasking when I watched the show, so didn’t catch all the nuances. I did think the remark about God being a feminist (wait, isn’t that the F-word?) was over the top.
November 5, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Note to Rachel Scott re “feminist”:
In the famous words of Inego Montoya, “I don’ think that word means what you think it means.”
Or, more accurately, “I don’ think that word means what the patriarchalists want it to mean.”
November 5, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Either I agree that either Rachel Scott is being purposely deceitful about what QF really means for most people, or she lives an isolated life and assumes that everyone else in QF also has plenty of money, grace to educate her children in whatever works best at the time, healthy pregnancies and a supportive husband.
It is actually possible that she lives such an isolated pretty princess life that she has never met anyone in a bad marriage, living in poverty, struggling with illness whose religion insists that the mom sew their own clothes, grind their own grain and home school while pursuing this QF ideal.
I can relate to her in her personal feminists beliefs about God. I can see that she is just assuming that everyone understands that God loves women, that motherhood is very fulfilling, that pregnancy and nursing are uber-womanly and powerful acts–heck, that sounds exactly like my personal beliefs. I also just assumed that since everyone was reading the same Bible I was, they all pursued motherhood and homeschooling and homemaking with the same sense of empowerment that I did.
And then I woke up to the reality that some of my sisters were being forced into what I reached for willingly. I saw that other families had no grace to do what would work best for them, but felt constrained to home school. I saw that some of these women did not enjoy pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, homeschooling, etc. but their husband’s and church’s taught that it was the only righteous choice.
Can it be that Rachel Scott has not many any woman like that? I find it unlikely, but that would be the only reason she could be so naive and uninformed about what QF is like for the rest of America. Wealthy people do live isolated lives, so it is possible.
Isn’t it?
November 5, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I should really edit my posts before hitting the “submit Comment” button. LOL My excuse for the poor spelling, grammar and punctuation is that I was also helping my son with polar expressions and trying to keep the dog out of the trash while I composed my post. :p
November 5, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I was thinking about the wealth angle concerning patriarchy/QF…..
The people who lead this movement live very well compared to most of their followers. They live in lovely, large houses that accommodate their big families quite comfortably. They are not living in double-wide trailers or 700 sq ft rundown homes like many of their followers. They have people who loan their daughters out to help them because their daughters would be in a celebrity’s home and their families will be rubbing shoulders with the elite in this movement but not so for the regular QF people. They go on many vacations with their large brood, travel around the world and they get to do a lot of other educational trips. All the while many of the other QF women rarely get to leave her home because they just can’t afford it. The regular QF woman has an enormous workload on her shoulders, day and night, and many times because of patriarchal teachings she has little to no teamwork from her husband since that is HER job/role/duty. His duty is to lead his servant, to plow his “field” (aka wife) in whatever fashion he deems fit. She is instructed over and over again that she was made for the man and not the other way around so that means she does it all and should not expect her husband to “help” her around the house (that includes yardwork) because she is his helper and he is not her helper.
Add to that pregnancy after pregnancy and nursing and more pregnancies and sometimes very difficult births and she has little or no time to recover but has to hit the ground running as soon as she gives birth. Many times there is no insurance so she has to give birth and come home right away and immediately assume her duty to make food, clean the home and care for all the other children.
Then she has very limited financial resources to feed and clothe and educate her children and she is told she should be content with whatever her husband makes and live within their means. She often goes without dental/medical care and so do her children.
Well, when you have a LOT of children and little money, going to the grocery store can be a nightmare. Not to mention doctor’s visits, 10 pairs or more of shoes, clothing and all the things that children require in their lifetimes. Many times these households don’t eat very well because they just can’t afford it. I don’t know how many times I have heard of women waxing eloquent about giving the meat to their husbands and sons while she and her daughters just eat whatever is left over as if that is virtuous or something.
So, the general public is left hearing teachers tell them how wonderful the QF lifestyle is and what a blessing it is and they don’t ever hear the reality…the endless nights, the endless work, the endless laundry….They are left with the message that if you live this way your life, marriage and children will all be a Victorian and lace picture of perfection. So, many people get into this without counting the cost before laying the foundation. And when they are so far into it and things aren’t coming together like these teachers have presented, they have more condemnation and burdens laid upon them because obviously they haven’t been submissive enough, or godly enough, or servant-hearted enough.
Rachel Scott talked about a study that showed that people who didn’t use birth control have far fewer divorces. Vickie brought up a good point that, imho, was dismissed. Once you have 6 or more children you are pretty much stuck because there are no options unless you get a large inheritance or win the lottery. I don’t find the no birth control/divorce study to be that impressive because it doesn’t take into account reality and a multitude of other factors.
The QF lifestyle works for some but I have personally seen more often than not some pretty bad situations. But, it isn’t politically correct to talk about these things because you will just heap more condemnation on your head for being honest.
November 5, 2009 at 3:29 pm
shadowspring said,”…I also just assumed that since everyone was reading the same Bible I was, they all pursued motherhood and homeschooling and homemaking with the same sense of empowerment that I did.
And then I woke up to the reality that some of my sisters were being forced into what I reached for willingly….”
yes! And since then, it seems like it’s been a mission of damage control.
November 5, 2009 at 7:12 pm
“On the other side there are children being born who already desire to promote the enemy’s
agenda. Some are chosen in the womb through demonic rituals or other forms of evil.”
This is stark raving NUTTINESS — why are these nuts running around loose?
November 5, 2009 at 7:20 pm
“Some are birthed into this world and taught to hate. The only hope these children have is to find Christ, but until they do they will be
increasingly susceptible to the deeds and plans of the enemy.”
Sort reminds a person of kids born into families that idolize Dabney and teach their kids revisionst history…
November 6, 2009 at 8:09 am
Young woman killed by her dad for becoming too “westernizd.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571216,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r1:c0.222587:b28670263:z10
November 6, 2009 at 10:45 am
Oh, that is so sad. What a beautiful young lady. The world is a lesser place for the loss.
I hope her father gets the maximum penalty provided under AZ law.
November 6, 2009 at 11:10 am
One of the things that I struggled with as I was emerging from the fog of patriocentricity was that on the surface everything always looked so good. The smile, the handshake, the “fruits” were all so authentic, right?
I was duped big time. Just because they smile and are sturdily polite, doesn’t mean all is well. To me, patriocentricity is a very good place for the manipulators, the liars, the “smile, but do whatever you want” folks.
I’m not saying that’s the way it is always (I know a very good many patrios who are honorable through and through), but once I realized I had been fooled (and it hit without warning), suddenly I began to look at everything differently.
I say this often to people who were also in Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute program with me who did not have a bad time, who actually loved every minute of it, and who still can’t believe anyone else suffered. “Just because you didn’t, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.”
I think of my brother who (at 23 years of age) was locked in a prayer room for three days until he cried and showed repentance for his “sins” by his sociopath leadership person who is now in a mental facility. (My brother is fine, they sent him home soon after and he has healed.)
They can smile on national television, pretend all is well in their seminars and teaching, but we know there is darkness lurking nearby. Anything that adds to what Jesus Christ did on that cross for us is not of God.
And to those who may be lurking and saying “but the Bible says so!” let me remind you that my Jesus can show me those things Himself without you or Mr. Gothard’s help. Thanks.
November 6, 2009 at 11:12 am
http://www.rachelscottsblog.com/files/BGMW_PDF.pdf
Rachel Scott’s book can be read online at the above address.
November 6, 2009 at 11:14 am
“I think of my brother who (at 23 years of age) was locked in a prayer room for three days until he cried and showed repentance for his “sins” by his sociopath leadership person who is now in a mental facility. (My brother is fine, they sent him home soon after and he has healed.)”
Trish,
This is horrible. I am sorry. You are not alone. There are others who know that these things went on, too.
November 6, 2009 at 11:21 am
re: that latest Bayly rant..
I was dumbfounded at, once again, the arrogance and hypocrisy. What is it slander to wonder about the “other side’s story” when it involves the “rich and famous” but not slander to trash talk a woman who shares her personal experiences of abuse?
“The LORD detests differing weights,and dishonest scales do not please him. ” (Proverbs 20:23)
This is all about differing weights and dishonest scales. There is a hierarchy that they have decided to be true and real and any of us who question it become the infidels. Look at how their rules of “godly womanhood” do not apply to Elosabeth Elliot or Nancy Leigh Demoss or Joni Erickson Tada.
And look at how the eternal subordination of Jesus issue is considered good theology and proof of the 2nd class status of women… Differing weights and dishonest scales.
November 6, 2009 at 11:23 am
Trish, there are the horrible, horrible abusive stories like the one you shared about your brother. And then there are the more subtle abusive stories that abound within the ATI program. I know too many who survived and may not even recognize the trips that were placed on then until one day they come face to face what grace really looks like.
November 6, 2009 at 11:25 am
I have a really hard time swallowing the notion that Rachel Scott is unfamiliar with the patriarchy and patriocentricity teachings. I believe it is probably all in semantics. Anyone see any commentary on the interview on any quiverful blogs? I know this one and thatmom have had all sorts of hits from people googling “patriarchy” and “quiverful”.
November 6, 2009 at 11:27 am
Just discovered music this morning that has really blessed me. So many of the songs address the theology we have discussed here…mercy, grace, freedom in Christ.
Check out JJ Heller:
http://www.jjheller.com/music.asp
November 6, 2009 at 11:53 am
Whoa! I just have a few seconds so I clicked on the Rachel Scott linked and I am floored!
She writes:
” It will be evident from birth that these children have a readiness to serve Him (Luke 1:15). Just like John the Baptist, these
children will be born knowing their destiny before them… They will have the faith of Abraham, the humility of Moses, the
conquering spirit of Joshua, the servant’s heart of Ruth, the worshipper’s heart of
David, the prophetic eye of Jeremiah and Isaiah; they will dwell in the miraculous
like Elijah, possess the boldness of Paul, and have the knowledge of Esther that they
have come into the Kingdom “for such a time as this” (Esther 4:14). They will be
lights in the darkness of this world no matter where they go, and they will not
possess the fears of previous generations because they will be firmly rooted and
established in the Lord. Their lack of fear will cause the Lord’s hand to be upon
them (Luke 1:66) as they march in unison and only respond to the voice of the
Holy Spirit. Their lives will not be about themselves or fulfilling their own desires,
but they will be consumed with complete obedience to the Lord.”
Yikes! Talk about pressure! These kid are going to be born spiritual super-beings? Really?!
That is so outlandish and over the top that it’s comical. But there will be nothing funny about it at all for those children who turn out to be normal people with the same fears and struggles the rest of us experience.
And it will not be at all funny for those moms who will be torn between loving the children God gave them for who they are and at the same time feeling deeply ashamed that their efforts (and womb!) failed to produce spiritual super-beings.
Oh no, there is nothing innocent or frivolous about putting such ridiculous expectations on people. I think psychologists call that grandiose delusions?
November 6, 2009 at 11:55 am
Thatmom, I don’t believe Rachel Scott either (I read the transcript). Someone remarked to me the other day that “those Quiverfull families are so happy” and I about lost it. Happy? Sure when the television cameras are on. And perhaps there are very happy patrios (I sure thought I was), but it’s just like a patriarchal belief system to ignore the disenfranchised women and children who always get the worst of it.
November 6, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Re: #242
The Bayly Brothers made two recent posts respectable in demeanor. The difference in tone between these two posts and how they usually write was like night and day and noticeably deflated.
One was an apology to their readers for some incomplete posts which accidentally went up too soon. The second was regarding a family who tragically lost a son in an ATV accident.
Every time I read Bayly Blog I wonder where in the world are the people responsible for keeping them accountable? Their attitudes are terrible. Or is this kind of behaviour by ministers in Presbyterian churches de riguer?
I have real serious questions about them just on their attitudes alone.
November 6, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Shadowspring writes,
“Whoa! I just have a few seconds so I clicked on the Rachel Scott linked and I am floored!
She writes:
” It will be evident from birth that these children have a readiness to serve Him…”
I would be floored, because this is pure unadulterated heresy, had I not come to expect this sort of thing from the Patrio camp.
What Scott is effectively saying is that these people have bred some sort of “Christian” Master-race, whose Uber-children enjoy a sort of immunity to the effects of Original Sin…. the next logical step in this ideology would be that since these children are inclined toward Godliness (and away from sin) from the womb, they have no need of a Savior.
November 6, 2009 at 2:10 pm
“Many of these children will be the offspring of Godly bloodlines; the children,
grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the families who followed the Lord
down through time.”
May God help us all, and save the church from heresy….
November 6, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Look at this:
““From birth I have relied on you; you brought me forth from my mother’s womb. I will
ever praise you” (Psalm 71:6).
This unique generation of children will possess characteristics that remind us of righteous men of old. As the generational bloodlines of history complete themselves, the children and young people will follow in the way of righteous ancestors.”
These people are literally preaching salvation by bloodline. This isn’t salvation by the blood of Jesus Christ, this is promoting something else in place of the sacrifice of Christ.
November 6, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Sounds like other times in our recent history when bloodlines mattered more than hearts. Haven’t we already fought wars over these issues?
It’s haunting that these roots still bloom. It’s haunting that we doubt God’s love for us so much that we concoct these myths.
November 6, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Then there’s this:
“This book is dedicated to a new generation, one who desires to rediscover an ancient path that has been lost for generations.”
So what might this “ancient path” be?
It can’t be orthodox Christianity — that hasn’t been lost for even one generation (though it has declined somewhat) and Jesus promised that the Church would CONTINUE, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.
What is this long-lost, “ancient path” that they claim to have rediscovered? This sort of language is reminiscent of the kind of talk that Gnosticism and New Age Paganism use to draw in their converts.
November 6, 2009 at 2:33 pm
And look at this:
“GENERATION X (1961-1984)
Your grandparents felt that having children was a wonderful thing, but your parents
called themselves the “ME-generation.” With the focus on themselves and not on YOU,
your parents viewed children as a nuisance, a pain, and something that got in the way of life’s
other pursuits. You are a nameless generation whose parents X-out children to pursue
careers, money, power, and material wealth. Large families virtually disappeared in
your generation. If you were conceived it is a miracle, as during your conception phase
the birth control pill was introduced and became popular, abortions became legal and
killed many who would have been your contemporaries. Your parents did not stay
married, causing divorce and creating blended families. The idea that children needed
“quality time, not quantity time,” became popular as parents forced you to suffer long
hours in daycare while they worked. Your generation felt dumped and abandoned. You
rebelled as teens, causing teen pregnancy, suicide, sexual abuse and drug addiction rates
to soar.
MELLIENNIALS (1984-2001)
Your parents were raised with the attitude that children get in the way of their pursuits
and that children must be planned and wanted to have value; otherwise, children should
be aborted or prevented by birth control or sterilization. Your parent’s believed that
creating children was their choice. Your conception was planned and you were wanted.
You were most likely born to highly educated, two-income parents who put-off
parenthood until they were older. Your generation saw very few families with 3 or more
children. Most limited their family size to one or two children. This gave them more
money and time to spend on each child. Many of your parents eventually quit the
working world and made YOU their project. They poured thousands of dollars into you,
and they have been highly involved in every aspect of your life. Your generation is
highly pressured, overscheduled, overindulged and often spoiled. You are used to never
being told “no!” You have always been catered to and have been seriously over-parented.
You are blessed to have been born at the right time in history, during a season of changing
technology. Your generation is a powerhouse generation, full of technological planners,
community shapers, institution builders, and world leaders.”
November 6, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I copied those two paragraphs because they show the modus operandi of the author — first you alienate the potential convert from his family and from society by telling him how he has been victimized by society and by his parent’s generation, and then you tell him how “special” he is, and how he is now a member of a chosen group of people, destined to do great things.
This is standard operating procedure for CULTS!
November 6, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Cynthia,
Very pertinent. I feel that Mr. Gothard’s ATI cult preyed on Gen X (1991 was a boom year for enrollment) and their Boomer parents. Secular writers talk about 1991 (when Nirvana and Pearl Jam–Gen X music–appeared on the scene) as the first time Gen X Boomer parents actually “saw” Gen X and it scared them senseless. My parents along with many other parents immediately took us students “underground.”
I found it especially interesting that a social scientist with no knowledge of patriocentricity or Gothard’s ATI pinpointed that year as an important period of time for this phenomenon.
As a Gen Xer, I definitely feel like a different generation than the Boomers and Gen Y (the Millennials), kinda squished in the middle. I think these patrios had a message just for us and now they’ve switched the message up and have aimed it directly at the Millennials and their parents. Scary! This time, it’s got Anglo-cult, Nazi overtones. Completely turns me off. But I sure believed the message they preached at me. The guilt they stacked on my shoulders. Ah, so glad to be free.
November 6, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I also just assumed that since everyone was reading the same Bible I was, they all pursued motherhood and homeschooling and homemaking with the same sense of empowerment that I did.
And then I woke up to the reality that some of my sisters were being forced into what I reached for willingly. I saw that other families had no grace to do what would work best for them, but felt constrained to home school. I saw that some of these women did not enjoy pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, homeschooling, etc. but their husband’s and church’s taught that it was the only righteous choice.
Quoting Shadowspring, #231
Yes, just because you’re a Christian does not mean the only righteous choices are motherhood, homeschooling and homemaking. And just because you find your strength and comfort in motherhood, homeschooling and homemaking, that doesn’t automatically *make* you a Christian.
I just find it remarkable how those assumptions go both ways. If you are X then you must be into Y, and if you are into Y then you must be X. When in reality X and Y have nothing to do with each other.
Sorry, I just ran into this again last night at a knitting class. Just because I’m a homemaker, just because my husband escorted me to the class, just because a wear a denim jumper and just because I was the one telling a thirteen year old that she ought not see a particular movie, that does *not* make me a fundamentalist anything.
November 6, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Cynthia Gee -
She is just taking the work of Strouss and Howe and twisting it like a pretzel, isn’t she?
November 6, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Welcome, Robert!
November 6, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Ugh. That Generation X rant is so spot-on to my life that I winced reading it. My mom did view us as nuisances who she truly regretted being stuck with. She actually told my older sister that she wished abortion had been legal because her whole life would have been different (better) if she had aborted her. Yes, she actually said this to her face!
Of course I wasn’t shocked. We all sort of figured it was true. My mom was never very affectionate, and she was way more passionate about abortion rights than about anything her children ever did. And so the Gen X rant is true for many people.
That’s exactly how they lure people in. Start with truth and then switch it for a lie once you’ve got them hooked.
What really shocked me was the indictment of the way we raised our kids (Gen Y)! Okay, so my parents didn’t want me- I made sure my kids were wanted! And yes, I am educated, still married to their father, and have spent lots of time and money to give my children all the support for launching into adulthood that I can come up with. How is that wrong?!? She writes it like it is an idolatry or selfishness on our parts, when I call it love and responsibility.
Also I am strongly pro-life. The fact that I have only two children does not mean I support abortion. Where do they get these ideas?
“Many of your parents eventually quit the
working world and made YOU their project. They poured thousands of dollars into you,
and they have been highly involved in every aspect of your life. Your generation is
highly pressured, overscheduled, overindulged and often spoiled. You are used to never
being told “no!” You have always been catered to and have been seriously over-parented.”
So being a stay-at-home parent is wrong? Is home schooling “over-parent”ing?
So what IS okay with these people? If you are only going to have one or two children then you should keep working and put your children in an institutional school so you can avoid over-parenting?
I know, the only right choice is to have lots and lots of children, regardless of your financial situation, the stability of your marriage, the physical and mental health of any/every member of the family- just keep having babies! God will sort it all out if you just “obey” with your militant fecundity.
Yeah right. :\ That’s what they told my husband’s parents about going off into the jungles to share the gospel while shipping their kids off to be warehoused at the Christian boarding school. You do the right thing, and God will make sure everything turns out okay.
Except it doesn’t work that way. I don’t care what Rachel Scott says, QF children are NOT going to be born spiritual giants. The older girls will resent being surrogate moms, the middle children will resent being lost in the shuffle, and if mom abuses her body with multiple close pregnancies, she could still die.
And the QFers will just spiritualize all that too as God’s will or some such nonsense. So unnecessary. So tragic.
All that pain could be avoided if people stopped trying to be heroes with a grandiose calling and just accepted that they little people with little lives who are nevertheless very much loved by God. And that’s all we were ever supposed to want anyway.
November 6, 2009 at 7:16 pm
“QF children are NOT going to be born spiritual giants. The older girls will resent being surrogate moms, the middle children will resent being lost in the shuffle, and if mom abuses her body with multiple close pregnancies, she could still die.”
Or suffer from birth defects or mental retardation. And, children from very large families usually have lower IQs, due to many factors, not the least of which is lack of parental interaction.
These people think they are going to breed the likes of Thomas Aquinas, but they may well end up with Forrest Gump.
Of course, a mentally challenged person may well have a better chance of being a spiritual giant than does the average genius, due to the fact that in the Kingdom of God the first shall be last and the greatest must be the least of all, but somehow I don’t think that THAT’S the sort of greatness the QF folks have in mind when they speak of spiritual giants.
November 6, 2009 at 7:19 pm
“All that pain could be avoided if people stopped trying to be heroes with a grandiose calling and just accepted that they little people with little lives who are nevertheless very much loved by God. And that’s all we were ever supposed to want anyway.”
AMEN.
But cults bank on the fact that nobody wants to settle for being a little person.
“Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
November 6, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Note to Rachel Scott re “feminist”:
In the famous words of Inego Montoya, “I don’ think that word means what you think it means.”
Haha, thanks for the laugh, Light!!! It felt good considering how heavy and depressing all this can be…
November 6, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Oops! I should add that this is Mary from Tennessee!
I’m familiar with the racist doctrines of CI, but Kinism is a new form of racist Christianity I’m not too familiar with. I did come across some websites, and was amused by their “we’re not really racist” protests.
Does anyone here know of the books where they get their racist doctrine?
Sincerely,
Mary from Tennessee
November 6, 2009 at 9:39 pm
So I wonder what the Bayly brothers (and CBMW) would have to say about Kimberly Munley, the civilian police officer, wife and mother who courageously drew fire, took down the Fort Hood shooter and prevented more deaths, despite being wounded. Seems to me that she is a great example of a fearless woman, maybe one like Esther who was destined “for such a time as this”.
November 6, 2009 at 10:22 pm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6907235.ece
November 6, 2009 at 10:23 pm
That was a link to the story about Kimberly Munley. Three cheers for the mom who ended the blood bath at Ft. Hood!
November 6, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Shadowspring, there are aspects of Rachel Scott’s generational generalizations that are true.
However — do you think she would say that they are true of her and of her children? I bet that answer is “no”. For the most part, they are not true for me or for my children. They are just that, generalizations. For her to present them as truth for everyone born during those years is, in my opinion, insensitive and silly.
And you are so right, these children are not going to be great men and women of God because of what their *parents* have done or want them to do. If any of them become great in God’s kingdom, it will be because of what GOD does through them — and that may not be outwardly obvious during their lifetimes. Talk about setting unreasonable expectations for parents to live up to!
The point (supposedly negative) that she makes about children being their parents’ project, parents being highly involved in their lives, being overscheduled and “seriously over-parented” — does this not sound like exactly what she is doing???
November 6, 2009 at 10:52 pm
And, who knows, God just might decide to raise up a mighty warrior from a non-patriarchal, non-QuiverFull, even an unbelieving, family. Incredibly, He can do stuff like that.
November 7, 2009 at 1:33 am
“And, who knows, God just might decide to raise up a mighty warrior from a non-patriarchal, non-QuiverFull, even an unbelieving, family. Incredibly, He can do stuff like that.”
You mean, perhaps, someone who’s past looks like this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson
November 7, 2009 at 9:18 am
Three cheers for the mom who ended the blood bath at Ft. Hood!
I wonder how long it will take the patrios to whine in their blogs about “where were the men” and how terrible it was that a woman had to be the one to do the deed. They will see it not as the heroics of a fellow human being, but rather that it makes a statement about masculinity and manhood, or the lack thereof, in today’s society.
Recently I discovered a sci-fi program from a few years back called Jeremiah. It is set in a post-apocalyptic world where life is hard and it is a struggle. I have been pleased to see that women are portrayed in a way that would be realistic – often right alongside the men fighting to make the world better.
November 7, 2009 at 9:29 am
Alisa,
Wow. What a great man. What a great mother! Thanks for the link.
Sincerely,
Mary from Tennessee
November 7, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Ach! That should read “one whose looks like this”. That’s what I get for trying to be quick.
November 7, 2009 at 12:25 pm
LOL Alisa! I am always in a hurry when I post and my comments are riddled with grammar, spelling and punctuation errors. I know how you feel!
So far everyone has been very gracious about it, and not one person has pointed out any of my many boo boos.
Thanks, gracious ladies! =)
November 7, 2009 at 11:19 pm
The first mistake I see in the Rachel Scott book, is her timetable of generations. If you google “the baby boom” most hits will give you the years “1946-1964″… Scott has taken the liberty of changing the dates to coincide with the birth control pill and to support her supposed vision/theory.
I am not a fan of the bc pill, but if one googles “b…. c….. pill history” the first hit may be for a PBS show and there is a thorough timetable which shows research/testing starting earlier than ’61 and that by ’64 “one quarter of American couples using bc are using the pill”. This means that 3/4 of couples are still using other means AND it doesn’t say how many couples are using no bc at all. Her explanations are very over-simplified and wishful thinking on her part, to substantiate her theory.
I can respect their personal testimony of changing their mind to no bc and deciding to have more children and that she thinks positively about all aspects of doing so… BUT just because she wishes that all couples would feel the same way, does not make it so… she has not “walked a mile in their shoes.”
Her writings are just more of the same old, same old… after life experiences, prayer and Bible study they suddenly have a vision which they suddenly think everyone else should comply with. Once again, the irony is that they came to this vision on their own and yet they don’t allow others to come to their own visions on their own.
November 9, 2009 at 9:56 am
Mary, here is one kinist website:
http://spiritwaterblood.com/
I would dig around it and see what authors they encourage people to read now. I know Dabney and the agrarian authors are biggies. Check out Mark Holl’s history books that address the Civil War and religious thought.
November 9, 2009 at 9:59 am
There is something weird about the Rachel Scott stuff. She she is obviously not your run of the mill patrocentric housewife. I am trying to figure out exactly why she was chosen to speak for this group? I have a hard time believing that the producers of the show didn’t do their homework.
And for that matter, why did the BBC choose to interview the McDonalds and Sanfords? Wouldn’t you think the Duggars would have been a more obvious choice?
None of these things add up to me. I felt somewhat the same way when reading the Quiverfull book. The woman didn’t quite get it.
November 9, 2009 at 10:47 am
That kinist website is absolutely revolting. There’s too much hate and revulsion there to even begin to address it.
November 9, 2009 at 11:03 am
What she seems to get is that she is just a little more special than all those other Christians who don’t have as close a walk with God or as much faith as she does.
And her children are going to be way more successful- destined for spiritual greatness- because their parents are so special!
And you can be special too, and have spiritual giants for children- if you will just toss out the sinful birth control/family planning you were brainwashed by Satanic forces to think were simply a tool for living, like budgeting or taking medication.
By the way, we must all keep in mind that different super-spiritual faith ministries have proposed budgeting and taking medication as crutches for lesser people, if not outright sin. This QF is just the same guilt-trip with grandiose promises applied to a new subject.
Any time any minister, author, speaker promises that you will will have superior outcomes by following their formula, you are being conned. I think the message first appealed to the pride in the minister/author/speaker, they internalized it and it further feeds their pride to become an expert on the subject.
I believe the messengers are quite sincere, but also very self-centered. They ignore the faithful tithers and sacrificial givers who remain poor, and focus on the story of the guy who started his own business and made millions. So when they teach unbalances prosperity messages, they sincerely believe them because of their selective experiences. Likewise, we all love the stories where God miraculously heals people of terminal illness, but only by ignoring the faith-filled, loving saints who ride to glory via cancer can they honestly preach the faith-healing message as a promise to all in every circumstance.
So, at least in the above circles, the ones whose stories don’t line up with their expected outcome are ostracized. They didn’t have enough faith, they wasted their money or their opportunities, they had secret sin in their lives, etc.
This guarantee of super-spiritual children is an even greater sin, in my opinion, because it is the children who will carry the blame when it doesn’t work out. When they are not the amazing Isaiah-David-Ruth-John-Moses-hybrid that these parents were expecting, how can they not be disappointed in their children? Maybe also themselves?
Maybe even God, since they sincerely believe that’s what the Word teaches? I would say that is exactly the path that Vicky Garrison took. She read everything in God’s Word through extreme conservative Christian QF filter, and when that proved false, she let the whole thing go. I might have done the same if I were her.
This is a very dangerous theology that will cause A LOT of damage to generations yet to be born. The end result will be more pain all around, not a super race of spiritual giants that will usher in the second coming of Christ.
But what an ego boost! You personally are speeding the second coming of Christ by your militant fecundity! You are carrying in your womb so much more than a little lamb that Jesus loves. You are carrying spiritual greatness of the like that no previous generation has ever seen! 0_0 Wow.
How can people not see this as a blatant appeal to the pride of our carnal natures?
November 9, 2009 at 11:08 am
The Bayly Bros must be gnashing their teeth over the female police officer/mom/heroine that took down the male killer who terrorized Fort Hood.
Some Monstrous Woman she is!
If this isn’t proof that women shouldn’t be involved in worldly affairs because they are born defective, I don’t know what is! (sarcasm)
November 9, 2009 at 11:13 am
“Ms Munley succeeded in bringing him down by shooting him four times, even after being hit by a bullet that passed through both her legs, according to witnesses.
Her swift reaction and courage were being praised last night for preventing many more deaths.
“It was an amazing and aggressive performance by this police officer,” said Lieutenant-General Robert Cone, Fort Hood’s commanding officer. “The critical factor here was her quick response to the situation.””
Wow!!! “Aggressive”…..”quick response’……”swift reaction and courage”…..
All said about a woman??? And all of this after taking a bullet through both legs?
I hope the Bayly Bros write about her….that is after they get done gnashing their teeth since a woman can never hold a position of a police officer because that is a position of authority.
November 9, 2009 at 11:15 am
More good quotes about the heroine at Ft. Hood…
” General Cone said her fearless response to the gunman had saved countless lives. Trained in active-response tactics, she rushed into the building where he was shooting, and confronted him directly. Officials confirmed that she had continued firing even after being hit.”
“Fearless”…surely all of these things are not describing a WOMAN?
November 9, 2009 at 11:17 am
“General Cone said that Ms Munley’s actions demonstated that an aggressive response to a mass-shooting can save lives. “She walked up and engaged him,” he said.”
Again, WOW!
November 9, 2009 at 11:27 am
Shadowspring, I think you’re onto something with the “uber-special-ness” that Rachel Scott seems to attribute to herself and her marriage/children. It was written all over her [limited] dialogue with Vickie on the Behar show.
And I also agree with you on the whole premise that if someone is trying to sell you on the idea that “if you would only apply this or that formula, you will have automatic victorious living”, you are being conned. Absolutely! The Christian life is not meant to be lived in a formulaic manner, despite what Bill Gothard says. We must work out our salvation, with fear and trembling — not a haughtiness born out of thinking we know “the special formula/answer”.
November 9, 2009 at 11:36 am
Officer Munley rocks. She responded heroically and decisively and she loved not her life unto death. She risked it all for her fellow man, and we are ALL BLESSED that she came through alive. I have no doubt she will continue to serve her community, her country, her fellow man for many years to come.
Corrie, my baby girl is applying for a commission in the Air Force. She wants shooting lessons for Christmas, to help prepare her for field training should she be selected. (She has an excellent chance at it.)
Trust me, we will all be able to sleep better at night with my little girl standing watch. The Bayly brothers should be grateful for Officer Munley, my daughter, and the many other faithful, skilled and talented women serving their country.
They probably won’t be though. Their loss.
November 9, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Corrie, I’m with you! What a gal! Love it! So proud of her. She is inspiring.
Savannah, this that you wrote: “The Christian life is not meant to be lived in a formulaic manner, despite what Bill Gothard says. We must work out our salvation, with fear and trembling — not a haughtiness born out of thinking we know ‘the special formula/answer.’” Fabulous. I’m cheering over here! Amen!
Shadowspring, good for your daughter! I will sleep better. I am learning to shoot and I can hit a target in a shooting range, but I need a lot more training to even thinking about doing what Officer Munley did for our country last week and what your daughter will do for us in the future.
Lastly, thank you, veterans, who may be reading. Thank you for your sacrifice and selfless defense of our country and our families. You deserve so much more than we can give. God bless you all.
November 9, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I think the Bayly Brothers and the other patriarchs will revert to their fall-back position regarding Officer Munley.
They will say: Just because a woman can perform a traditionally masculine task well or even brilliantly doesn’t mean she should. God designed Officer Munley to be cherished and protected and to be a keeper-in-the-home. Her actions thwarted the only standard that matters, i.e. the standard set by God. How is she supposed to fulfill her God-ordained role towards her husband and children if she is injured or killed in the line of fire, and how is her husband supposed to protect her if she is running around shooting at mass murderers?
I think this line of reasoning is even more harmful towards women than the notion that women are not competent. This line of reasoning, which I have seen on quite a few blogs, sends the message that no matter how hard you work, no matter how selfless you perform your duties, and no matter what heroism or risk you show, you are still wrong and bad if you are a woman in a role the patriarchs don’t approve. It is even more demoralizing than notions of what women are capable of — which many women see as challenges to be met. This reasoning is that even if you meet the challenge in the most brilliant and amazing way, you are still lesser because you are doing something you shouldn’t be.
I tink this
November 9, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Er, sorry for the typos. And yes, that should be “how selflessLY you perform your duties.”
Also, I wanted to note that Officer Munley joins a larger group of women who have shown extreme courage under fire in recent years in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. She is definitely not an anomaly.
November 9, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Laurie posted, “This reasoning is that even if you meet the challenge in the most brilliant and amazing way, you are still lesser because you are doing something you shouldn’t be.”
Surely you have hit the nail on the head, Laurie, with regard to how the uber-patrios will see things. Ugghhhhh! How demoralizing!
November 9, 2009 at 5:08 pm
There’s a proverb somewhere in the Proverbs that goes someing along the lines of this:
“There was a wise man who saved an entire city once, by his wisdom. But because he was poor, he was forgotten.”
This is what the uber-patrios are trying to do to women. Make them poor in the terms of hiearchy, thereby making them forgotten, hidden. Even if they have great wisdom or profound contributions to make.
Where as wise men are to be praised, wise women are to be forgotten.
Need to catch up on the rest of the posts. But this post #291 jumped out at me and made me think of that proverb.
November 9, 2009 at 6:33 pm
So true about trying to make women invisible or hidden — and often literally so.
It reminds me of the story earlier this year about the ultra-Orthodox newspapers in Israel that photoshopped the women Cabinet members out of a group photograph!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/03/israel-women-photoshopped_n_182822.html
November 9, 2009 at 10:50 pm
If you are wanting a good laugh, this week’s podcast is the “dramatic production” from our annual mom’s retreat and is entitled “Susie Homeschooler Meets Mrs. Van Uppity.” Enjoy!
http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3368
November 10, 2009 at 12:00 am
“It reminds me of the story earlier this year about the ultra-Orthodox newspapers in Israel that photoshopped the women Cabinet members out of a group photograph!”
Sigh… you know, some of these guys remind me of prepubescent boys, who are at that age when they hate everything that has anything to do with girls.
It sort of makes me wonder how some men manage to endure our odious company long enough to reproduce themselves…..
November 10, 2009 at 9:10 am
Dear ThatMom,
RE: 278. Thanks for the link!
November 10, 2009 at 1:26 pm
This morning on Jasmine Baucham’s blog she said “I got a question the other day about whether I thought non-stay-at-home daughters or non-stay-at-home moms could be Christians.” She plans to address that soon and I doubt that she will say they can’t, but at the same time I CANNOT BELIEVE someone is actually SAYING that! I left a comment saying I was pretty horrified anyone would ever say that and pointed out a couple of obvious flaws with a statement like that, but wow. I need to pick my jaw off the floor.
BTW, I did email her dad a few weeks ago asking him to clarify that statement we’ve discussed so much and despite it being a very polite and low-key email have not heard back. I wish I could get in touch with him.
Anyway, good comments above, I have not had as much time to participate lately…
November 10, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I don’t see why you can’t believe it. It simply means that she’s a kook magnet. They’re being drawn to her by her kooky message. They’re just trying to figure out how far to carry on with their elitism.
Anyway, she can play it a number of ways. She can say, that folks who don’t stay home have people wondering if they are really saved. Or, she can feign surprise/innocence that folks following their philosphy will reach such a conclusion.
November 10, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Can a man who doesn’t have his own business be a Christian?
November 10, 2009 at 2:55 pm
If we eat white flour and drink caffeinated beverages, can we be saved?
November 10, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Can a couple who marries but didn’t come together through courtship or betrothal have a Christian marriage?
November 10, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Can a woman who wears trousers be saved?
November 10, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Just wanting to prove that I can ask blog-worthy questions, too.
Gee. Whiz.
November 10, 2009 at 3:01 pm
momgodin, elitism it is.
Someone recently wrote me about her interesting experience.
She had been interviewed to do some menial labor for a patriocentrist. Rather than treating her with respect or even chatting with her as one Christian to another or even as one homeschooler to another, she was totally dismissed. The funny thing to me is that this woman has a thousand times the intellect and grace of the patriocentrist.
I would love to see the requirement list for patriocentrists. How do you qualify to be one of their elite? Obviously intellect and grace are not required.
November 10, 2009 at 3:04 pm
“Anyway, she can play it a number of ways. She can say, that folks who don’t stay home have people wondering if they are really saved. Or, she can feign surprise/innocence that folks following their philosophy will reach such a conclusion.”
Or she can claim gossip, libel, and slander.
November 10, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Cynthia Gee,
“Sigh… you know, some of these guys remind me of prepubescent boys, who are at that age when they hate everything that has anything to do with girls.
It sort of makes me wonder how some men manage to endure our odious company long enough to reproduce themselves…..”
ROFLOL!
L,
Thanks for trying to contact Voddie so he could clarify his teachings on daughters being given to fathers by God so they can meet their yearnings for the attentions of younger women.
Too bad he hasn’t written you back.
November 11, 2009 at 12:19 am
“If we eat white flour and drink caffeinated beverages, can we be saved?”
Depends on whether or not you’re a Mormon…
November 11, 2009 at 9:18 am
So did anyone watch “Born to Breed” on Lifetime last night? I was unable to finish it, so I won’t comment yet. But I have it recorded so I can see it this afternoon.
First thoughts: rural, rich, white…but looked like a great life for the kids with the two families they did show- Rachel Scott (nice home, nice clothes, able to afford to waterski, etc. which is a rich man’s sport for sure) and some other lady who is also affluent (large home, lots of land with a creek, lots of expensive outdoor gear for the kids to play on, dressed in normal clothes).
November 11, 2009 at 9:39 am
http://www.wetv.com/video/48175134001/born-to-breed-15-and-counting
born to breed clips
November 11, 2009 at 1:09 pm
waterski? dang. and I was gonna brag to y’all that I went roller skating last night and only fell three times…
ya see,growing up, *we* were so holy that we never darkened the door of a worldly skating rink!
)
(that was an audition for future skits, Karen
November 11, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Regarding the “can you do x and be a Christian” — just this morning I came across this quote:
If there be any difference among professed believers as to the sense of Scripture, it is their duty to tolerate such difference in each other, until God shall have revealed the truth to all.
–John Milton
November 11, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Interesting program on Focus on the Family last night. It was on the second half of marriage – what to do when the children have all gone. One of the points made was that many times, the wife has felt like her only purpose was the children and now that they are gone, she has to move on. I wonder how much of that is put on the wife by people who are very concerned about the role of women in a marriage. The Arps were very positive in encouraging women to find something else to do – go to school, be involved in other pursuits, take a job. They also talked about the divorce statistics and it seems that those who have been married 25-30 years have a higher divorce rate – surprising, and I am not sure that I got the complete context. But that statistic was followed by the comment about how things change when your whole focus has been your children. They emphasized that you should strive to be “best friends” with your spouse. It leads me to wonder what the patriocentric families will be doing when all of their children are gone, though I suppose in their model, they might just stick around forever.
November 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Keebler, this is a very real problem. I am now seeing homeschooling moms and dads who invested all their time in the children who are divorcing. So sad.
If you are taught that your only purpose and role in life as a woman is to bear children, what good are you when the womb can no longer give birth? God designed women to have be able to have children for only a part of their lives. “Normative” is to be barren from birth to 13 or so and then again from midlife until death. When you do the math, there are less years of fertility than not. If you have have these burdens tied on your backs, you can become overwhelmed with grief when you can no longer have babies.
I also think this is one of the reasons that they insist that grown children should live nearby, sometimes even on the parents’ land.
I discussed this topic and how to prepare for that seasons of life on two podcasts if anyone is interested: scroll down to The Sweater Years, Parts One and Two
http://www.thatmom.com/?page_id=2650
November 11, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Momgodin, I would love to feature you in a production, skates or no skates!!!
November 11, 2009 at 2:11 pm
emr, great Milton quote!
November 11, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Here’s a couple of questions -
“Can you do X and be a Christian?” assuming X = working outside the home and/or sending your kids to school, then “If you do Y does that automatically make you a Christian?” assuming Y = homemaker/homeschooler.
Clearly being a homemaker/homeschooler doesn’t make you a Christian.
—
“If you are taught that your only purpose and role in life as a woman is to bear children, what good are you when the womb can no longer give birth?”
What if you can’t give birth from the get go? What if you’re attacked somehow and can no longer bear children? What if your mother, or her mother, took DES, for example, and so you cannot carry a child? What if you have hormone problems and you can’t conceive? What if you were treated for cancer as a child and it left you infertile?
There are a whole lot of questions that they simply do not answer.
November 11, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I here you, Annie C. I have met women who very much wanted to have children and are not able to conceive. Hearing teachings like this in the church only increases their heartache. It’s cruel.
That is one reason that while I do highly value motherhood, I would never focus on that possibility as if it were a certainty in raising my daughter.
You only have to have one friend who endures this heartache to never, ever, ever want to put that burden on anyone else.
November 11, 2009 at 9:26 pm
here=hear Yes I can spell, but not edit apparently. Grrr. And I wish I knew how to underline, italicize, etc. What do you use, html? My kids know that.
November 11, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Shadowspring, in case you or anyone else wants to use html, here is a somewhat understandable page I found. I’m no geek expert, but it is fun to use sometimes.
http://aculturedleftfoot.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/bendtner-cesc-and-a-bit-of-tosh-piffle/
November 11, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Awww, the strike through didn’t work…how about this? I’m no
geekexpert–very true!November 12, 2009 at 10:32 am
“They emphasized that you should strive to be “best friends” with your spouse. ”
Interesting, Keebler.
I would think it impossible to be “best friends” with your spouse in the patrio model of marriage since it is all about subordination of the female and domination of the male. The major stress of patrio marriage is this: husband as ruler, leader, guide into all things and wife as underling, follower, subordinate.
Can a captain be best friends with a sailor?
Can a general be best friends with a private?
Can a boss be best friends with his employee?
Aren’t the patrios constantly talking about these things as models of marriage?
In order to be best friends there has to be equality and mutual respect and admiration and a sense that the other person is just as smart and capable.
“Don’t walk in front of me, I may not follow. Don’t walk behind me, I may not lead. Walk beside me and be my friend.
- Albert Camus
A friendship is not a relationship of power and control but of mutuality and equality. A friend recognizes our strengths and empowers us to use those strengths. In a friendship, there are no black and white roles because they look at themselves as a team.
Imho, patriocentricity doesn’t allow for the type of true intimacy that is found between two best friends.
November 12, 2009 at 12:44 pm
I think that post #320 by Corrie is the best post I’ve read here yet!
November 12, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Hey Mrs W, it’s good to see you here! I’ve been wondering how you’ve been doing since the new little guy came along! Hope all is well.
November 12, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Wow, Corrie, love that Albert Camus quote. Thanks!
November 12, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I am a lurker who wanted to speak up regarding an interesting trailer I just watched. It seems the Botkins are releasing a new DVD. You can view an excerpt on visionary daughters website.
I found it to be stunningly off base and eerie. I wonder if it is just the editing for this preview or if the whole thing is indeed as bizare as it seems!!!
November 12, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I just read this, and thought you all might find it interesting
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/11/12/raising.big.family.reality/index.html
November 12, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Home school dropouts? Apostates? They speak as if these two terms are synonyms on this new trailer of the Botkins.
Anyway, they use scary music and scary numbers- 80% of home schooled students are now apostate, er I mean, not planning to home school?
I think they mean many, many students brought up in hardcore patriarchal home school families will never do that again! Certainly not to their own children!
My students were/are being brought up in a more free-range, experiental and nurturing home school environment. In spite of all the grief of my daughters teen years, the one thing she would never change is having been home schooled! She is not sure she will have children (unlike the patrios daughters who believe they all know the future) but if she does she will definitely home school.
I ask my son almost every semester since middle school, do you want to keep doing this or enroll at public school? His answer is always,”Why would I want to do that? I love the freedom, I love the extra time I have. No way, unless you need me to, mom. I know I could handle it if you want to go back to work, but I would prefer to be home schooled.” He’s 15.
However, if my home had been the burdensome place of rules and strict roles that the patrios have come up with, then I wouldn’t blame them if they regretted the whole mess.
On another subject, wasn’t it so nice to see Angel so happy on the Lifetime “Born to Breed” special? =)
November 12, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Does anyone know who the people were on that trailer? I only recognized Kevin Swanson.
Also, as I usually am with the patriocentrists, I am confused as to who the intended audience is supposed to be. That is how I felt with The Monstrous Regiment of Women. It is how I felt about Passionate Housewives. It is how I felt with The Return of the Daughters. Is this current film geared toward children who are grown and not wanting to homeschool their own children? Is it for their parents? Do they seriously think that any young adults who might watch this and who grew up in patriocentricity and left it will be guilted into returning? That is what I was getting from it. This isn’t about homeschooling, at least it isn’t about normal homeschooling. It is about that group of homeschoolers that R. C. Sproul Jr. wrote about and that James and Stacy McDonald talked about, the ones who homeschoolg “by conviction” unlike the rest of us. It is about the patriocentrists and their legacy. Normal homeschoolers have kids who can think for themselves and make good choices themselves. And many of them are survivors and have discovered what grace actually looks like. They won’t be swayed by this propaganda. So who is the target audience?
I am really offended by this rhetoric that Swanson is using, taking the real and good research that is out there about the alarming numbers of young people who have abandoned the church and the faith by guys like Christian Smith and turning it into family integrated church/patriocentric propaganda. That is what Ken Ham has done in his book called “Already Gone” and the patrios are spinning that to prop up their agenda. I have seen Phillips and McDonald write about this recently and they aren’t looking at what the REAL problems are.
Shameless, these guys are.
November 12, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Annie G, thanks for that link. There’s a woman who looks like she can do the large family thing well! At least her children are rising and calling her blessed.
November 12, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Okay, Annie C, I’m so sorry; your last name is only one letter… how do I screw that up??
November 12, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Okay, the one interview with the first one man shown: WHO exactly is supposed to be doing the redeeming here???? Is that our job? Or perhaps could it be Jesus’??
Okay, enough sarcasm. I just get sick and tired of people trying to steal Jesus’ thunder; use His ideas and the freedom He bought to act like it was all their idea and their victory. Yeesh.
Oh, and “crank up the discernment” is patrio speak for “crank up the propaganda.” I pray we all DO crank up genuine discernment. And not just my idea of it, but that we are aware of what TRUTH really is… as a Person and otherwise.
November 12, 2009 at 8:31 pm
I was offended that they equated apostasy with not wanting to home school. Sheesh.
November 12, 2009 at 10:32 pm
I too was confused by the Botkin trailer. What are they saying?
“Our parents didn’t do a good job passing the baton on homeschoooling.”
“We’re shallow and lazy and just don’t want to homeschool.”
“The Government/Culture/Antichrist has won.”
Seriously, what is the message? None of it seems very complimentary or supportive of the job these “pioneering” homeschoolers have done.
November 12, 2009 at 11:07 pm
“I was offended that they equated apostasy with not wanting to home school. Sheesh.”
Yes, it’s offensive alright, but it IS the light at the end of the patriarchal/homeschooling tunnel.
The fact that most of the kids who were raised in hardcore patriarchal homeschooling families are not planning to raise their own kids this way spells the beginning of the END of the patrio/homeschooling craze….
…..and what a long strange trip it’s been.
November 13, 2009 at 2:11 am
I just found this blog from the no longer quivering blog…
– but what drew me to that camp all those years ago was the honesty of the women, their willingness to mine the scriptures that the other ladies at my church wanted us to all ignore 
– i am LOVING this blog! I love that you all are not on the exact same page, but that i sense the same passion for *freedom* in Christ and *wholeness*… a discontent with what is given, and an eagerness to get to the bottom… I can’t wait to catch up with all the posts here 
i’m a mom with seven littles from almost 14 year old to 20 mo baby girl… and a great husband – i’ve been fascinated with the NLQ blog because it seems like a whole different universe! To me, QF seemed like a huge quantum leap *away* from the patriarchy i was raised with, and more a complementarian type of thing. And that’s what it’s certainly been in my 15 years of marriage
November 13, 2009 at 7:36 am
Here is a link to the newest Botkin film trailer:
http://westernconservatory.com/products/homeschool-dropouts
November 13, 2009 at 7:38 am
Here is another interesting article that I think would be interesting to discuss. It was written by Andrea Schwartz (anyone know who that is?) and is entitled The biblical Trustee Family. She explains the three philosophies of family life as taught by Rushdooney.
http://westernconservatory.com/products/homeschool-dropouts
Any thoughts?
November 13, 2009 at 7:43 am
Welcome Mrs. M (out of lurkdom) ande Mamazee,
Glad to hear some fresh voices on TW!
November 13, 2009 at 7:43 am
Mrs. W,
Glad to see you back as well. Hope you and that little one are settling into a good routine and we will see more of you!
November 13, 2009 at 7:44 am
Anyone seen Abby lately? I have missed her good insights around here. Abby, if you are lurking, say hello!!!
November 13, 2009 at 7:46 am
oops, here is the correct link for the Rushdoony teachings:
http://westernconservatory.com/article/2009/10/what-biblical-trustee-family
November 13, 2009 at 8:42 am
Cynthia Gee,
What a great point! It is going to die out of it’s own accord. And I will say that is proof that home schooling is beneficial, because the children are learning:
a) going against norms is possible (not exactly what their parents wanted them to learn-they intended for their norms to be accepted and societies to be rejected. But it is what it is!)
b) you can do whatever you set your heart to do: you are capable of learning anything and accomplishing anything. Maybe your parents wanted to build a weird patrio world, and you want to build something else out of your life. Go build!
Home schooling gave their kids the confidence to go try new ways- which IS following in their parent’s footsteps but not the ways the patrios were expecting. The thought it would be a “do as I say, not as I do” way of teaching. But oh no! Children learng much more globally than that.
Makes me think of one of my favorite songs, Independence Day by Martina McBride.
LOL What a marvelous thing to happen! Cartwheels of joy! Even patrio home schooled kids can become independent learners.
November 13, 2009 at 8:57 am
Quote from the Biblical trustee family link:
“In Scripture, the family is man’s basic church, state, school, society, welfare agency, and social power. Control of the children and their education rests with the family, but strictly in terms of God’s law. Inheritance is a family power, in terms of faith. Welfare is a family duty, not only with respect to non-related widows, orphans, and strangers (Deut. 14:28–29), but also and especially with all relatives, for “if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [or, kindred], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8). The authority of the husband, and of the wife, is not personal but theological and is a trusteeship for God, first of all, and then the family”
In light of this passage, how do they EVER JUSTIFY kicking out the children who rebel and offering them no help, guidance, protection, love, grace or any support of any kind, least of all financial!
And again here is another outrageous quote, in light of all the teens/young adults kicked out of patrio families for showing some independence from Daddy’s party line:
“Likewise, the modern state has little use for powerful trustee families—those that take care of and provide for their own.”
Uh, kicking your son or daughter out of the house for any reason, is certainly NOT providing for your own! What hypocrisy. Yuck, yuck, yuck.
To everyone branded a prodigal who may be lurking, who never stopped loving the Lord and trying to do what’s right (even if you failed!) and was ostracized by their patrio family- THEY WERE WRONG TO DO THAT TO YOU! Not only that, it is a good thing that you are free from their control now, even though it may be scary and very painful. The Lord lives you, and He will sustain you and provide all you need to heal and move on! ((((the “prodigals”))))
November 13, 2009 at 9:17 am
I have been reading, just haven’t much to say. For those of you who are interested, I did contribute to “No Longer Quivering’s” carnival under the name “aussiemama”.
It is interesting that when I wrote on the Generation Cedar blog that I believed all that same stuff she believes before I became a Christian, that she deleted it.
November 13, 2009 at 10:40 am
Hmm. Couldn’t find any of your posts on Generation Cedar, but read a little about the blogger Kelly’s plan for saving troubled marriages. Ugh! I am sure my post will also be deleted. Her advice is useless and unprofitable. Basically, woman suck it up, and let’s further ostracize and punish people who decide they want more out of life than a miserable marriage can provide. >:[
My husband and I are digging out of years of bad teaching regarding marriage and gender roles. We are diligently seeking to love the Lord with all of our hearts and love each other as fellow beloveds for whom Christ died. We have decided in recent months to throw out all gender-related commands and focus on living as Christians! What a concept!
I would say that we are happier now than we have been in many, many years. We pray each night that God would make us one, that we would with one mind and one mouth glorify our Father in heaven, that we would each walk in the Spirit and so keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace. We pray for help to honor one another, bear each other’s burdens, accept one another, be kind to one another, tender-hearted and forgiving, to serve one another in love.
My pk/mk hubby has a lot of hurts from his fundamentalist upbringing, and it is a joy to seem him growing in GRACE. He is also attending a 26 week Christian program called Life Skills because he recognizes that his past abusive behavior is deeply rooted in wrong beliefs about Christian gender roles. I am so grateful for this and really respect his courage to admit he needed remediation in basic Christian living.
What a mess all this gender-emphasis has created in so many lives. Sad, sad, sad.
November 13, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Shadowspring posted, “My husband and I are digging out of years of bad teaching regarding marriage and gender roles. We are diligently seeking to love the Lord with all of our hearts and love each other as fellow beloveds for whom Christ died. We have decided in recent months to throw out all gender-related commands and focus on living as Christians! What a concept!”
Indeed. I’m sorry for all that you and your husband had to go through, but am so happy for you that you are working together to find your way out of all of that nonsense.
When my then-fiance (now husband of more than 27 years) and I went through pre-marital counseling with my pastor at the time, we were fed a lot of that gender stuff. After six weeks of that, I remember us once having a short conversation where we decided that we would just love and respect and care for one another to the best of our God-given ability (and by His grace) and see where that took us.
We never employed strict gender roles in our marriage. We just did what made sense at the time (such as I stayed home with the children for the first ten years, mostly because my husband always made more money than I did and we needed his income more than mine). This has worked wonderfully. We made adjustments as we have gone through our lives together according to what was best for each other, the kids, and frankly, just common sense. We are the best of friends, we laugh and love together, and just enjoy being together. There are no false constructs or gender rules/roles that cannot be bent or broken. It is real, it is organic, and I am humbled and grateful for the testimony, example, and love of this wonderful man in my life. It is truly God’s grace to me, which I in no way deserve.
Now I am aware that there are those who say that we are apostate, that we are in rebellion towards God, and predict every horrible possible thing will go wrong. I can’t do anything about that, other than be sad for those who buy or are forced into their “other gospel”.
When we are approached by young couples in our church, our only advice is consistently, “Love one another, submit to one another. One-another (as a verb) in everything you do, in every decision you make”.
Why some people make this out to be so hard is beyond us. We are dubious of their motives, because if everyone would admit that this is all an unncessary, rigid, gender-role adherence is EXTRA-biblical, then they would lose all of their power over people, which seems to be the most important thing to them.
November 13, 2009 at 12:29 pm
More thoughts on Homeschool Dropout:
http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3377
November 13, 2009 at 1:31 pm
“And I will say that is proof that home schooling is beneficial, because the children are learning:
a) going against norms is possible (not exactly what their parents wanted them to learn-they intended for their norms to be accepted and societies to be rejected. But it is what it is!)
b) you can do whatever you set your heart to do: you are capable of learning anything and accomplishing anything. Maybe your parents wanted to build a weird patrio world, and you want to build something else out of your life. Go build!
Home schooling gave their kids the confidence to go try new ways- which IS following in their parent’s footsteps but not the ways the patrios were expecting. The thought it would be a “do as I say, not as I do” way of teaching. But oh no! Children learng much more globally than that.”
Shadowspring, that’s awesome! I’ve actually been doing noticing that very thing lately as I’ve realized there are some things in my (wonderful) family that I don’t believe are right or healthy and I’ve been making some changes. Nothing dramatic going on, really, but I know my parents do feel kind of insecure right now noticing that I am believing some different things than them. Overall though I think they are happy that I seem to be getting to know God better and I am trying not to make too big of a deal about what I am changing my mind on. But yeah, having been homeschooled is a large part of the reason WHY I can wrestle with these things and a couple of times say outright that I think this is based on something faulty and we need to do/think that instead.
November 13, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Awesome, shadowspring. My hubby is a pk too. It’s a hard road for him, but he’s doing awesome, just like your hubby. So proud of them! Keep at it.
Great to see the new faces in here! Happy Friday!
November 13, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Thanks for the encouragement, Trish. And I am happy for your husband that he is doing awesome.
And to L., yay for you! Keep growing and learning and building. It’s a good thing. I will pray that your parents will be able to clearly see that.
(It’s hard to see clearly sometimes as a parent. Our own fears and regrets can cloud our vision if we are not careful. “Courage” should be tatooed on my right arm, so I could keep the reminder in front of me. LOL But, I’m against tatoos, so I’ll just have to find some other way to keep reminding myself.
)
November 14, 2009 at 1:49 am
#336-Andrea Schwartz is connected with Chalcedon as Publications Coordinator, also seems to be heading up Chalcedon Teacher Training Institute. Here is her bio from that:
Andrea Schwartz is an active proponent of Christian education. She successfully homeschooled and graduated two of her three children through high school. She has taught in co-op settings, privately tutored and coached students in writing, public speaking, and drama, and has organized and run homeschool choirs and other extracurricular activities. She has written and directed a number of plays including a collaborative musical work, Walkin’ Wise. She has had numerous articles appear in magazines and on national websites. She currently serves on the board of directors of a Christian junior and senior high school, offering her years of experience in applying the Word of God to all areas of learning, and reaching out to homeschooling families with extra activities and programs. Andrea lives in San Jose, CA with her husband of 30+ years and continues to homeschool her youngest daughter.
Her first book is entitled The Homeschool Life: Discovering God’s Way(hmmm to Family-Based Education, and the second book, Lessons Learned from Years of Homeschooling, has a section with the tantalizing title “What to Do With Daughters”.
November 14, 2009 at 3:11 am
What to do with daughters.
You love them.
You love them.
You love them.
I wrote elsewhere:
a little girl should feel safe.
she should feel that her mind, her body, and her heart are all tucked in at night, with the door cracked just a little so it is not quite so dark, with the low murmur of voices trickling in from the living room telling her that mommy and daddy are still there.
a little girl should feel wanted.
she should make them smile, just because she walks upon the earth. she could sit and do nothing, forever, and make their hearts glad, simply by being. by belonging.
a little girl should have her needs met.
she should hunger for nothing . . . bread, shoes, or love.
a little girl should thrive
and not be required to learn survival
as a constant way of life.
a little girl should be encouraged,
emotionally, intellectually, physically, spiritually.
love.
love.
love.
Like Jesus.
November 14, 2009 at 7:29 am
Hillary, that is so lovely and exactly right.
Makes me think of the J.J. Heller song, Love Me. (http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3359 second you tube on this post) “Who will love me for me, not for what I have done or what I will become.”
November 14, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Hillary, I loved what you wrote.
she should make them smile, just because she walks upon the earth. she could sit and do nothing, forever, and make their hearts glad, simply by being. by belonging.
My mom was from a farm family (not patriarchal), but she always felt she was a poor substitute for her only older brother who had just died young. It’s extremely difficult to get over that.
November 14, 2009 at 3:18 pm
“When we are approached by young couples in our church, our only advice is consistently, “Love one another, submit to one another. One-another (as a verb) in everything you do, in every decision you make”.
Why some people make this out to be so hard is beyond us. We are dubious of their motives, because if everyone would admit that this is all an unncessary, rigid, gender-role adherence is EXTRA-biblical, then they would lose all of their power over people, which seems to be the most important thing to them.”
Savannah,
AMEN! Preach it, Sister.
November 14, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Hillary -
Ok, that made me cry. I’m keeping that one.
November 14, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I want to feed this guy to the sharks. grrr!
and the ones behind him “amen-ing” him, too!
November 14, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Oh, my. And here is another one:
November 14, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Mr. Shaap leaves me speechless! He really needs to hear the Gospel and accept Christ.
November 14, 2009 at 6:11 pm
What to do with daughters????
Well, let’s see…today I (at 9 mos. preggo) spent 1/2 an hour bundling them up in snow clothes, then we went out and tromped merrily around in the new snow, then we came in and drank hot cocoa and snuggled on the couch reading books (since tromping in the snow at 9 mos pregnant isn’t all that easy
). See? Not hard to figure out at all. Maybe I should write a book, too….
And now I’ll go back to lurking. I highly enjoy the conversation and links you ladies post here. Keep it up!
November 14, 2009 at 6:29 pm
What to do with daughters? Let’s see, I just took mine to Ulta and spent an hour playing with make-up and talking. Then we came home and she is getting ready to go out to a dance tonight at her college. I will help her fix her hair, tell her how much we love her, and wave good-bye as she drives off in our car. When she brings it back tonight, we will probably spend about ten minutes talking about her evening and then hug,kiss and go to bed.
My daughter turns 19 in two weeks. Yesterday when we were driving to the store she put the radio on a country station. Then she yelped with glee because her favorite worship song was on. “I know it’s not meant to be about Jesus, but that’s all I think about when I hear it.”
We had awful years from her 13th to 18th, but I praise God that we never stopped loving her and never gave up!
November 14, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Aww, Annie C., thank you . . . I hope they were happy tears!
thatmom and Kathy, thank you so much. {{hugs}}
November 14, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Darcy ~ my how fun! I want to be one of your little girls!!!! YES you should write a book ~ seriously!
Shadowspring, what a lovely afternoon with your baby who is all grown up. *tear
November 14, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Just curious how many women are in his church and why? I guess they come because their husbands take them.
November 14, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Ugh. What a jerk. I couldn’t even listen to all. How sad that he actually has an audience of people that are paying good money to keep the lights and AC on and pay his salary.
I would hate to have to account to God for my giving if any of it went to this church.
November 14, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Oh. good. Lord.
You don’t think Schaap’s hairline might have been a little straighter and his hair quite a bit fuller when his wife married him, do you??? Of course not! Because he’s going to stay exactly the way he was when his wife married him.
I know I can’t judge a man’s salvation, but his motives seem to be right out there: I don’t think it’s love for His benevolent Savior that keeps him in the pulpit and throne of that church. It seems like it’s power, pure and simple; just so he can hear, “Yes ma’am, whatever the pastor wants, ma’am.” That’s a man who doesn’t ever want to be said no to. Yikes…
November 14, 2009 at 10:20 pm
By the way, that last quote was from another video of him, in which he berates people who question the no open toed shoes and no sleeveless dresses rule for weddings in the church. First he mimics them asking about the reasonableness of it to the wedding coordinator or whomever they are asking, and them screams “NO! NO! NO! NO!” for like 20 seconds before saying, “No, you say ‘Yes ma’am, whatever the pastor wants, ma’am.’”
November 14, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Okay, I just looked up the website for Schaap’s church (First Baptist of Hammond, Indiana — http://www.fbchammond.com). THEY HAVE SEPARATE BAPTISTRIES FOR MEN AND WOMEN. I have never heard of this before.
AND, they have a women’s ministry/magazine. His wife is senior editor and he is editor-in-chief. I cannot imagine the kind of messages that are being sent to women from a pastor who would say such belittling things from the pulpit.
November 15, 2009 at 1:38 am
What to do with daughters? mine’s 24, and a few months ago I said goodbye to her as she moved from sydney to London to go and work in one of the poorest areas there as a social worker in child protection. When people asked her how her mother could let her go, she quoted what I’d said to her, “My mum says that when she brought me to baptism she gave me back to God, and so if this is what he has called me to do, I go with her blessing.” I miss her heaps, but we talk on skype 3x a week, and in january her dad and I are flying over there to spend a couple of precious weeks with her.
What do you do with daughters? you love them with all your heart, and you set them free to follow Jesus wherever He takes them.
November 15, 2009 at 10:41 am
I could never have raised my daughter to think the only worthwhile future that God approves would be wife and stay at home mom. I am not omniscient! I have no idea if my daughter will ever get married or have children.
What of Gladys Aylward? Amy Carmichael? Rachel Saint? Marilyn Lazlo? And those are just a few single women in ministry who led many to the Lord.
What about the many unknown single women and working mothers who have touched this world for Christ? The social workers like Lynne’s daughter, those working in criminal justice, pharmaceuticals, other medical fields, home remodeling and decorating, aerospace technologies, banks…really any place that touches the lives of another human being offers an opportunity to serve the Lord by serving our fellow human beings.
Really, if one wanted to be super-spiritual and legalistic, wouldn’t it be better for people not to marry at all, according to Paul’s letter to the Corinthians? I am thinking that this was a tenet of one of the early heretical twists that corrupted the early church, but it’s been a long time since my New Testament Survey class. In I Cor 7:1,8 Paul says it’s better to remain single. Better!
But then that would mean no fiefdom for the patriarch to rule, no woman/family to dominate. So I doubt if we’ll see any movement from the extremist home school crowd encouraging lifelong singleness/celibacy.
November 15, 2009 at 12:06 pm
We are starting to see the fringes of a movement to ok polygamy, though…
November 15, 2009 at 12:06 pm
After all, aren’t four submissive wives breeding babies better than one?
November 16, 2009 at 11:02 am
I don’t know whether this book has been mentioned before, Homeschooling:An American History by Milton Gaither.
Gaither is a professor of education at Messiah College in PA.
I have really been enjoying this book. It is a very objective look at education since the Mayflower and all the way to the modern homeschool movement. He attributes three people with the modern movement. Holt, Rushdoony and Raymond Moore. What especially interested me is the whole issue with the inclusive movement…Harris vs Moore, the White Papers etc. He also talks about the issue surrounding Cheryl Lindsey. Wow- I had no idea Sue Welch had to pay over a million dollars in damages to her under an anti trust law. Very revealing about certain ‘Christians’ in the movement. After reading this I feel very duped as I was totally taken in by these people back in the 90′s.I highly recommend the book.
November 16, 2009 at 11:27 am
I would love to read a scholarly book on the modern homeschool movement. Thanks for the tip!
I have read Moore and Holt, and took good advice from both of them. I don’t feel duped by anyone and I am exceedingly glad that I home schooled and will continue to home school until my son graduates high school sometime in the next 2 1/2 years. I totally love it and so do my kids!
I never heard of Rushdooney until I started posting here and he totally creeps me out! *shudder*
However, I will say that while I started out in a Christian home school support group, very intent on sharing my faith with my children morning, noon and night by living together and seeking God together, it was not long before it was clear to me that home schooling and raising your children for Christ are two different animals. They are animals that live together in peace at our house, but nevertheless they are completely different topics.
God works all things together for good, and as president of a Christian home school support group, I got to experience first-hand the ugly side of religious ambitions, gossip, self-righteousness and people twisting scripture to get their own way and hurt others. It was this experience that changed my mind about so-called “Christian” home schooling and sent me running to grace.
(Actually, John Holt’s and the Moores’ works are quite compatible with grace: let your children learn at their own pace and follow their own interests as they grow and learn. I was never a total unschooler because I wanted to be in full compliance with the law and I dreaded my children blaming me if they grew up to have an incomplete education. But even with the three Rs everyday there was plenty of time and opportunity to unschool themselves in their chosen areas of interest.)
I don’t know any of the other issues you mention- an inclusive movement, Harris vs. Moore, and I have no idea who Cheryl Lindsey or Sure Welch are. Guess I’ve got some research to do!
November 16, 2009 at 11:46 am
What do you do with girls?
Well, you take the youngest who is twelve to buy basketball shoes, which is not as easy as it sounds since she has size 11 feet. You finally decide she’s going to have to have men’s shoes but she gets over that quick because we eventually find an awesome pair, all the right colors, that she would be proud to wear as she’s tearing up the basketball court.
When the doctor points out that she’s not only tall for her age, she’s actually outside the graft on his little growth sheet, you smile and say, “All the better to play basket ball with, my dear. And don’t forget Taylor Swift is 5’11″ (famous country sing for those who don’t know)”
When the boys in the Sunday school class tease goodnaturedly that she’s “a beast” I gently remind them that though they meant well and were praising her in their own Jr. High way, that not all girls take well to being called a beast and might think they are trying to insult her. (Then they quicky snap up straight, say they are sorry because half of them have a crush on her. Because beside being tall, lean, and a beast on the b’ball court, she’s beautiful. model material even from my unbiased mom’s point of view
)
Do you know why I do this with my daughter?
Because she’s called to be a mighty woman of valor for her God. She will be strong and do exploits.
Oh, and I’ve only begun to tell you what to do with girls. I’m not near halfway done telling about my youngest. And I haven’t even started telling you about my oldest who is also valiant in other ways. She’s been nominate to attend a national youth leaders conference in Washington D.C.
Yes, first you love them, love them, love them.
Then you support and encourage them as they spread their wings like eagles and soar far above the limits that small minded men want to enforce over them.
Thank heaven for little girls!
November 16, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Amen to that, Mara! I would love to watch your daughter play basketball one day. Maybe in a college game on TV?
November 16, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Oh my, I didn’t mean to say that I felt ‘duped’ into homeschooling.I love homeschooling-and I have been doing it for 19 years with many more ahead.
“Duped” is how I feel when I think about how I admired many of these leaders in the past and thought they were writing and speaking for my benefit and for the Lord. I now believe this is as much of a business for these folks as any secular business. For the past several years I have been rethinking much of what I learned in the 90′s…I am thankful that I have a husband and kids who never let me fall too far into the weird stuff. But I have felt ‘less than’ on many occasions as I heard these speakers. I am free from that now…and how!
November 16, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Yikes! I just scanned a copy of Raymond Moore’s letter to Michael Farris and white paper of 1994. Now I feel duped too!
I’m glad you didn’t fall too far into weird stuff, too, Mary.
At the time of my Christian home school support group disaster, I couldn’t see anything good about it happening. Now I praise God that he got me out of there and into an all-inclusive home school group so early on in this long slide into weirdness.
Thank you Lord! I got to make friends with unschoolers, home schoolers from other religions, home schoolers seeking help for their formerly public schooled, secular students- none of whom were welcome in the “Christian” home school support group. My life is richer for having known these people, whereas I cannot say that about my former associations in the Christian home school support group.
I recently received a home school magazine in the mail, and as I was looking at the angelic face on the cover, I realized it was less about reality than selling an image. The sweet face looked like an angel. I am sure no sin has ever crossed that pure, sweet mind. At least, that is what I thought as I looked at the picture of innocent beauty on the cover.
But that’s not reality! No one is perfect. I imagine most moms looking at that cover feel like I briefly did- I wonder why my children are so far from perfect, unlike this saintly teen.
It made me angry that such a thought crossed my mind, and then I realized that is exactly what they wanted me to think. Then hopefully I would begin searching the pages for a new product that will take my teen from ordinary sinner to saintly model of righteous perfection.
Grrrr. I don’t think this is very pleasing to God at all.
November 16, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Mara, your insights into girls is brilliant. thank you for saying it so eloquently. I love using the phrase “mighty moms of valor” because that is exactly what we are called to be!!!
November 16, 2009 at 1:14 pm
shadowspring, in the early years of home education, the Moores’ influence won the rights that many of us enjoy today. What was done to them as evident in the white papers is outrageous. Sadly, their methods and ideas and research has been set aside in lieu of the vast amount of curriculum that is being written and pedaled. I frequently introduce new young moms to the Moores and they are always so glad to tell me how much their teachings resonate.
November 16, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Mary, I think the whole goal is to make the rest of us feel like chopped liver. I think that is part and parcel of their whole hegemony agenda.
November 16, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Here is another link from the Geoffrey Botkins. Anyone want to tell me how many times the guys says “men” in this little trailer?
http://www.battleforcivilization.com/
November 16, 2009 at 1:26 pm
http://www.visionforum.com/browse/productdetail.aspx?productid=46544
Can’t believe it…Doug Phillips is selling an Abigail Adams paper doll. I wonder how much he has ever studied this amazing woman!
November 16, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Hillary, just beautiful.
What did my parents do with girls?
They gave me a small closet room for my very own and in that room with a borrowed computer in 1995 I started a small editing and writing business (with one client) that almost 15 years later is now a small corporation and pays half the bills of our household each month and keeps this grown-up girl very happy. My husband was delighted to to find a “girl” just like me.
True, I don’t have time to sew as much as I’d like and sometimes I’m flying around cleaning the bathrooms just as company is pulling into the driveway and I forget to buy milk (and the we’re still figuring out if we can parent our own children someday or not), but girls can do amazing things if they are given the chance to flourish.
November 16, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I couldn’t watch that odious man. Someday someone will get a knock on their front door and it will be his wife and daughters running for their lives. It’s disgusting.
November 16, 2009 at 2:10 pm
momgodin,
One quick comment about the Hyles-Anderson phenomena…we saw a video promotional for the college years ago and it was quite entertaining. They showed an entire room full of girls…probably 30 or 40 or them…all sewing at once using the same machines. It was showing a course you would take for your preacher boy wife’s major. I am not making this up!
November 16, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Karen,
I counted 8 times plus over a half dozen corresponding pronouns (“they”, “we”) that he said the word “men”.
Also, what about all the brave and courageous women throughout history? Or don’t they matter? Or are these only manly qualities?
November 16, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Can I just say that I have had it up to HERE with their hypocrisy and their attitude that people are just too stupid to remember what they taught in the very recent past?
When are their sheep going to start calling them on the carpet for their hypocrisy, double-minded ways, double standards, etc?
You cannot have a biblical betrothal, as described by them, and not have a biblical divorce if the betrothal was broken. You cannot say that being engaged is not biblical and then turn right around and announce an engagement.
We are not that stupid.
November 16, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Mara,
Loved your post on what to do with girls! I have a daughter that just made her high school basketball team and I took her shopping for shoes on Friday.
I am so glad I am free from the constructs that I was under. I am no longer trying to shove my 6 daughters into a small, narrow box in order for them to be accepted as a “biblical woman”. They are all so different and I hope I always encourage them accordingly.
November 16, 2009 at 3:34 pm
“A friend passed along a you tube video to me that shows that the MacDonald girl is engaged again. It didn’t mention a betrothal this time and I wondered if anyone here knows if her parents still teach that being engaged is worldly.”
Well, Marty, since they have not apologized to their public and taken back their false teachings on betrothal being the only biblical way we can safely assume that they still think that being engaged is a worldly endeavor only undertaken by those marginal Christians who want to be able to break off an engagement if they fall out of love or some other trite reason.
We can also assume that they believe that they had good reasons for why they broke off their betrothal since it was as binding as marriage but no one else has good reasons for breaking off engagements.
Ugh!
And now she is no longer “quiverfull” even though she and her husband tried to by the QF Digest back in 2000 or so…she is “Jesus-full”.
Well, it is full of something, alright, but I can say what it is full of in front of polite company.
November 16, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Insecure men are the ones to blame for cultural decline??? How simplistic! Yawn and an eye roll, in spite of the dramatic music and great graphics.
Gee, and all this time I thought that righteous men would be righteous still, while wickedness would just continue on in like manner, until the second coming of Christ. You know, like the Bible says it will be.
November 16, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“What of Gladys Aylward? Amy Carmichael? Rachel Saint? Marilyn Lazlo? And those are just a few single women in ministry who led many to the Lord.
What about the many unknown single women and working mothers who have touched this world for Christ? The social workers like Lynne’s daughter, those working in criminal justice, pharmaceuticals, other medical fields, home remodeling and decorating, aerospace technologies, banks…really any place that touches the lives of another human being offers an opportunity to serve the Lord by serving our fellow human beings.”
Shadowspring,
They are all Monstrous Women.
Your whole post, #369, is excellent!
Yes, why don’t we become literal and legalistic and take 1 Cor 7 as it says in black and white?
IT IS BETTER TO NOT MARRY AND YOU WILL BE HAPPIER IF YOU STAY SINGLE…..
That is exactly what it says.
But, the patrios only pick and choose what they will be legalistic about and you are right that it is only the things that suit their own agenda for control and domination over another person (s) which happen to be, for the most part, female.
November 16, 2009 at 3:42 pm
“Husbands tell your wives to save their breath…..”
“It will be a cold day in hell before I listen to a woman about theology.”
Nice. At least he is honest about what he really believes.
He is the poster boy for the patriocentric movement, really.
November 16, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Seriously, Corrie, they tried to buy the Quiverful Digest? Those people are hard-core quiverfulls. Didn’t the Hess family own QF at one time? They believe no birth control for any reason whatsoever, including illness of the mother. It reminds me of the Phillips/Samaritan Ministries position on ectopic pregnancy.
For the record, I am very supportive of people who change their positions and philosophies. I am one of those people. But I have at least stated publicly those changes of views. How much more important is it for those who are public teachers to be upfront with their changes of heart, if, indeed, they have them. Otherwise, it appears as though these teachers are trying to make themselves palatable to more than one audience.
“The double minded man is unstable in all his ways.”
November 16, 2009 at 3:49 pm
… I thought James McDonald *did* apologize for the betrothal blogs?
No?
Sincerely,
Mary from Tennessee
November 16, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Momgodin,
The sharks are too good for this pastor, throw him to me.
I will show him what an in shape woman can do to a little twit such as himself. My biceps are bigger than his head.
These men couldn’t handle a real woman. They talk big but they would cry like a little baby if they had to go toe to toe with a real woman who isn’t scared of all their stupid blustering.
It bothers him and irritates him when a man marries a “beautiful thing” that God created and she lets herself go?
November 16, 2009 at 3:50 pm
RE: 395.
I watched the Schaap video. Scary stuff.
Sincerely,
Mary from Tennessee
November 16, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Well, his hair irritates and bothers me. And it will be a cold day in hell before I hear what he has to say about theology.
November 16, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Mary,
He apologized for parading his daughter out in front of everyone and for being premature in betrothing his daughter to that young man.
BUT, he hasn’t apologized for his false teaching on betrothal and his flip-flopping ways and his slams against us marginal evangelical apostates who merely engage instead of betroth. He just takes the stuff down and then teaches something totally opposite as if we all will just come down with amnesia.
November 16, 2009 at 3:58 pm
(Corrie, note that I edited your comment so it wasn’t the entire article. I am uncertain about the fair use laws and am erring on the conservative side with enough information for people to get the drift. Perhaps if anyone wants a copy of the entire post they can contact you?)
I am reposting (part of) their original blog article.
“So, that said, what is betrothal to the McDonald family?
I see betrothal as a covenant promise between a man and a woman to marry. It is a commitment that should not be broken, except in the case of death or sexual unfaithfulness. [I would add that if there were some other bizarre undisclosed situation (insanity, major undisclosed sin, character issue, etc.) that was discovered at this point, it would also be a legitimate reason for not progressing to the actual marriage] Thus, in the case of Tiffany and Jared, they have decided to move from the non-binding courtship phase to the binding betrothal phase.
To those with a secular postmodern mind, the concept of betrothal may seem foreign, archaic, and constricting. In a culture where marriage is redefined to include perverted homosexual unions, and couples divorce because they “fell out of love,” how in the world can the postmodern mind grasp the beauty and purity of faithfulness before marriage?………..
Now, from the world’s perspective, engagement and betrothal are interchangeable. Both may be viewed as a semi-commitment where an announcement is made of an intended wedding and “save the date” cards are sent. But it is not binding – there is no real commitment. It can be broken at any time by either party for any reason. Just as you can break a dinner engagement, you can break a marriage engagement. In fact, if the engagement is broken, most people breathe a heavy sigh of relief. The idea is that it is better to break things off before marriage, so you can save the lawyer’s fees in a future divorce.”
November 16, 2009 at 4:00 pm
What is fair usage as far as copyright of blog articles? I don’t want anyone getting any more legal threats from the McDonalds.
November 16, 2009 at 4:26 pm
So here we have a grand self-described patrio leader who proclaims to all with ears and access to computer blogs their enlightened plan for their stay-at-home-daughter’s betrothal. They equate said betrothal with commitment to marriage itself, an arrangement broken only by divorce. Jane Austen costumes are involved.
But in time, daughter doesn’t find prince patrio so fun afterall. Following a mumbled “oops,” patrio papa pretends like none of that unpleasantness ever happened.
But if a daughter’s still “married” ala patrio, wouldn’t another engagement/betrothal equal…I hate to say it…BIGAMY?
Another twist of patrios toiling the outskirts of plural marriage.
November 16, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Paul Washer is now supporting and promoting the family integrated church:
http://www.ncfic.org/weblogmodule/view/id/201/src/@random493e73d2154bd/
November 16, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Shadowspring: “Amen to that, Mara! I would love to watch your daughter play basketball one day. Maybe in a college game on TV?”
Well, not sure if she is going to pursue b’ball or music (can she do both?). Because the only thing she tears up worse that a b’ball court is a piano keyboard. She writes music and wows people with that. This is why Taylor swift being 5’11″ means something to her. Told you I’ve only begun to tell you about her.
Thatmom: “Mara, your insights into girls is brilliant. thank you for saying it so eloquently. I love using the phrase “mighty moms of valor” because that is exactly what we are called to be!!!”
I know you know this. More women need to know that the Proverbs woman was a woman of valor. That the word virtuous in that verse is the exact same Hebrew word used to descibe men. But for men it is translated into English as valor.
And we women need to take that word to mean what was intended. And we need to take it to heart. And we need to encourage one another and our daughters that this word is NOT just for men. God says so. No matter what Schaap has said to deceive himself and his congregation to the contrary.
(It will be a cold day in hell, indeed, before I let that man and his poisonous doctrine anywhere near my beautiful, creative, valiant daughters.)
corrie: “Loved your post on what to do with girls! I have a daughter that just made her high school basketball team and I took her shopping for shoes on Friday.”
We went shoe shopping on Saturday, that’s why it’s fresh in my brain.
Thanks ladies. I’m glad you approve of my ‘methods’ for raising girls. Your few comments carry far more meaning for me than a month of Sunday sermons from Schaap.
(And Hillary, since I forgot to mention it before, let me mention it here. I loved your poem and how it inspire the women here to rise up and declare the beauty and wonder of being the mothers of little girls. Because without our little girls what would us moms ever do?)
November 16, 2009 at 7:08 pm
November 16, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I hope Washer is not wholeheartedly throwing himself in with the NCFIC. The tone of his statement made me hope this might be the case, especially this: I want you to listen to some of the things which they are teaching and learn.
I imagine Washer, being a dynamic and popular preacher, has been courted by the patrios, a la Voddie Baucham, in order to get more star power on their side.
November 16, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Paul Washer will be speaking with Doug Phillips, Kevin Swanson, Voddie Baucham, Ken Ham and I believe Geoffrey Botkin at a conference the second week in December. We have many friends still very much involved with these groups and we have been asked to travel with a few other friends to the conference. We have declined.
I like a lot of what Paul Washer says but I hope he does not continue further down the road with these gentleman. Please Paul DO NOT DRINK THE KOOL-AID!!!
November 17, 2009 at 8:37 am
This comment is for Jane since she does not have a proper e-mail address for me to write directly to her:
According to my legal counsel, your repeated comments to me are considered to be harassment and I would ask you to please stop. I have answered everything you have asked me and I will no longer be engaging you.
November 17, 2009 at 8:52 am
Mrs. M, what is that upcoming conference?
Also, does anyone know the theological background of Paul Washer? And what denomination currently ordains him? His is a fairly new name to me, as within the last year.
November 17, 2009 at 10:45 am
According to his web site, he pastors a Southern Baptist church and is a graduate of Southwestern Theological Seminary.
http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/about/accountability
November 17, 2009 at 11:22 am
Thatmom,
The conference is the Sufficiency of Scripture conference but on by Doug Phillips’ National Center For Family Integrated Churches.
http://www.ncfic.org/national-conference
November 17, 2009 at 11:37 am
Here is an interesting article:
All politics aside, look at the way they just had to portray Sarah Palin.
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/?p=4437
November 17, 2009 at 11:39 am
Mrs. M,I am having a hard time getting past the conference title “Sufficiency of Scripture.” Patriocentrists have the longest list of extra biblical rules since the Pharisees. Just looking at the latest Botkin film proves they don’t believe the Scripture is sufficient…it has to be supplemented with their lists to prove you aren’t apostate.
November 17, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Yes I agree and I am so sad to see Paul Washer fall in with this lot. I had heard he was teaming up with Voddie but I had not seen evidence of this. Well now we see. I am also sad that Ken Ham continues to grow closer to this group. Let us all pray that these men will see things as they really are and flee.
Also for any who feel led, please pray for my friends who are still very much caught up in all of this as they are attending this conference. I am hoping they will begin to see this “movement” for what it truly is.
November 17, 2009 at 12:43 pm
From info about the conference: This conference will call Christians back to their foundation, affirming that the Scripture alone is sufficient to direct their lives and the life of their families, their churches, and their country in the 21st Century. Whether you are a father, mother, child, common laborer, or an elder in a local church, there will be important messages for everyone with topics including the accuracy of the Scriptures from the very first verse, biblical evangelism, biblical church government, women’s ministry, euthanasia, work, biblical manhood and womanhood, child training, education, music, biblical worship, and much more. Join us with your family, friends and church as we seek to rebuild the crumbling foundations, repair the breaches, and restore the paths to dwell in.
To “rebuild the crumbling foundations, repair the breaches, and restore the paths to dwell in” (taken from Isaiah 58) requires:
“To loose the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the heavy burdens,
To let the oppressed go free,
And that you break every yoke?
7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
And that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out;
When you see the naked, that you cover him,
And not hide yourself from your own flesh?
8 Then your light shall break forth like the morning,
Your healing shall spring forth speedily,
And your righteousness shall go before you;
The glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard.
9 Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer;
You shall cry, and He will say, ‘Here I am.’
“ If you take away the yoke from your midst,
The pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness,
10 If you extend your soul to the hungry
And satisfy the afflicted soul,
Then your light shall dawn in the darkness,
And your darkness shall be as the noonday.
11 The LORD will guide you continually,
And satisfy your soul in drought,
And strengthen your bones;
You shall be like a watered garden,
And like a spring of water, whose waters do not fail.
12 Those from among you
Shall build the old waste places;
You shall raise up the foundations of many generations;
And you shall be called the Repairer of the Breach,
The Restorer of Streets to Dwell In.”
November 17, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Musing aloud, here: I see a lot from websites like the ones referenced here about “defending the Bible”, “defending the faith”, “defending family” “defending truth”. Not that any of those things aren’t good ~ but why are evangelicals so caught up with defending things? The only thing biblically that I can think of now is having a defense ready for the hope that is in us ~ which is our testimony.
God is our defender.
Scripture equips us for every good work.(2 Timothy 3:16-17)
I think it was Molly (Adventures in Mercy) who pointed out that truth defends us.
November 17, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Hillary, your thoughts are so good and really reminded me of a sermon I once heard given by evangelist Bob Laurent. He was discussing Matthew 18 and Jesus’ admonition to Peter that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against us.” He pointed out that gates never come running after us, they are in place to protect what is on the other side from the enemy. He said that Christians often act as though the gates of hell are running after us but in reality we are the ones who are to be storming the gates. It is an offensive posture rather than a defensive one!
Along these lines, I would encourage you all to listen to the latest podcast that is a testimony by homeschooling mom Jane Gestrine. Jane is a friend of mine whose family has chosen to live in the inner city and during one school year she schooled not only her 4 sons but 3 other young men who had been wither removed from their school or taken out of it because of their terrible behavior. It is such an amazing testimony and such an example to those who want to hide away from the culture.
http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3397
November 17, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I also just uploaded some links to articles on the family integrated church that discuss the problems with the theology involved in this movement. They are good and thought-provoking.
http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3400
November 17, 2009 at 1:16 pm
From the latest Vision Forum catalog: “when your son picks up a G.A. Henty historical novel…” What, so if I had a daughter, she can’t read them?
And what do you all make of the choice of film for the next Sherwood movie? I loved Facing the Giants and Fireproof, but is Courageous a move towards patriarchy or do you think it will just be a good movie about the father/child relationship?
November 17, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I know a lot of Pearl followers had a real difficulty with Fireproof, saying it was a bad movie because not only did the woman work, but it didn’t show all the marriage problems as being her fault, although some were.
November 17, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Can someone give me a link to an explanation of the Rahab’s Lie philosophy, or whatever they call it? I have some friends who are wondering how “Christians” are excusing their unethical behavior.
thanks!
November 17, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I hope Paul Washer understands the WHOLE package that comes along with being an NFICr? It might look good on the surface and the teachings seem pretty innocuous but FIC goes hand in hand with patriocentricity and quiverfull theology, especially in the group is getting in with. It is only the TIP of the iceberg.
Paul Washer needs to understand that you must swallow the whole package that Phillips/Botkin/Swanson et al are selling or you are apostate.
It is a whole lifestyle. This isn’t about strong families. Even us feministic, apostate evangelical slobs want strong families!
November 17, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Corrie, I wonder of Paul Washer et al also have to be in complete agreement with Doug Phillips and his perspective on ectopic pregnancy? Phillips declared that he would have nothing to do with anyone/group who didn’t agree with him completely. So….
November 17, 2009 at 2:29 pm
momgodin, I have looked and looked for the original statement by Rich Lusk about Rahab’s lie but can’t find it now. Anyone?
November 17, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Besides that the treatment of women in these particular FIC churches is nothing I would support. We have already heard testimonies of women not being able to ask for prayer publicly, make an announcement at the dinner after the meeting, introduce their own relatives, etc. Women also need a mediator in order to have communion. Women are not allowed in the men’s gatherings that discuss the sermon and if they are they are not allowed to talk.
The Martha is the new Mary in these FIC churches.
November 17, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Howdy,
Im new here and just wanted to stop by and say hi
November 17, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Karen,
That photo was fine for Runner’s World and certainly appropriate for that venue, especially because Palin posed for that photo FOR an article on health and fitness in Runner’s World but for the cover of NewsWeek?!
It is sexist and should be insulting to female politicians everywhere.
When do we ever see good looking male politicians’ in such a way on the cover of Newsweek?
November 17, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Great discussion of patriarchy going on over here.
http://humblemusings.com/?p=1591
November 17, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Corrie & Karen:
SP apparently posed for that photo (she is not claiming it was photo-shopped or anything, as far as I can tell from other sources). My office mate, who taped the Oprah episode with SP on it, claims that SP also did not complain when the Oprah show aired clips of her going to and/or from the gym in workout clothes. Apparently, she has no problem being photographed like this (she could easily slip sweatpants on if she wanted to). Personally, I don’t have any problem with her acquiescing to being photographed in this fashion, either, but I hardly think she has the right to complain about it later.
Also, as far as no male politicians being photographed in similar situations, how about President Obama’s swimsuit-clad body being displayed everywhere when he vacationed in Hawaii. I do not recall if it was on Newsweek or not, but it was it was in plenty of other print media. The only difference I can see is that he did not whine about it, at least that I can remember.
To me, SP wants it both ways – as is her usual MO as far as I can see. Honestly, I am so tired of her and wish she would just go away.
November 17, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Welcome, spoothzittere!
November 17, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Re: 423
momgodin,
I don’t have a link but have a friend whose eight-year old was taught this in a Sunday school class by a Ref.Bapt. ex-elder, “it’s okay to lie sometimes” and he cited Rahab’s lie as evidence to support this.
I told my friend just because God records it in the Bible doesn’t mean He approves.
This particular man practised what he taught too, as we experienced his lying to cover up major problems in the church with “leadership.”
He was heavy, heavy into Albert N. Martin – I don’t know if that is where it came from.
November 17, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Karen, I really appreciated the links you posted. The article at http://www.grbc.net/blog (“What Should We Thnk of the Family-Integrated Church Movement?”)is a great reminder that:
“we … need to exercise humble restraint and spiritual wisdom not only to go where the Bible goes but to stop where the Bible stops.”
November 18, 2009 at 9:32 am
Savannah,
I had knew she posed for that photo but it was for a running magazine and it was for an article she did for them on health and fitness. If Newsweek wanted to do a cover photo of her then they should have done one more in keeping with the theme of the magazine and their article.
I guess I missed the picture of Obama in his swimsuit. I would bet it wasn’t on the cover of a news magazine, though.
I don’t really know much more about Sarah Palin so maybe I should start doing some reading on both sides of the issue.
November 18, 2009 at 9:56 am
Anne2 posted, “I don’t have a link but have a friend whose eight-year old was taught this in a Sunday school class by a Ref.Bapt. ex-elder, “it’s okay to lie sometimes” and he cited Rahab’s lie as evidence to support this.
I told my friend just because God records it in the Bible doesn’t mean He approves.”
The lying thing reminds me of what some fundamentalist LDS churches teach. To them, as long as the lying is for a “good reason”, apparently with the ends justifying the means, then it is permissible. Besides the obvious moral problem with that line of thinking, it seems like it’s up to each individual to decide what’s right or wrong in his/her own eyes.
As far as Rahab and other similar biblical accounts, I think a lot of Christians lack discernment for what is *descriptive* in scripture vs. what is *prescriptive*.
It seems like much of the whole patriarchial doctrine is based on this deficiency of discernment in its leaders and proponents.
November 18, 2009 at 9:57 am
The discussion over at Humble Musings is excellent.
Does anyone have the book, Family Driven Faith? I would like to know more about it. Amy Scott made some very excellent points and one of them was how wrong the title was. How is it that our faith is “family driven”? Is that even in the Bible? I thought that our faith is a gift driven by the Holy Spirit?
Jasmine (Voddie’s daughter) commented and stated that many of the reservations surrounding patriarchy are “laughable”.
I don’t find them so funny at all. Especially the ones about daughters being given by God to fulfill their father’s yearnings for the attentions of younger women.
Nope. Not funny. Not funny at all.
November 18, 2009 at 9:58 am
Corrie posted, “How is it that our faith is “family driven”? Is that even in the Bible? I thought that our faith is a gift driven by the Holy Spirit?”
Next we’ll be hearing about “God’s grandchildren”.
November 18, 2009 at 10:22 am
I would love to see someone ask Jasmine about that quote and get her real take on it. Good discussion but lots of extra politeness going on.
November 18, 2009 at 10:25 am
Corrie posted, “I guess I missed the picture of Obama in his swimsuit. I would bet it wasn’t on the cover of a news magazine, though.”
Just a quick search netted President-elect Obama in his swim trunks on CNN (the video is still there, Huffington Post (both are news outlets), and the Washingtonian (he made the cover there), a usually-serious print publication.
I don’t care if either posed or were snapped in these types of apparrel. I don’t see anything wrong with fitness attire. If one puts the photo out there, it’s out there, and that’s really all I’m saying. If Obama didn’t want to be splashed all over in his swim trunks (no pun intended), then he should have taken care not to be photographed in them. Every time a public figure poses for a photo, as SP did, then she knows full well that that can be picked up and used wherever, whenever. She cannot possibly claim to be too naive to realize this. For her, a former beauty pageant type person, to complain about “sexist” photos is just beyond the pale for me.
I think this is another tempest in a teacup cooked up by SP and I’m absolutely falling for it by even discussing it, so I’m going to stop now.
November 18, 2009 at 10:38 am
McDonalds have written their current perspective on courtship and betrothal:
http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2009/11/beauty-of-courtship-and-betrothal.html
November 18, 2009 at 10:45 am
Savannah, I don’t think the quibble was with the photo itself but rather the fact that it was chosen as a cover story that addressed issues that were much more important to Palin and she would have liked to have the first impression of the article about her to have been more businesslike.
I read something else rather interesting. There has been a lot of criticism regarding Mrs. Obama’s choice of outfit for entertaining Mrs. Reagan at the White House.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Nancy_Reagan_with_Michelle_Obama_cropped.jpg
I have been taken aback at how nasty people are being. I see absolutely nothing wrong with what Mrs. Obama is wearing. In fact, she looks trendy and stylish…three patterns is certainly in vogue right now….and if she were to have dressed like Mrs. Reagan, she would have aged herself into another generation. Just my 2 bits…
November 18, 2009 at 10:50 am
I had forgotten all about this great essay until this week:
http://ingridgraceandaudrey.blogspot.com/2007/10/perfect.html
November 18, 2009 at 10:52 am
More good insights from these same young women.
http://ingridgraceandaudrey.blogspot.com/2009/07/guys.html
November 18, 2009 at 11:03 am
“I know a lot of Pearl followers had a real difficulty with Fireproof, saying it was a bad movie because not only did the woman work, but it didn’t show all the marriage problems as being her fault, although some were.”
One of the things I never did get is Vision Forum’s promotion of Fireproof. If we were to look at the patriocentric principles, if Caleb had taken the proper leadership role in his home, his wife would not have been working outside the home (which was the root of her discontentment) and after all those years of marriage she would have been surrounded by a half dozen or so children to homeschool. There was such a one anothering perspective in that film that I could not see how Phillips liked it. I also wondered if the Kendricks and that church subscribe to Phillips’ views of ectopic pregnancy, since he made it clear that he would not associate with anyone who wasn’t “100% prolife” like him.
November 18, 2009 at 11:08 am
Someone asked about Family Driven Faith, I have a copy. My husband read the whole thing but I did not. We also attended Voddie’s Family Driven Faith conference. If anyone has questions about the book or the conference I would be happy to answer.
I so agree with Amy what is family-driven faith? Your faith is not driven by your family it is the Holy Spirit. Patrio’s take glory and honor from God and give it family, namely the husband/father. It truly is sickening and I can’t tell you how easy it is to fall for this stuff. That is why I am not surprised about Paul Washer, I just hope he wakes up soon and realizes this movement is plain old-fashioned idol worship only this time the idol is the family with a special emphasis on the father as the head of the family.
November 18, 2009 at 11:26 am
Thatmom posted, “There was such a one anothering perspective in that film that I could not see how Phillips liked it.
I also wondered if the Kendricks and that church subscribe to Phillips’ views of ectopic pregnancy, since he made it clear that he would not associate with anyone who wasn’t “100% prolife” like him.”
On the one-anothering aspect, there certainly can’t be any of that, right? ;_)
Uh, I’m almost afraid to ask this question, but what exactly is Phillips’ view of what should happen with an ectopic pregnancy? After all, a fetus cannot grow – for long – in a fallopian tube. Eventually, that tube is going to rupture and put the mother at grave risk for sepsis and even death.
November 18, 2009 at 11:27 am
You asked, Savannah…
http://www.thatmom.com/?p=510
November 18, 2009 at 11:56 am
Amy over at Amy’s Humble Musings is calling for Thatmom to show proof of Voddie’s quote on daughters if she receives it she will let her comment stand if she does not she will remove it. Karen if you are online you many want to provide a link. I do not have one although I do remember watching a video clip here I believe, does any one else? If you do please post is at http://www.humblemusings.com
November 18, 2009 at 12:06 pm
I see Thatmom has already handled it! Hopefully this will spur Voddie to clarify his statement. I can not for the life of me figure out what he was trying to say there.
November 18, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Thatmom posted, “You asked, Savannah…”
Yes, I did and I was afraid that was the answer I’d get. How very revolting. Seriously. How incredibly misogynistic. How. . . you name it – I can’t think of enough shame to heap upon this position.
It is fairly universally recognized that an ectopic pregnancy is not viable. Uteruses expand to accommodate the growing human; fallopian tubes do not. The embryo will not survive and cannot be “transplanted” – this seems universally recognized by physicians of all stripes.
So to make a very sad situation worse, Phillips’ position is that the mother should die, too? I cannot believe a thinking, functioning-in-society person could hold this viewpoint.
What about the other children this mother may have? They are supposed to be left motherless for the sake of a baby that never could be?
This frightens me for impressionable women who follow this man’s teachings. I have had two friends over the years who experienced ectopic pregnancies, and although I don’t know the statistics on the frequency of that event’s occurrence, that right there says that they must not be all that uncommon. How many women have or will risk their lives and risk leaving their other children motherless for such a senseless viewpoint?
November 18, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I just read the “revised courtship and betrothal” link. Even though they say that this is “their belief”, this was in the comments section.
“This is so interesting. Thank you! I commend your courage – after recent “discussions” with ladies who are so resistant to doing things God’s way. Instead, they have a paramount focus on personal freedom. You are brave.
Susan”
What is so bad about personal freedom is what I would like to know. And personally, I don’t think the McDonald’s should be writing any sort of position statement until all of their children are raised and grown. I prefer advice from people who have been there/ done that, even if they made mistakes along the way. I value the opinions of my parents, inlaws, friends and priest at church, and wise women who have gone before me… even if they didn’t have “perfect” results. There is a wisdom that comes with age oftentimes.
I for one personally value personal freedom and teach my children the same philosophy.
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”
November 18, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Holly posted, “What is so bad about personal freedom is what I would like to know. And personally, I don’t think the McDonald’s should be writing any sort of position statement until all of their children are raised and grown.”
Holly, I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. It is not that I believe that younger women with younger children cannot contribute significantly to “the conversation”. On the contrary. However, I do believe they should recognize, as I did when I was in their position, that ultimately, the proof is rather in the pudding, so to speak. One can yammer on and on about this viewpoint or this practice, but until you *know* the ultimate result reaped from it, you really can’t make a spirited argument for it – unless it is straight out of scripture (and no, not “based” on someone’s view of scripture, like Gothard’s “principles” are “based” on scripture).
I think the same thing when I read things from the high-profile patriarchal daughters. “Daddy-this” and “Daddy-that” – okay, I get it and I think it’s wonderful that they all have such great love and respect for their fathers. But they need to keep in mind that the father in question is *their* father, not *my* father or anyone else’s father. While they might be unwilling or unable to call him out on what may be his EXTRA-Biblical views, I feel no such constraint.
There is really a somewhat limited amount of advice an unmarried young woman living with her parents can offer those of us who have lived the marriage, the children, the whole thing. While we were at one time probably in their shoes, they have never been in ours. I just think it is something of which they should be mindful and a bit circumspect about.
November 18, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Savannah, these young women who have taken on the mantle of “teacher” rather than just girls who share their opinions are only following in the footsteps of the Botkin sisters who have admitted that they instruct fathers at their conferences.
November 18, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Karen,
I find it very funny that Stacy thinks that she can redefine biblical betrothal to fit her own fancy.
It is a promise, it is binding but you don’t need a divorce to get out of one? Well, NOT according to the Bible! You needed a divorce to get out of a betrothal in the Bible.
Why is it that these people redefine Scripture willy-nilly but vilify anyone who does the very same thing?
November 18, 2009 at 7:15 pm
I usually lurk, but had to ask a question.
What are the “mysterious islands” that doug phillips is talking about on his blog??
November 18, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Offhand, I would have guessed New Zealand and Tasmania, given the dominionist agenda, but they’re talking about the Galapagos Islands:
It was basically a documentary about father and son, Joshua and Doug Phillips, who visit the Galápagos islands. The same islands where Darwin visited and used his findings there to support the evolutionary theory…..Very well made and full of wonderful scientific facts all supporting creationism.
…..from Whatever is True
blog…
November 18, 2009 at 7:47 pm
“Sufficiency of Scripture Conference”
So… since Scripture is sufficient… and I have Scripture right here with me… I don’t have to go to the Conference, right?
November 18, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Amen Alisa!
You’ve nailed it!
November 18, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Alisa – you’re female. You don’t belong in such conferences where the men discuss things like the sufficiency of Scripture. Get a clue!
(That was sarcasm, really.)
November 19, 2009 at 9:55 am
“full of wonderful scientific facts”…according to whom? I didn’t know Mr. Phillips was a scientist too?
All he really is a great marketing guru, building a huge financial empire for himself out of the pockets of earnest Christian parents afraid that the love and sincerity of their own love for Christ will not be sufficient to lead their own children to faith.
I know, I know, I was one of those parents! I so earnestly wanted my children to know and walk with Jesus from an early age, never to stray, never to experience the heartache of sin. If only I instructed diligently enough, prayed earnestly enough, chose all the right curriculum, joined the right support groups, attended the right church, THEN it would all work!
My children would know God from the womb, like John the Baptist. They would never sin! (Well, not seriously.) They would lead lives graced with miracle upon miracle until the special chosen spouse appeared! They would be leaders in the church, in the community, maybe even become megastars in the Christian world! Purity and wholesomeness will emanate from their very being everywhere they go in life!
What a scam.
My children are flesh and blood people, born with a sin nature in a fallen world. I cannot teach it out of them. I cannot isolate them from it. Life is what it is.
The Holy Spirit can regenerate their hearts, but they won’t start out righteous nor can I impart it to them through solid Bible teaching. Only the Lamb of God can take away their sins and clothe them in His righteousness. The Spirit blows where it will….
And so the miracle of God’s amazing love for us sinners, they mystery of the gospel, is reduced to books and programs and rules that keep people in bondage and can never produce the results promised.
Ironic, isn’t it? We ourselves came to Christ because of our NEED for a Saviour, and by the wooing of the Holy Spirit in our lives. God concluded all under sin, that He might have mercy on all.
And yet the Christian home school marketing machine is going to keep our children from ever needing grace, because with their program our children will never fall. Or so they imply…
November 19, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Voddie Baucham has responded to my concerns about his “men need the attention of younger women” statement:
http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2009/11/19_November_Question_of_the_MOnth_%28Update_Edition%29.html
November 19, 2009 at 1:14 pm
November 19, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Confusing, I mean.
November 19, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Anybody else see this WIC video? It was on the NLQ site.
It made me cry. Please help me to have the right perspective on this. How can “Christian” men hate such sweet beautiful girls?
November 19, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Wow.
Couldn’t get past the first paragraph.
Nothing like maligning people who ask an honest question.
He can say whatever he wants.
Anyone who ever questions any part is evil.
End of story.
Since he wants to malign me for asking an honest question, call me a gossip, slanderer, basically say I have no right to my voice or honest concern, it overwhelmingly confirms to me that this man does not have grace to speak anything useful into my life.
Let the dead bury their dead.
I will pursue life and call out to the withering, quivering daughters that there is a place of freedom IN CHRIST far and above the limits placed on them by the traditions and self-centeredness of men who want to control what belongs to God.
(I may get back to his response, but I’ll have to steel myself to see past his thick defenses first)
November 19, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Three posts jumped in there while I was making my one.
Yes, Momgoddin, I saw.
Think I’ll watch it again just because it is that good.
November 19, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Regarding the “revised courtship and betrothal” at S. McD’s website: I find the whole McD betrothal-not-engagement spiel confusing.
A while ago I came across a discarded CD of their talk to a state homeschool convention on the subject. I’ve listened to that talk at least four times and I’ve tried to follow their logic, but I finally gave up.
For starters, much of it seems so backward to me. Why on earth agree to become “betrothed” before you knew you loved the other person? I would never have agreed to marry my husband if I wasn’t sure I loved him and he loved me.
And what’s with all this double talk that on the one hand betrothal is binding, but on the other hand it really isn’t because there are no laws that say so? I just don’t get it.
November 19, 2009 at 1:34 pm
“Nothing like maligning people who ask an honest question.
He can say whatever he wants.
Anyone who ever questions any part is evil.
End of story.
Since he wants to malign me for asking an honest question, call me a gossip, slanderer, basically say I have no right to my voice or honest concern, it overwhelmingly confirms to me that this man does not have grace to speak anything useful into my life.”
Exactly, Mara.
November 19, 2009 at 1:36 pm
“And what’s with all this double talk that on the one hand betrothal is binding, but on the other hand it really isn’t because there are no laws that say so? I just don’t get it.”
Connie,
That is the problem, you won’t and they are counting on you not getting it. False teachers love to confuse others in order to keep them where they want them- eating out of their hand.
November 19, 2009 at 2:00 pm
“When and if you see this attack on the net, please know that the attackers are not seeking to correct me, or advance the gospel. These women are seeking to discredit me because of their hatred of what I represent. They hate the fact that a respected, mainstream, orthodox teacher espouses a clear distinction on the matter of manhood, womanhood, headship and submission.”
Ah, I am so glad he has set me straight.
Straight from The Playbook.
November 19, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Mara’s reading my mind!
“Someone asked me a question- they hate me. waaaah!”
Okay, so what did he basically say?
That what he’s saying makes sense because it was in movie once? bwahaha. these big, bad patriarchists are a hoot.
He fails to explain this “need”. If it’s a need, what about men with no daughters?
I don’t understand his logic. He concedes “it is easy to see” how some would be worried about the quote. But the only reassurance he provides isn’t scriptural evidence- it’s that folks who “know him” weren’t worried. Why, they copied and distributed the message! Surely that validates it.
Please, stop insulting my intelligence and suggesting I have a dirty mind. Men have affairs with younger women for sex, not attention.
November 19, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Younger women seek older guys because they are mature and stable and are not like all the video-game playing slackers that are their ow age.
Older men seek younger women because it makes them feel virile, strong and they like the excitement of being with a younger woman.
This is what I have learned this morning by reading articles on the subject.
One thing that has been glaringly absent from my reading is the daughter aspect. No where did I read that older men go after younger women because they want a substitute daughter.
I did read where the older man/younger woman dynamic reinforces patriarchal conventions. And that makes much more sense than what VB wrote about why men seek younger women.
Maybe all this has to do much more with patriarchy (power, authority, control….it is easier to control and have power over a younger woman than it is with an older woman) than it does with some premise about being confused about what sexual love vs. father love really is.
Also, younger women, especially in patriarchal circles, are taught to devote themselves to their fathers and do whatever it is that he likes because that is their job, to please him and devote themselves to him, until/if he gives her to a husband. I am sure it feels very nice to have females that devote their whole selves and beings to you and who always do everything in order to please you and your desires. I am sure it feels quite good to be Number One and receive this sort of doting attention.
November 19, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Karen,
I am shocked at how this man demonizes the women on this forum for simply asking him to clarify his statements, and pointing out how dangerous this off-the-cuff statement was in the first place.
The things he has to say about those of us with questions, our motivations, our character are all so outrageous and mean-spirited.
I was on the fence with his, assuming he would eventually admit that he spoke ill-advisedly off the cuff and that he did not think God gave men either a natural desire for younger women or daughters to fulfill that desire. I assumed he would say that he should have chosen his words more carefully.
But instead he dumps out all this vitriol! Yuck.
That is not the behavior of a righteous man of God. The jury is now is. None of you ladies overstated the case at all. You have treated them with far more courtesy and consideration than they have shown you.
What a shame.
November 19, 2009 at 2:42 pm
The engaged/betrothal word play is meaningless. They use the word betrothal because its old and King James English. Very religious.
In reality, it means the same to them as the word engagement does to most people. Engagement does not mean “save the date”. To everyone I know, an engagement announcement means “We are really committed to each other and plan to get married! We are so sure right now that we are letting everyone know.”
Yes, I have read somewhere that half of all couples who get engaged do not make it to the altar. I’ll bet the statistics are no different for “betrothals” and “courtships”.
I think that the people who are hard into this lifestyle are going to have a lot of single adult children hanging around for a long time, unless the children find the courage to break away. Any healthy person would run fast and far away from a potential mate so enmeshed with their parents. (I’ve heard tell of it happen!) The pool of potential mates for these kids is small and shrinking as the get older.
I am really having a hard time believing people take this all so seriously that they build their whole lives around this fairy tale scenario. It’s not like there are generations of success stories out there to spur people on. ALL of the personal stories I know end in disaster.
Why do the blind follow the blind?
November 19, 2009 at 4:02 pm
My response to Mr. Baucham’s statement:
http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3413
November 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Excellent response, Thatmom!
November 19, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I am mostly a lurker to this board and being European I am not the most well-versed person to speak on matters of American homeschooling/theological developments. I am not the most well-versed person in matters of Scripture either, as I am a new Christian and still very much searching for the shelf that’s right for me in a religious context. But I have felt greatly enlightened by following the debate on this board, as I have read many of the Patriocentric blogs for a long time and I enjoy going here to be reminded that there is a way to be Christian woman, without giving over your own free will.
I read your response to Voddie Baucham, thatmom, and went to watch the YouTube video the entire debate is about and I can say, without a shred of lie, it nearly made me nauseous. The way he speaks about it being wrong for daughters to physically withdraw from their fathers at the season in their life where they become women instead of girls repulsed me. It seemed like he likened the girls withdrawing from their fathers physically to flinging themselves into the arms of boyfriends and I feel like there is such a huge gap between these two things, I can’t even comprehend how he would reach such a conclusion.
I’m not certain exactly how to phrase this right now, but I just want to thank all of you courageous ladies (I do think you are gracefilled, bold ladies no matter the negative implications the patriocentrists might have attached to the word) for standing up for what you believe in and trying to reach out to people who are so steeped in this strange theology. I know you reached me at a critical point.
So thank you for that
November 19, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I like your response to Baucham’s statement. His explanation didn’t clear up a thing and there was no scriptural example backing up his sermon. I CANNOT get over his claim that a girl’s first boyfriend coincides with daddy not letting her sit on his lap anymore.
Jasmin still sits on his lap, even as a young adult woman. That’s their business. I wonder how many other Christian men/pastors out there think that is appropriate. My dad gave me plenty of affection as a teenager with hugs and words of encouragement, but sitting on his lap at that age would have been creepy. And no, I didn’t run out and start sleeping with some lustful boy because I couldn’t sit on his lap anymore, as Voddie claims. Really……….
November 19, 2009 at 5:03 pm
“I find it very funny that Stacy thinks that she can redefine biblical betrothal to fit her own fancy.”
After following this for the last few months, it seems like they HAVE to redefine it in order to save face, keep their following and sell books. Did anyone ever hear an explanation for why the first betrothal was broken? I didn’t.
November 19, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Jumping out of lurkdom to say how shocked I was at Mr. Baucham’s utter lack of humility in his response to being questioned. I was holding out hope that he would at least admit to using the wrong words or something. But to come out with a tantrum like that speaks to more than just his frustration.
I don’t remember ever seeing anyone here say they “”. . . hate the fact that a respected, mainstream, orthodox teacher espouses a clear distinction on the matter of manhood, womanhood, headship and submission.”
No one here has ever even implied, let alone stated, that they “. . . would prefer [he] pastored a church that was not growing.”
No one here has ever even implied, let alone stated, that they “. . . would prefer that [he] did not have a reputation for clear exegetical teaching.”
No one here has ever even implied, let alone stated, that they “. . . would prefer that [he] required [his] wife (and other women) to wear head coverings.”
No one here has ever even implied, let alone stated, that they “. . . would prefer that [he] refused to preach from anything but the King James Bible.”
No one here has ever even implied, let alone stated, that they “. . . would prefer that [he] required [his] daughter to be ignorant and uneducated.”
No one here has ever even implied, let alone stated, that they “. . . would prefer that [he] came across as an ignorant, oppressive neanderthal instead of a man who loves and respects his wife and daughter.”
I would venture to say that most posters here applaud that he is a man who ” . . . changes diapers, shares the homeschooling load, and loves to cook the occasional gourmet meal for his family.”
That post is a reaction I would expect from an immature little boy, not a “respected, mainstream, orthodox teacher”, and most especially not from a disciple of Jesus.
November 19, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Just brought my husband up to speed on his way home from work and he think possibly Voddie’s death threats came from his wife!
November 19, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Dr. Baucham,
Out of all the teachers of patriarchy, you at least held some of my respect. You appeared less virulent and more sincere. Perhaps that was merely the benefit of the silence you have held when it comes to those who are trying to understand these doctrines and positions you hold.
While not calling you a fool (for only God knows your heart), it still grieves me to say that this illustrates that oft-spoken Proverb that “even a fool is thought wise when he keeps silent”.
Frankly, Dr. Baucham, I expected better from you. Like I said, I did have some amount of respect for you and extended the benefit of the doubt, that your misguided statement was merely that: misguided.
I know that since those that fall on both sides of this debate are human with sinful natures, that it is very difficult not to dehumanize those who dissent from us. It is much easier to imagine that the “others” are not our brothers and sisters in Christ, that we are not obligated and called to treat them with all the admonitions we are given in Scripture of how we are to treat “others”. I’m not above failing in this, and as such, it is something I try to keep close tabs on in myself. Neither are those who comment here above that, though I must say, that for all the times that that mark isn’t met here, I do also see a great amount of grace extended and willingness to own up to comments made that lacked the grace they should have.
However, Dr. Baucham, because of your long silence, I had imagined that you were somehow above this. It grieves me to be proven wrong. I pray that in the future you will think twice before inputing ill intentions into others words.
“Patriarchy hunters”?????
The women here have one very strong thing in common with you: all strive to know God and His ways in their fullness and completeness. And sometimes that means asking questions. Called to be Bereans, we are admonished in Scripture to test the teachings we are given. Would you have any disobey that directive?
Dr. Baucham, as your little sister in Christ, I actually look forward to meeting you in Heaven. It puts a smile on my face thinking about it, that all this dissension will be behind us, covered in our Savior’s merciful blood. Until then…
November 19, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Confusion… over words that should have clarified. All this confusion over betrothal/engagement and the place of needs of affection in fathers and daughters… makes me think of that verse:
“… God is not the the author of confusion, but of peace…”
November 20, 2009 at 12:07 am
Did you notice how Voddie repeatedly references “the women” who exposed his crazy? Wonder if he’d have the same freak-out if a men’s group did the same?
Voddie waited months to respond, and now he responds with a non-response. His tantrum and attempted deflection demonstrate two truths:
1. He has no legitimate explanation, and it’s eating him up.
2. We struck a nerve, big-time. This blog holds sway, ladies.
November 20, 2009 at 10:44 am
Well, they could say “Red” and we would quote them saying that they said “Red” and they would come back and say, “No, we didn’t say “Red”, we said “Blue”. How dare you gossip about us and slander and libel us by saying that we said “Red”!” And then we will say but you did say “Red” and here are all the volumes of writings where you did say “Red”. And this will continue until the cows come home.
They teach that college is evil. That daughters who go to college are like loud, harlots whose feet never remain at home. That daughters are mini-helpmeets to their fathers and should even go so far as to ask what colors their fathers like and where those colors in order to please him. They teach that single women on the mission field is sin. They teach that a woman has only one purpose and that is to be a servant to her father until such a time as when he gives her to another authority (husband) where she will be a servant to him and have as many babies as possible. They teach that it is blasphemy for a woman to work outside of the home. They are Quiverfull (but now some claim to be “Jesus-ful”). They teach that betrothal is binding and that engagement is not biblical and is only for people who aren’t serious about getting married but when it is convenient for them, they break off binding betrothals, rewrite Scripture in order for that betrothal not to require a divorce and then get engaged. Then when you question them about the things they teach, they tell us that they really don’t live by those teachings and they are free to live as we have countered.
The patriocentrists have made more converts to egalitarianism by their confusion and chaos and false teachings than any radical feminist has made.
November 20, 2009 at 10:54 am
Oh, I forgot to add that when we quote them as saying “Red” they will also retort that they didn’t mean “Red” but if you take it into context “Red” really means “Blue”.
Yes, if anything, VB’s “explanation” (I like Jerzy’s label of “tantrum” better) merely amplifies my original concerns. It explains nothing. It made it worse. And I just can’t wrap my mind around such thinking nor do I think I want to.
If daughters have no effect on their father’s sexuality (ie keeping him from straying with younger women) because this is exactly what he claimed, then why is he saying that they do?
What in the world does a man’s penchant for having affairs with younger women have to do with receiving the same attention from his daughters if daughters do not have some sort of power to keep their fathers from straying on their mothers?
The whole thing is crazy. CRAZY!
If a man went in for pastoral counseling and confessed he was attracted to a younger woman, would the pastor tell him that he is really looking for a surrogate daughter and that he should go back home and develop an affectionate relationship with his daughter so that he could receive that attention he was so yearning for???????
Where does the wife fit into all of this? How does the daughter fit into this at all?
November 20, 2009 at 1:10 pm
The obfuscation of these guys makes politicians look almost transparent.
November 20, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Corrie,
I couldn’t figure out what was bothering me about the whole thing. You just hit the nail on the head.
If a man is married, why should he give in to any yearnings for the attention of a younger woman, daughter or not? His affection should be for his wife. In any case,*she* needs to be first in his heart, before any paternal yearnings for daughters.
November 20, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Oops! I forget to say which Mary I am!
Sincerely,
Mary from Tennessee
November 20, 2009 at 1:20 pm
http://nolongerquivering.com/2009/11/06/why-did-she-do-that/
Vyckie Garrison’s account of being on the Joy Behar show with Rachel Scott and Kathryn Joyce. Good stuff.
Also, take note of her comments about abusive personalities.
Have we seen that at all when dealing with patriocentrists?
November 20, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I found this interesting:
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/traits.html
Excerpts:
Almost everyone has some narcissistic traits, but being conceited, argumentative, or selfish sometimes (or even all the time) doesn’t amount to a personality disorder. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a long-term pattern of abnormal thinking, feeling, and behavior in many different situations. The traits on this page will seem peculiar or disturbing when someone acts this way — i.e., you will know that something is not right, and contact with narcissists may make you feel bad about yourself. It’s not unusual for narcissists to be outstanding in their field of work. But these are the successful people who have a history of alienating colleagues, co-workers, employees, students, clients, and customers — people go away mad or sad after close contact with narcissists.
… Narcissicism is a personality disorder and that means that narcissists’ personalities aren’t organized in a way that makes sense to most people … Interaction with narcissists is confusing, even bewildering — their reasons for what they do are not the same as normal reasons. In fact, treating them like normal people (e.g., appealing to their better nature, as in “Please have a heart,” or giving them the chance to apologize and make amends) will make matters worse with a narcissist.
amoral/conscienceless
authoritarian
care only about appearances
contemptuous
critical of others
cruel
disappointing gift-givers
don’t recognize own feelings
envious and competitive
feel entitled
flirtatious or seductive
grandiose
hard to have a good time with
hate to live alone
hyper-sensitive to criticism
impulsive
lack sense of humor
naive
passive
pessimistic
religious
secretive
self-contradictory
stingy
strange work habits
unusual eating habits
weird sense of time
… The most telling thing that narcissists do is contradict themselves. They will do this virtually in the same sentence, without even stopping to take a breath. It can be trivial (e.g., about what they want for lunch) or it can be serious (e.g., about whether or not they love you). … They will contradict FACTS. They will lie to you about things that you did together. They will misquote you to yourself. If you disagree with them, they’ll say you’re lying, making stuff up, or are crazy. [At this point, if you’re like me, you sort of panic and want to talk to anyone who will listen about what is going on: this is a healthy reaction; it’s a reality check (”who’s the crazy one here?”); that you’re confused by the narcissist’s contrariness, that you turn to another person to help you keep your bearings, that you know something is seriously wrong and worry that it might be you are all signs that you are not a narcissist].
… the surest way I know of to get a crushing blow to your heart is to tell a narcissist you love her or him. They will respond with a nasty power move, such as telling you to do things entirely their way or else be banished from them for ever.
…If you’re like me, you get into disputes with narcissists over their casual dishonesty and cruelty to other people. Trying to reform narcissists by reasoning with them or by appealing to their better nature is about as effective as spitting in the ocean. What you see is what you get: they have no better nature. The fundamental problem here is that narcissists lack empathy.
… narcissists can’t judge what will affect them personally and seem never to learn that when they cause trouble they will get trouble back. They won’t take other people’s feelings into consideration and so they overlook the fact that other people will react with feeling when abused or exploited and that most people get really (angry about) being lied to or lied about.
… Narcissists lack a mature conscience and seem to be restrained only by fear of being punished or of damaging their reputations —
…Their moral intelligence is about at the level of a bright five- or six-year-old; the only rules they recognize are things that have been specifically required, permitted, prohibited, or disapproved of by authority figures they know personally.
…Anyhow, narcissists can’t be counted on not to do something just because it’s wrong, illegal, or will hurt someone, as long as they think that they can get away with it or that you can’t stop them or punish them (i.e., they don’t care what you think unless they’re afraid of you).
… Narcissists are envious and competitive in ways that are hard to understand. … They are constantly comparing themselves (and whatever they feel belongs to them, such as their children and furniture) to other people. Narcissists feel that, unless they are better than anyone else, they are worse than everybody in the whole world.
…Narcissists are generally contemptuous of others. This seems to spring, at base, from their general lack of empathy, and it comes out as (at best) a dismissive attitude towards other people’s feelings, wishes, needs, concerns, standards, property, work, etc. It is also connected to their overall negative outlook on life.
… Narcissists are (a) extremely sensitive to personal criticism and (b) extremely critical of other people. They think that they must be seen as perfect or superior or infallible, next to god-like (if not actually divine, then sitting on the right hand of God) — or else they are worthless. There’s no middle ground of ordinary normal humanity for narcissists. They can’t tolerate the least disagreement. In fact, if you say, “Please don’t do that again — it hurts,” narcissists will turn around and do it again harder to prove that they were right the first time; their reasoning seems to be something like “I am a good person and can do no wrong; therefore, I didn’t hurt you and you are lying about it now…” —
… narcissists are habitually cruel in little ways, as well as big ones, because they’re paying attention to their fantasy and not to you, but the bruises on you are REAL, not in your imagination. Thus, no matter how gently you suggest that they might do better to change their ways or get some help, they will react in one of two equally horrible ways: they will attack or they will withdraw.
— narcissists will say ANYTHING, they will trash anyone in their own self-justification, and then they will expect the immediate restoration of the status quo. They will attack you (sometimes physically) and spew a load of bile, insult, abuse, contempt, threats, etc., and then — well, it’s kind of like they had indigestion and the vicious tirade worked like a burp: “There. Now I feel better. Where were we?” They feel better, so they expect you to feel better, too. They will say you are nothing, worthless, and turn around immediately and say that they love you. When you object to this kind of treatment, they will say, “You just have to accept me the way I am. (God made me this way, so God loves me even if you are too stupid to understand how special I am.)” Accepting them as they are (and staying away from them entirely) is excellent advice.
… The other “punishment” narcissists mete out is banishing you from their glorious presence — this can turn into a farce, since by this point you are probably praying to be rescued, “Dear God! How do I get out of this?” The narcissist expects that you will be devastated by the withdrawal of her/his divine attention, so that after a while — a few weeks or months (i.e., the next time the narcissist needs to use you for something) — the narcissist will expect you to have learned your lesson and be eager to return to the fold. If you have learned your lesson, you won’t answer that call. They can’t see that they have a problem; it’s always somebody else who has the problem and needs to change.
… though narcissists hate their real selves, they don’t want to change — they want the world to change. And they criticize, gripe, and complain about almost everything and almost everyone almost all the time. There are usually a favored few whom narcissists regard as absolutely above reproach, even for egregious misconduct or actual crime, and about whom they won’t brook the slightest criticism. These are people the narcissists are terrified of, though they’ll tell you that what they feel is love and respect; apparently they don’t know the difference between fear and love. Narcissists just get worse and worse as they grow older; their parents and other authority figures that they’ve feared die off, and there’s less and less outside influence to keep them in check.
… Narcissists are hostile and ferocious in reaction
…They have pretty good reasons for their paranoia and cynicism, their sneakiness, evasiveness, prevarications.
… Narcissists are grandiose. They live in an artificial self invented from fantasies of absolute or perfect power, genius, beauty, etc.
…Narcissists don’t see themselves doing anything except being adored, and they don’t see anyone else doing anything except adoring them.
… Sometimes narcissistic fantasies are spectacularly grandiose — imagining themselves as Jesus or a saint or hero or deity depicted in art — but just as often the fantasies of narcissists are mediocre and vulgar, concocted from illustrations in popular magazines, sensational novels, comic books even.
… These artificial self fantasies are also static in time, going back unchanged to early adolescence or even to childhood; the narcissists’ self-images don’t change with time, so that you will find, for instance, female narcissists clinging to retro styles, still living the picture of the perfect woman of 1945 or 1965 as depicted in The Ladies’ Home Journal or Seventeen or Vogue of that era, and male narcissists still hung up on images of comic-book or ripping adventure heroes from their youth.
… Grandiosity can take various forms — a narcissistic woman may believe herself to be the very model of perfect womanhood, the standard by which all others are measured, and she will try to force her daughters to be just like her, she will not be able to cope with daughters who are taller or shorter than she is, fatter or thinner, who have bigger or smaller feet, breasts, teeth, who have different favorite colors than hers, etc.
… Narcissistic men can be infatuated with their own looks, too, (witness John Cheever, for instance; Almost Perfect) but are more likely than women to get hung up on their intelligence or the importance of their work — doesn’t matter what the work is, if he’s doing it, by definition it’s more important than anything you could possibly do. Narcissists I’ve known also have odd religious ideas, in particular believing that they are God’s special favorites somehow; God loves them, so they are exempted from ordinary rules and obligations: God loves them and wants them to be the way they are, so they can do anything they feel like — though, note, the narcissist’s God has much harsher rules for everyone else, including you. [Many readers have questions about narcissism and religion. Here is an interesting article on the Web: “Narcissism Goes to Church: Encountering Evangelical Worship” by Monte Wilson.
… Narcissists have a weird sense of time. It’s more or less like they are not aware that the passage of time changes things, or maybe they just aren’t aware of time’s passing at all. Years can pass without touching narcissists. Narcissists often look, or think they look, significantly younger than they are; this youthful appearance is a point of pride to them, and some will emphasize it by either preserving the styles of their golden youth or following the styles of people the age they feel they “really” are. That their faces don’t show their chronological age is a good sign that they haven’t been living real lives with real life’s wear and tear on the looks of normal people. The narcissists’ years have passed without touching them.
… Narcissists are totally and inflexibly authoritarian. In other words, they are suck-ups. They want to be authority figures and, short of that, they want to be associated with authority figures. In their hearts, they know they can’t think well, have no judgment about what matters, are not connected with the world they inhabit, so they cling fanatically to the opinions of people they regard as authority figures — such as their parents, teachers, doctors, ministers.
…If they get in trouble over some or another opinion they’ve put forth, they’ll blame the source — “It was okay with Dr. Somebody,” “My father taught me that,” etc. If you’re still thinking of the narcissist as odd-but-normal, this shirking of responsibility will seem dishonest and craven — well, it is but it’s really an admission of weakness: they really mean it: they said what they said because someone they admire or fear said it and they’re trying to borrow that person’s strength.
… Narcissists feel entitled to whatever they can take. They expect privileges and indulgences, and they also feel entitled to exploit other people without any trace of reciprocation. Some narcissists spend extravagantly in order to impress people, keep up grandiose pretentions, or buy favorable treatment
…They can be pretty nice, even charming, flirtatious, and seductive, to strangers, and will flatter you shamelessly if they want something from you. When you attempt to get close to them in a normal way, they feel you are putting emotional pressure on them and they withdraw because you’re too demanding.
November 20, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Corrie, what you have shared about narcissists/narcissistic personality disorder is very enlightening. The unfortunate thing is that I have seen a fair amount of this in the church. One of the most high profile Christian women in my town is almost undoubtedly a narcissist.
On Vyckie Garrison’s forum/blog, I saw a term for these types of people that rings so true: crazy-maker. They make those around them question their own sanity. No doubt, our broken world is rife with these folks; unfortunately, so is the church.
November 21, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Savannah,
How about these descriptions? Sound familar?
“… These artificial self fantasies are also static in time, going back unchanged to early adolescence or even to childhood; the narcissists’ self-images don’t change with time, so that you will find, for instance, female narcissists clinging to retro styles, still living the picture of the perfect woman of 1945 or 1965 as depicted in The Ladies’ Home Journal or Seventeen or Vogue of that era, and male narcissists still hung up on images of comic-book or ripping adventure heroes from their youth.
… Grandiosity can take various forms — a narcissistic woman may believe herself to be the very model of perfect womanhood, the standard by which all others are measured, and she will try to force her daughters to be just like her, she will not be able to cope with daughters who are taller or shorter than she is, fatter or thinner, who have bigger or smaller feet, breasts, teeth, who have different favorite colors than hers, etc.”
November 21, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Found this quote on Wade Burleson’s blog (he has a couple of new and excellent posts up):
““Conservatives believe in the priesthood of the believers but not the priesthood of the believer, because it leaves too much freedom for the individual…conservatives are the party of truth while the moderates are the party of freedom.”” Al Mohler
Huh?
Does that even make sense? And where is he pulling that one out of?
He should have made himself God if he is so worried about God slipping up and giving too much freedom for the individual.
Sheesh.
And we are afraid of women in the pulpits?
November 22, 2009 at 7:44 am
“narcissists are habitually cruel in little ways, as well as big ones, because they’re paying attention to their fantasy and not to you, but the bruises on you are REAL, not in your imagination.”
Corrie,that whole article was profound. AS I read, all I could think about was Jesus’ words to love Him and our neighbor AS OURSELVES! Thanks for sharing.
November 22, 2009 at 7:45 am
Don’t know what to say about that Al Mohler quote. All I can say is “word mean things.” Sometimes I think we forget that.
November 22, 2009 at 7:51 am
I looked at the Monte Wilson quote on narcissistic worship and thought this quote from poet Annie Dillard quite profound:
“On the whole, I do not find Christians, outside of the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of conditions. Does anyone have the foggiest idea of what sort of power we so blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ladies’ straw hats and velvet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets. Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews.”
Then I remembered Keith Green and worshiping in a service with him one time. It was beautiful and simple and never before and never since have I witnessed the Holy Spirit at work among his people in such a way.
November 22, 2009 at 8:26 am
Here is a thought I had never had ever before. On Wade’s blog, someone mentioned that there are churches that will not allowing singing of any hymns that were written by women. Anyone ever hear of this before?
November 22, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I’ve never heard of a ban on singing hymns written by women. The Baptist Hymnal would take a pretty big hit if you only took out the Fanny Crosby hymns!
I have, however, thought about the fact that many churches seem to have no problem with a woman SINGING the gospel message, inviting people to come to Christ. But somehow it’s wrong for her to SAY it.
November 22, 2009 at 11:54 pm
“On Wade’s blog, someone mentioned that there are churches that will not allowing singing of any hymns that were written by women. Anyone ever hear of this before?”
Not directly. But ultimately, that mindset can be traced to Genesis 3:15:
“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman….”
November 22, 2009 at 11:57 pm
If hymns written by women have cooties, these types of bans should naturally lead all sorts of places. Such as:
1. If a woman reads a liturgical prayer out loud along with her congregation, and a man hears her voice, might he be in danger of being inadvertently “taught” by a woman?
2. Should a woman be allowed to play the piano at church? She would be, in essence, leading worship, right?
November 23, 2009 at 1:52 am
Debbie, you are not far off with #2–I know where this has been the case. If the male pianist was sick, it would be seen as better to go without accompaniment than to have an equally capable female “lead worship”.
November 23, 2009 at 8:09 am
I had such a blessed time in worship yesterday…always helps to put life into perspective.
During the pastor’s message, he quoted the words of a song by a woman songwriter, possibly Fanny Crosby, can’t remember this am. It was not a familiar song and the lyrics were amazing and so uplifting.
How is it that half of the body of Christ isn’t supposed to “teach” what the Holy Spirit has shown them?
Maybe this issue of women hymnwriters is part of the reason so many churches are psalms-only. (I am certain that they feel the same way about men hymnwriters, too, but I wonder if they allow hymns written by women outside of worship, since they don’t believe women are to teach men in any circumstance. I wonder what the Baylys teach about this.)
November 23, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I wonder what they would say about Jesus sending the Samaritan woman to tell her village about Him, or (especially) Jesus sending the women to tell the Apostles about His Resurrection, and then “upbraiding” the Apostles for not believing the women?
Seems to me that the Baileys and their fellow misogynists will have some “‘splaining to do”, by and by.
November 23, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Excellent point, Cynthia. Or how about Jesus first showing himself post-resurrection to women. Should they have not passed on that crucial information about Christ because it might be “teaching men”?
November 23, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Voddie Baucham has revised his response:
http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2009/11/19_November_Question_of_the_Month_%28Update_Edition%29.html
November 23, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Just goes to show that Jesus Himself would be considered a heretic and a sinner by the Baleys and their followers.
It’s interesting, but as soon as a group gets mixed up about gender, the rest of their theology also starts to head south. When groups get too liberal, as my own Anglican/Episcopalian denomination has done, you get partnered homosexuals in the ministry and all sorts of heresy comes creeping in, and when things go too far in the other direction, the same things happen — when ultra-conservativism takes hold, men also despise women, and the rest of their theology soon goes off kilter.
The people who are most extreme about patriarchy are either nonChristians, like the Moslems, or else they belong to heretical fringe groups, like the
Mormons, the Moonies, and the more extreme Anabaptists….. and of course, the Bailey crowd.
November 23, 2009 at 2:45 pm
How did Baucham change his message? The only difference I noticed was the “sodomization of America” line in reference to death threats. Did he change anything else?
November 23, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Holly,
Nope, nothing else was changed that I could see.
November 23, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Now, now Cynthia Gee, I insist on still being the worst heretic around here.
November 23, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Older men and younger women is not a sickening phenomenon. Adultery and lust is the sickening phenomenon!
I won’t look through Hollywood’s perverted scripts to bolster my points. I’ll just go to the Bible.
I thought the story of Ruth and Boaz was very romantic. Boaz was not taking advantage of a woman looking for a father figure, and Ruth was not seeking a father figure.
And poor Fanny Forrester, that young, budding American poet. Was she seeking a father figure when she married missionary Adoniram Judson, thirty years her senior? When she became mother to his four children, was he seeking another daughter?
My stepmom is two tears older than my older sister. My dad married a thirty-ish WOMAN- a technical writer- his intellectual equal. It had nothing to do with us girls not giving him attention.
November 23, 2009 at 11:54 pm
I’m so tired.
I wish we had an edit feature here. That should have read “years” not tears.
well, goodnight, y’all!
November 24, 2009 at 6:17 am
Momgodin,
Thank you for sharing that.
As I read it, I couldn’t help but think about all the Jane Austen that girls in this movement are brought up on. The men in her stories are always much older than the girls they marry.
November 24, 2009 at 10:49 am
Exactly, Momgodin! Exactly. The “illustration” used and the explanation given for using said “illustration” is totally inappropriate.
I bet you and your sisters didn’t feel like your dad was giving the attention to his younger wife that belonged to you, either.
Yuck!
And if that is psychology 101 then the patriarchy movement is in deeper trouble when it comes to father/daughter relations than I thought.
November 24, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Amy Scott over at humblemusings posed a great question to me which has turned into a suggestion and now a new blog thread. She wondered if there was or could be a “best of” quotes from patriocentrists for those who are overwhelmed at the huge amount of information online regarding the patriocentrists. (This blog alone has nearly 21,000 comments and it is only one of many commenting on the same topic.)
To that end, I am beginning a new thread on this blog that is for direct quotes only, along with links to the quote in context. I believe Amy’s idea is a good one. The most effective way to refute wrong teaching is with the real words of real patriocentrists.
Let’s also refrain from discussing those quotes on that thread and instead if you want to discuss them, bring your comments back over here, listing the quote number you are talking about. I am in the process of going back through all the comments myself and will be posting quotes that fit the criteria. Please feel free to do likewise.
November 24, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Hi, thatmom. Left a fresh-from-the-oven quote from Tim Bayly in your new quote thread. Oh, dear– I do hope the phrase “fresh from the oven” isn’t too “feminizing.” As for the quote: Hey, HE said it!
November 24, 2009 at 1:11 pm
“As I read it, I couldn’t help but think about all the Jane Austen that girls in this movement are brought up on. The men in her stories are always much older than the girls they marry.”
Actually, this isn’t quite true. In Sense & Sensibility, Marianne and Col. Brandon are almost twenty years apart, and Mr. Knightley is 17 years older than Emma, but all of the other major couples are less than ten years apart. I’d say most of the men are 5-7 years older than the women, which is larger than typical of modern young couples, but not a big enough difference to come across as May-December IMHO.
(Long-time lurker, and it figures my first post would be about Jane Austen. I’m a relatively liberal Christian (member of a PCUSA church) who used to be far more conservative, and I’ve developed an interest in Quiverfull and patriarchy in a “there but for the grace of God go I” sort of way. I’m also an aspiring author writing fiction set in the Napoleonic era, so Jane Austen is primary source material as well as the author of brilliantly written novels.)
November 24, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Doug Phillips’ “lifeboat argument” against abortion in the case of ectopic pregnanies:
“What shall we think of Susie? Shall we bless a mother who kills her own child to save herself? 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?”
This was posted on the “best of” topic and it is a subject that I just unfortunately recently realized was true of the patriocentrists and I find it highly disturbing. Maybe I’m missing something, but as far as I know, a baby cannot grow in a fallopian tube. Period. Yes, maybe there was some case once upon a time of some lady in India who didn’t die and the baby was okay, but let’s face it, 99.999999% of the time, an untreated ectopic pregnancy leads to perforation of the fallopian tube, demise of the fetus, and sepsis and shock and finally death for the mother. That’s the reality as I know it. If anybody can refute this, I am open to additional information.
So if we agree that this is the reality, then what shall we think of Susie? What I think of Susie, and feel for Susie, is sorrow at her loss (as it was certainly a loss), empathy for her pain, both physical and emotional, and support for her as she moves forward with her life.
Do I feel “proud” of Susie? Not exactly, not in the achievement sense that I associate with “pride”. “Proud” would be an inappropriate word to attach to the situation in any case. Do I feel ashamed of her? Absolutely not! Surely our lives as women, as wives, as mothers, as sisters, as daughters have worth, too, in the eyes of God! What good can come of sacrificing one’s worthy (in the eyes of God) life for something that can never be anyway?
It’s the ultimate false choice. The baby cannot survive no matter if the mother does or not. To my knowledge, we do not have the medical technology yet to “transplant” this wayward embryo.
My twin pregnancy was very high risk. I started having pre-term labor at 22 weeks, and spent the remaining 15 weeks that I thankfully carried those boys in constant fear and worry (yes, I know I should have felt neither, but I’m human) for their welfare and safety. At one point, before well-established viability, my kidneys began shutting down, but my devotion to these babies was so strong that I told my husband that if I should become very ill and slip into a coma, I wanted more than anything for my babies to survive. More than my own life, more than my own health. Thankfully, God did not present me with that choice to make ultimately, thanks to the able intervention of my doctors.
However, if I had ever experienced an ectopic pregnancy, I would have opted for the only viable path for the sake of my own health, and for the sake of my family. It would have been excrutiating and caused me tremendous grief, but I am sure that’s what I would have done.
I fear that a vulnerable woman may come along who was faced with this terrible situation and the scurrilous words of this Phillips person may cause her further harm and grief. I pray that does not happen. I want to stand up for her now!
November 24, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Regarding the Baucham quote, I read it to my husband (who is unfamiliar with the controversy) and without missing a beat, his immediate response was, “Ew, dads want to f*@^ their daughters???”
November 24, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Savannah,
I had the same gutwrenching reaction to Doug Phillip’s hatred and distain of women when I first heard of it.
The shock and horror I felt of his disregard for women took me several weeks to get over.
I couldn’t believe it either.
Now, as for Light’s quote, I’d heard that one before too.
I wish sooo bad I was at home where I could look up the verse that came to mind when I read it again today.
It’s in one of the prophets.
God is asking His children why they prefer the violent waters of aome named river (can’t remember the name) over the waters of a peaceful calm river He also names (can’t remember it either. Could be the Jordan. Not sure).
His point being, He offers gentle, soothing, comforting, refreshing, but His people reject it for the violent rapids of a raging river.
The Bayly quote revels in the violent. It offers no peace for man or woman.
Jesus is the Prince of peace.
The Bayly quote boarders the spirit of antichrist.
I’m not saying THEY have the spirit of antichrist.
But I am definitly saying that glorifying violence as they do, they entertain that spirit, if only in that quote.
November 24, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Since Kamilla ignored the request not to discuss the quotes in the quote thread, I will ask her here: Do you agree with David Bayly’s quote? Do you agree that pursuing marriage is a “war”? That women are men’s “foes”? That families should be “defeated” and women “snatched” from them? Do you agree that a bride’s first sexual experience should be “velvet-gloved violence”?
November 24, 2009 at 4:27 pm
The “picture” that Bayly paints is a far cry from the illustration we are given in Scripture of marriage being likened to Christ and his beloved bride, the Church.
I don’t read those Bayly “guys” unless I’m looking at a specific link that someone is directing me to view. I find that their tastes run to the downright prurient, in a weird sort of way. My husband thinks they are seriously gross, too.
November 24, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Writerfriend said: Do you agree that a bride’s first sexual experience should be “velvet-gloved violence”?
Sounds like a sick porn fantasy, doesn’t it?
November 24, 2009 at 6:37 pm
http://www.truewoman.com/?id=755
Well, it looks like Voddie Baucham will be a speaker at the next True Woman Conference. I attended the very first True Woman Conference in Chicago last fall and John Piper was a speaker there.
I wonder what Voddie’s talk will be to the women of that conference? The same as his words on his Biblical Woman tape series that can be found on youtube?
November 24, 2009 at 7:00 pm
God-fearing Wife,
I read the quote, verbatim, to quite a few men that I bowl with. They are mostly older men in their late 50′s and 60′s and they mostly all have daughters. They ALL reacted quite like your husband.
I guess this isn’t as “ubiquitous” as Voddie would have us believe, except for a couple of movies where he extrapolates a quote and then runs with it. The man, in Psycho, that said to the female character that “you are the same age as my daughter” while allegedly flirting with her was not looking for a daughter. He was flirting and it makes him feel young and vibrant again. BUT, Psycho does have many undertones of incestuous feelings of Norman for his mother and vice versa. Not something I would appeal to in order to make an illustration.
I wonder what we should do with Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, then, if movies are what we go by? Woody and Roman both have penchants for the young things. They yearned for the “attentions of younger women”. Do we suppose they were truly looking for daughters or was it something else?
November 24, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Well, in Woody Allen’s case, it WAS his daughter — his stepdaughter, anyway; now his wife. *shudder*
November 24, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Yes, emr, and that IS the problem with VB’s statement. It was reckless and inappropriate, especially because of the fact that there are far too many fathers satisfying their “yearnings” with their own daughters.
November 24, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Writerfriend,
It seems, judging from Kamilla’s comments, that she does agree with the article about getting a wife involving velvet-gloved violence.
November 24, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Re:525 “Sounds like a sick porn fantasy, doesn’t it?”
Indeed it does. it also sounds like giving her a traumatic introduction into marriage to show her who’s going to be boss.
I’ve been reading a lot of educational theory for uni (being one of those evil women who goes back to study when her kids grow up)and this would actually fit straight into something called transformative education. The concept is that you put a person through what is called a disorienting dilemma (ie a major disjunction between their presuppositions and their experience) leading them to question their worldview and change and grow. The irony is that in educational theory this is seen as a way of liberating people, in the strange, dark mirror-world of the Bayleys, it’s used to keep them in bondage.
but then, they couldn’t imagine that a woman could give herself freely and joyfully to the man she loves, that would be giving her some autonomy, wouldn’t it? No, she has to be taken, even forced (nicely of course) because she is a subordinate creature who must be bent to her master’s will.
November 24, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Lynne,
It sounds like what James McDonald quoted for Valentine’s Day last year concerning his thoughts on love.
The bride, aka “the ravished virgin” would be taken into the bed chamber by her “priest” (aka husband) and she would be terrified, sweetly terrified and gently alarmed.
Virginity is seen to be something that only the wife possesses.
I am wondering where all the terror and alarm is for the ravished bridegroom? After all, wouldn’t this also be the “priest’s” first time?
These guys do know that women know how to ravish a man, do they not? Sometimes a woman’s sexual desire is so terrifying to a man that he doesn’t know what to do with her or how to keep up with her need for sex.
Ravish is also a strange word to epitomize the conjugal union, especially since they fancy old English words and their original meanings. It means to “seize and carry off”. Very much like the Baylys fantasy. It means to “rape” or for a man to force intercourse on a female against her will. It means to sexually assault, dishonor or defile. This is the meaning of the word “ravish” when used in a sexual context according to the original meaning of the word.
So, it certainly seems, Lynne, that these patriocentrists like to think of the first union of husband and wife as a traumatic introduction into marriage to show her who’s going to be boss.
Why all the sword/penis imagery and violence associated with getting marriage?
Do we really want our daughters to read this stuff and come away with the idea that they are to be terrified and alarmed on their wedding night when their “priest” ravishes them?
http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/a-valentine-reflection/
November 24, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Corrie,
I’ve got news for you — girls have been reading “this stuff” for nearly 150 years (did you see the source of the quote?) and have survived quite nicely without your concerns about them being terrified. You see, some of us know that life isn’t safe, life isn’t pretty but that life is dangerous and beautiful at the same time. And life is very, very, good.
Writerfriend,
I don’t know that a bride’s first sexual experience *should* be velvet-gloved violence – but I know that it *is*. The taking of a maidenhead is no gentle act. If you don’t see that, you understand nothing of men and women, the way of a man with a maid, of marriage, that wooing is costly and necessitates conquering or it is worthless. And you certainly understand nothing of the importance of the symbolism of the marital act.
I hope it will satisfy the rest of your questions if I simply say I LOVED David’s series on wooing as warfare and wrote him to tell him just that.
I recommend two books by Alice von Hildebrand – “The Privilege of Being a Woman” and “Letters to a Young Bride” along with just about anything by Tony Esolen (but especially his translation of Dante). I adore them both and a woman could do a lot worse than taking Dr. Alice as her mentor and Tony as a co-laborer. They both have a deeper understanding of sex than anyone commenting here seems to.
Kamilla
November 24, 2009 at 10:27 pm
I forgot to add that, yes, I am guilty of violating the rules in the other thread. I understand my post there has been deleted and have no complaint about that.
Kamilla
November 24, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Kamilla -
I’m sorry, I have to do this. You just hit one of my personal sticking points.
I don’t know that a bride’s first sexual experience *should* be velvet-gloved violence – but I know that it *is*.
No, it’s not. I know several hundred young women personally who would tell you differently. And for the ones for whom it *was* a violent experience, they refused to consider it their first legitimate experience.
The taking of a maidenhead is no gentle act.
It can be, with enough education on both sides. It can even be a deeply pleasurable and unforgettable experience.
If you don’t see that, you understand nothing of men and women, the way of a man with a maid, of marriage,
And if you do see that, I’m sorry, but as near as I can tell you consider the most basic, elemental relationship between a man and a woman to be as rapist to victim. And that is a sad, sorry way to see the world.
that wooing is costly and necessitates conquering or it is worthless.
Actually I would call it worthless if it involves “conquering”. It is entirely possible to build a strong relationship based on love, trust and equality. In fact, if you don’t, you don’t have a strong marriage at all, just a perpetual life of a victim.
And you certainly understand nothing of the importance of the symbolism of the marital act.
I prefer to ground myself in the reality of marriage and life, thanks. I’ll pass on the symbolism, and stick with my equal partnership. And the healthy sex life that goes with it.
November 24, 2009 at 10:46 pm
OK, here’s one for everyone.
Define virginity. And then define losing it.
November 24, 2009 at 11:29 pm
“I don’t know that a bride’s first sexual experience *should* be velvet-gloved violence – but I know that it *is*.”
Wasn’t for me. Was it for you? Or are you speaking of an experience you have not even had?
There is nothing in Scripture– NOTHING– that supports this nonsense.
November 25, 2009 at 12:32 am
Corrie: “Why all the sword/penis imagery and violence associated with getting marriage?”
Because these men glory too much in the flesh, especially that part that makes them different, and in their own minds better, than the weaker vessel?
Because the swords below their belts are exceedingly abundantly more important to them than the hearts and souls of the women they feel compelled to conquor?
Because the Kingdom of Heaven sufferth violence and the violent take it by force?
I don’t know. I give up. Why?
November 25, 2009 at 1:03 am
No, wait!
Maybe it’s because the swords below their belts are more important to them than the Sword of the Spirit with is the Word of God.
Because Writerfriend is right.
There is NO scriptural support for this.
Talks like this appeal to the baser nature, the fleshly nature of men.
Stamping ‘biblical manhood’ on it doesn’t make it somehow magically appear in the Bible. It’s not there.
November 25, 2009 at 1:06 am
The taking of a maidenhead is no gentle act. If you don’t see that, you understand nothing of men and women, the way of a man with a maid, of marriage, that wooing is costly and necessitates conquering or it is worthless. And you certainly understand nothing of the importance of the symbolism of the marital act.
OMG.
Sweet young ladies reading–this is NOT TRUE. Perhaps the one who wrote that did not have a good experience and my heart breaks for her . . . I was a virgin when I got married and my husband was the sweetest, most tender and loving gentleman I could ask for. If you are with a man who wants the best for you, who aches to please you–the “marital act” which I call lovemaking will be a beautiful, sacred event.
November 25, 2009 at 1:09 am
I’ve been out all day and come back to talk about “velvet gloved violence.” What on earth is going on? God have mercy on anyone teaching this despicable thinking.
I’m a believer x 45 years and have never ever heard such appalling foolishness.
November 25, 2009 at 1:27 am
I am the mother of four young men and married 25 years to the same man. I would never, ever, ever, ever teach my sons this stuff nor would their father – a believer x 47 years, who holds an M.Div. from an ultra conservative American university and about whom my 18 year old said the other evening – he is grateful to for teaching him everything he knows about Christ and the Bible.
It is utterly not Biblical to think of the marriage consummation in violent terms. It defaces Christ. I do not understand the Baylys are not thrown out on their heads.
November 25, 2009 at 8:19 am
I am having a difficult time trying to understand if the Baylys seriously encourage brand new husbands to “take” their brides or if they are just trying to sound poetic and manly. I cannot imagine what kind of premarital counseling they would give if they really mean for men to act in this way toward a young bride.
The whole notion of “velvet-gloved violence” etc. is so contrary to what the Bible actually does say about how we are to treat each other, which includes how young grooms are to treat and approach young brides:
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” Galatians 5:22-23
Where is the teaching on self-control, gentleness, patience, and kindness in the Bayly sex talk?
November 25, 2009 at 8:25 am
thinking this morning……
Why is it that “biblical manhood” and “biblical womanhood” rarely is? Why are there so many notions and ideas and philosophies passed off as “biblical” and these people write and sell books and speak at conferences and actually have followers who lap it up?
The other day I saw a PDF from a “biblical marriage conference” and was amazed at the author’s lists of “truths” about men and women. None of it could be supported by Scripture and yet it was declared “biblical.”
Earlier this week I saw a video clip of Aretha Franklin singing “Respect” on a blog and the author was making the point that it was feminist notion that women want respect. She said that, biblically, men want the respect not women. Of course, there was no Scripture to support it.
Does adding “biblical” to something make it so? Perhaps this is the greatest lie that is being pulled off in the church today.
November 25, 2009 at 8:41 am
The taking of a maidenhead is no gentle act. If you don’t see that, you understand nothing of men and women, the way of a man with a maid, of marriage, that wooing is costly and necessitates conquering or it is worthless. And you certainly understand nothing of the importance of the symbolism of the marital act.
Ok.
I thought that in complementarian-patriarchal teaching, the union of the husband and wife symbolizes the union of Christ and the church. There’s never force, never subjugation, only ever “loving-leadership-authority”.
This sort of stuff is in direct violation of what the Word of God teaches. A husband doesn’t posses his wife in order to violate her, however “velvet-gloved” his violation may be! He is to treat her with respect, as the weaker vessel, as a fellow heir ( iow, respecting her body, her virginity which may be painful to lose, and her fear if she is not prepared to have sexual intercourse)
I wonder how many women have never enjoyed sexual intercourse because they were merely submitting to the husband’s ravishing of their body. Sickening.
And I don’t care for how many years women have been reading this stuff. It doesn’t make it any more right.
November 25, 2009 at 8:43 am
Does Jesus ravish us? Does he violate us? Does he conquer us and snatch us away?
Or does he give us freedom to come to him?
Hello! if you are going to give a husband Christ-like status in the marriage, please, pretty pretty please, tell him to model Jesus and the way he loves us!!!!!!
November 25, 2009 at 8:48 am
Maybe they are trying to associate their view of salvation with marital intercourse. But why? It seems that Kamilla is the only one who understands this so maybe she can explain it to us. I hope she shows the Scripture they base this on.
November 25, 2009 at 9:07 am
Karen,
We posted at the same time.
You express very well what I wanted to say in comment 245, in your comment 243. Where is the self-control in taking one’s wife “by force”? Where is the gentleness?
And have been wondering about this too:
Does adding “biblical” to something make it so? Perhaps this is the greatest lie that is being pulled off in the church today.
November 25, 2009 at 9:22 am
546 comments ago, in comment#3, Corriejo links to a sermon by Mark Driscoll on marriage and women.
I know I’m very late to comment on this on this thread, still I think it deserves pointing out!
Where does God tell men to deal with a wife’s unwillingness to “follow” him in some situation in this way?
Ways a husband can handle disagreements with his wife:
1. Pray and discuss with your wife. Be patient. Wait for her to come around.
2. Appeal to a higher authority (pastor/counselor).
3. If the matter is pressing and/or a decision cannot be reached, the husband must decide. His wife should submit to the decision.
And he contradicts himself:
Submission Does Not Mean:
1. A husband is in ultimate authority.
And where does the Bible say that this is what submission of a wife to her husband should look like?
Submission Does Mean:
2. Wives are to submit like Jesus did in Gethsemane (Luke 22:42).
That is not God/Jesus/the HS/Paul speaking to wives, it is Jesus speaking to God.
3. Husbands are to lovingly lead like Jesus does the Church (Eph. 5:25).
Um… lovingly lead? or was it just plain old LOVE sacrificially?
5. Christian marriage shows the Trinity and the gospel.
Chapter and verse for that, please.
I think I have found a plethora of quotes from not just scary, half-unknown patriarchalists, but from a mainstream, incredibily popular man!
November 25, 2009 at 9:25 am
Can we have a new thread, please? this one is taking ages to load….
Maybe one for discussing the quotes of the new thread?
November 25, 2009 at 9:30 am
From the Baily “thou shalt not sheath your sword” quote.
God made her a woman and dignified her sex with His statement, “Woman shall be saved through childbearing” (1Timothy 2:15)
Wow, wow, wow… I’m speechless.
November 25, 2009 at 9:55 am
From Douglas Wilson’s manual on how to deal with a wife who doesn’t live up to her husband’s expectations:
[A husband] may be distressed over [his wife's] spending habits, television viewing habits, weight, rejection of his leadership, laziness in cleaning the house, lack of responsiveness to sexual advances, whatever. But however the problem is manifested, what should a husband do? …
…When a wife neglects her duties, the guilt of the sin is hers. The responsibility for her negligence is her husband’s….
Where does the Bible say that????
…After he has acknowledged his responsibility, and his failures to exercise it properly, he should then make clear what his expectations are for her in the future. He should also make clear his complete unwillingness to step in to do for her what she neglected to do, or to tolerate a lapse into the old way of doing things.
In other words, treat her like a naughty child.
At no time may he lose his temper, badger her, call her names, etc. He must constantly remember and confess that she is not the problem, he is. By bringing this gently to her attention, he is not to be primarily pointing to her need to repent; rather, he is exhibiting the fruit of his repentance.
This is a very strange notion indeed. So HER bad housekeeping,lack of sexual interest, lack of compliance, or whatever is HIS fault? Or what is D W saying here? Is a wife merely the extension of her husband? is he saying that the husband confesses the sin, and now has to get his body to stop committing that sin? bizarre…
He does this, without rancour and without an accusative spirit, until she complies or rebels. If she complies, he must move up one step, now requiring that another of her duties be done. If she rebels, he must call the elders of the church and ask them for a pastoral visit. When the government of the home has failed to such an extent, and a godly and consistent attempt by the husband to restore the situation has broken down, then the involvement of the elders is fully appropriate.
Some situations would be hilarious.
“elders, we need a pastoral visit. My wife won’t do the dishes right after dinner”.
Some would be incredibly embarassing and shaming.
“elders, my wife won’t sleep with me on demand. Come tell her to submit to me sexually”.
In some occasions, this may be what saves the marriage. Wise elders who have learnt to love their wives may be able to reason better with a wife in a situation where she is spending recklessly, clearly rebelling and making her family’s life hell, or where a wife is just plain lazy.
In other occasions, a husband who expects too much from his wife can be helped to see that her situation (new baby, bad tear and many stitches or some other damage to her genital area, etc…) may be causing her apparent “laziness”, lack of sexual desire or a few extra pounds.
Any quotes from the instructions to a wife in similar circumstances?
November 25, 2009 at 10:57 am
ThatMom -
You know, I have a possible answer to your questions, but it’s not very flattering to Christianity.
November 25, 2009 at 11:06 am
I actually had to stop reading after Doug’s. I have been through some episodes of depression that looked a lot like the “lazy” wife. My husband lovingly stepped in and helped me. And when it was over, months later, I was able to do everything that I had been unable to do before.
That is probably the most evil thing I’ve ever read from Doug. Well, the willingness to die for an ectopic pregnancy is probably more evil since death is final.
Unbelievable.
November 25, 2009 at 11:18 am
Holly P,
I agree…Doug’s writing is so callous and suspicious of the worst in every occasion!
Goodness!
All I can hope is that there are elders out there who can spot the real problem and actually help out. I’m sad that most churches who would hand out this book will probably lack such elders and wives will be told to pull themselves together and get on with it, else they are in sin.
November 25, 2009 at 11:36 am
Kamilla said “They both have a deeper understanding of sex than anyone commenting here seems to.”
If I don’t understand sex by now, I guess I never will. lol!
But let me give it a shot. The foundation for intimacy is trust. The question is, can you trust someone who hurts you?
November 25, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Momgoddin: “The question is, can you trust someone who hurts you?”
Can you trust someone who hurts you and calls it good, biblical manhood, God’s will, divine order? and calls you to suck it up and enjoy it?
November 25, 2009 at 12:18 pm
momgodin -
That’s why I asked the question up there in #536.
On the one hand, you can describe losing your virginity as the physical act, as Kamilla seems to be doing. This means that you’re defining this important thing as something that can be “taken” by a rapist. Or by a molesting family member when you’re too young to even realize what is going on. Or by a doctor in the case of some necessary medical procedure (yes, virgins get ovarian cancer too). Or you can even take yourself if you find yourself surprised at a wedding and your cousin only has tampons in her purse.
Think about it, does that really make sense?
On the other hand, you can define it as the first time you willingly give your love and trust to another, and enter into an relationship that is not only physically intimate, but intellectually and emotionally so as well. Which is impossible to do when your afraid, or in an atmosphere of violence.
On the third hand* when you look at the whole raiding daughters/courtship model, or whatever we’re calling it, is this even possible? Think about it:
1) As I understand it, these fathers restrict all access the daughters have to information from the outside world, including all information about human sexuality at all. I believe it was the Pearl’s (but I could be wrong, I have to find the link) who said that all a girl needs before marriage is for her mother to tell her on the morning of her wedding to “Think of a flower opening”, or something like that. And I know that the Focus on the Family people over at Boundless suggest that you wait to start learning about the physical side of things until a few days to at most a couple of weeks before your wedding to “avoid temptation”.
And didn’t one of the Patriocentrists say that once the courtship had started it was okay to start thinking about the opposite sex for the first time in a “romantic” way, or something like that? And yet courtship is supposed to be as binding as a marriage?
How are you supposed to have any clue what you want when you’re not even allowed to think about it? And you’re kept deliberately ignorant on the subject? How are you not supposed to be afraid of this? How are you supposed to willing go for something you know nothing about?
2) In the courtship model it doesn’t matter, because from the sound of things you don’t even get to pick your own husband. Look, the man who wants you comes to your father, or perhaps your father goes to him, or your fathers work it out amongst themselves. Your father decides this fellow is best, not based on your criteria (we already determined in #1 that you haven’t been given the tools to figure out what you might want, and have been forbidden from even thinking about the subject) but based on his criteria.
Now, you have never worked in your life, and that the women that you know who have worked have done nothing but complain about how evil and hellish it is. Literally working outside the home = working for Satan, simple as that. You have no marketable skills. It’s even entirely possible that you only have an 8th grade education, didn’t one of them say that education for girls past that was a waste as they were only going to be wives and mothers anyway? You can’t take care of yourself, you are entirely dependent on your father. And don’t go looking for help, every one you know is part of the same church community and believes you should obey him unquestioningly.
Given that, how are you supposed to say no when he says “Marry this man”? How are you supposed to say no to anything he asks? If you do, will he throw you out into the street? Or worse? Really, what’s to stop him?
So if we define giving your virginity as “the first time you willingly give your love and trust to another”, or something to that extent, how is a girl in one of these families supposed to willingly be doing anything? They are giving their consent to something they know absolutely nothing about, and under the threat of losing every support they have.
How is any of this, in this model, not a violent act from the get-go?
November 25, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Concerning Barb’s quote number 11 on the other thread…
Do the same rights belong to the wife.
If her husband is guilty of “verbal unkindness” can she go to the elders and get the same support and finally a divorce from the unrepentant husband?
Or must she bear up under the unkindness and find new and improved ways to submit to try to get him to stop. Or just learn to live with his unrepentant sin.
I suppose if it worked right, she should get that kind of support.
Problem is, when you go to a bunch of men concerning this, the temptation to have the attitude “Bro’s before hoe’s” (for lack of a better phrase) might be too great for them and she might get sent back home and told to repent of her unsubmissiveness.
I fear the temptation would be to great for them. They would see all things from the male point of view thereby giving them little to no empathy for the female side of the equation.
November 25, 2009 at 12:28 pm
“The taking of a maidenhead is no gentle act. If you don’t see that, you understand nothing of men and women, the way of a man with a maid, of marriage, that wooing is costly and necessitates conquering or it is worthless. And you certainly understand nothing of the importance of the symbolism of the marital act.”
Yeah, maybe if you’re talking Harlequin romance novel. That’s not real love or marriage, however. Although I must wonder if that’s what a lot of these authors are reading, as much of imagery seems to be co-opted for prurient reasons in their own writings. Penis as sword, sheath, rod???? Good grief! All of these are implements of war or discipline of some kind (rod? really????). They have no place in the marriage bed. Speaking purely Scripturally here, I would defy Kamilla or anyone to show me this imagery as God’s plan for the marriage bed.
Young, unmarried women, take heart! If you limit your choice of husband to a man who is gentle and kind and a true servant, and you approach your relationship with him as a true servant, this will not be your experience. And without getting into personal detail, I can say that I speak from experience on this matter, as a wife of 27 years.
November 25, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Excellent idea with the quote thread! My only suggestion would be to somehow group them by category or by speaker. Our dear patrios say so much crazy all the time, I imagine we’ll acrue quite a few fascinating and horrifying quotes.
When I read those definitions of narcissistic personality disorder (the patrios are spot-on NPD’ers, BTW) I realized we couldn’t do much to change them. But we can EXPOSE them. Listing their quotes does that in the best way possible. Let them speak for themselves.
Those of us who’ve been here a while are already familiar with most of these quotes, but to see them all together somehow magnifies them. For new readers here, it’s quite an eye-opener, I imagine.
Another thought about the sex/red velvet nonsense, without getting too graphic: Do patrios not want women to experience pleasure with the marital act? Even after the violent wedding night description, they’re still all about swords and everything. Is that supposed to be pleasurable for wives?
Perhaps they don’t want it to be pleasurable for some reason. Reminds me a little of female circumcision in Africa where one of the goals is to remove women’s desire so that men can better control females’ impulses.
Of course, there’s little concern about managing their own swordly impulses, other than having a daughter or daughter-figure flitting about to fill that God-given need of theirs.
November 25, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Mara –
Problem is, when you go to a bunch of men concerning this, the temptation to have the attitude “Bro’s before hoe’s” (for lack of a better phrase) might be too great for them and she might get sent back home and told to repent of her unsubmissiveness.
Or perhaps the attitude of “We don’t want to share the power around here.” Or “We don’t want our wives/daughters getting any ideas that they can stand up to us.” Or something along those lines.
Savannah -
Young, unmarried women, take heart! If you limit your choice of husband to a man who is gentle and kind and a true servant, and you approach your relationship with him as a true servant, this will not be your experience.
This assumes they get to choose their own husbands.
November 25, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Annie C. said: “This assumes they get to choose their own husbands.”
You’ve made some excellent points, Annie C. It is a violence for many women under patrio-rule, start to finish. I hurt for them all, truly.
November 25, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Anne C.
I quess I was thinking…
“We don’t want to share the power around here.” Or “We don’t want our wives/daughters getting any ideas that they can stand up to us.” = Bros before hoes
The rights and power of the male are always more important than anything, concerning the female.
It’s been this way in many cultures for thousands of years.
I just used my crass little phrase to show it for what is was.
A filthy, worldly attitude.
November 25, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Ok, getting back to #544, and ThatMom’s comment. If only because I’ve had enough coffee today.
Why are there so many notions and ideas and philosophies passed off as “biblical” and these people write and sell books and speak at conferences and actually have followers who lap it up?
Short answer, if they didn’t say that God thought they were special, and that God told them to say this, would anyone listen?
November 25, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Annie C posted, “Savannah -
Young, unmarried women, take heart! If you limit your choice of husband to a man who is gentle and kind and a true servant, and you approach your relationship with him as a true servant, this will not be your experience.
This assumes they get to choose their own husbands.
Excellent point, and it shows that I cannot fully wrap my brain around these patrio beliefs and views. So much EXTRA-Biblical “stuff” to keep up with. . .
About the definition of virginity, I think that’s actually a little tricky. The girl who has stayed inside the house cross-stitching, playing the piano, and doing housework for her mother may very well have an intact hymen. However, a girl who is just as much of a virgin, who has played outside with her brothers and climbed trees and forged streams and ride horses and bicycles, and used tampons when swimming – well, that girl’s hymen may be in a different state. Does that make her any less a virgin?
Certainly not! I believe a girl can be technically/physically a virgin (with an intact hymen), but not be spiritually or emotionally one – such as the case with the girls who offer boys oral sex in an attempt to save their “technical virginity” (and this seems rather ubiquitous in the church – as the mother of three sons, I can tell you that they have been offered this “service” numerous times by girls who are viewed as fine, upstanding Christian teens).
Moreover, I believe a girl can have a hymen that is less intact physically but who is completely a virgin by virtue of her never willfully choosng to give of herself in that way to another.
Is this really of such impact? I don’t mean to in any way denigrate the importance of virginity until marriage, and it certainly has been a blessing in my own marriage, I think no less of Christian married couples where one or both were not virgins, due to sexual activity before they became Christians, due to divorce, or whatever. Their marriages don’t seem different at all than mine as far as I can tell. And to think they have built healthy marital relationships without all the “ravishing”, etc.!
I read a book called “Jesus Girls” recently, a collection of essays by women who “grew up evangelical”, and one of those essays described how emotionally paralyzed this one young woman was because she had sex with her college sweetheart and spent literally years – into her 30′s – believing this was such an unforgiveable sin that it prevented her from moving on with her life.
And I truly thought that was rather a sad thing that she felt so shameful when there is no hierarchy of sin and if she was truly a believer, which she seemed to be, Jesus had already died for that sin 2,000 years ago and here she spent more than a decade in deep depression and inconsolable sorrow over this sin.
But I digress. . .
November 25, 2009 at 1:48 pm
“Then if she (the rebellious, unrepentant, excommunicated wife) departs, the husband is free to get a divorce and remarry a Christian woman.
Brian Schwertley, from quote thread.”
!!! And yet, I have NEVER seen any of the patrios say that a Christian woman with a rebellious and unrepentant husband should get a divorce, much less remarry! Actually, when is the possibility of the MAN being rebellious ever considered?
Please God, we need You to come down and pour out Your Spirit and the fear of you upon Your people again and upon those who claim Your Name.
It’s not like things are that much worse in the world as a whole than they have been in most of history, (better than a lot of history, in fact) but it’s still really painful to me to see the Church being so corrupted. So sad.
November 25, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Introduction!
I posted a few quotes on the “best of” thread, and then realized that I should probably introduce myself since I’ve never posted here before.
I’m writing a young-adult science fiction novel that takes place in a patriarchal theonomy/theocracy. A lot of my research has centered around Christian Reconsctructionism and Federal Vision theology. The premise is that a group of people leave Earth for another planet, in the hopes of re-creating the Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony, but without the corrupting influences of other immigrant groups. My main character is a teenage girl in the 7th generation of immigrants who begins to see beneath the idyllic surface, and has to sort out what she believes and what she’s going to do about it.
I wanted to talk to someone who had been involved in one of these groups and left. My sister published a request for contacts in her homeschooling newsletter, and someone was gracious enough to forward it to Karen. (Hi, Karen!) (Let me caveat this by saying that anything I say should not reflect on my sister’s feelings or beliefs. We deeply love and respect each other despite some theological differences!)
In any case, I’ve been lurking here for a while, and I truly appreciate y’all’s points of view! (And if anyone wants more details about my story, or thinks they might have some perspectives to add, please contact me!)
FWIW, I am a Christian, although I’m leaning more liberal theologically as I get older! I’m also a former homeschool mom. Two of my kids are in college (one of them went to public high school) and my third is in public elementary school.
- Barb (dell.barb at gmail.com
November 25, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Welcome, Barb!
November 25, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Starting a new discussion thread to continue where this leaves off…
November 25, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Here’s an excerpt from my book (first draft!) inspired by the Douglas Wilson quote about wives and dishes. My main character is watching “The Sharing,” a daily television program in this futuristic patriarchal theocracy. “The cams” are floating cameras that randomly record people as they go about their days.
—–
“Good afternoon,” [the anchorman] says. “For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him.”
This is the way the Sharing always begins. For the first time, I realize that while this verse sounds encouraging, it also contains a warning. It’s not just the eyes of the Lord wandering our world; the cams wander, too.
Then the vid montage begins. Happy children playing in the park. A young woman kneading bread in her kitchen, the image altered to obscure her bare arms and neck. A man picking apples, another monitoring soybeans as they flow into the tofu plant. A mother leaning over a schoolroom table, surrounded her enthusiastic little ones. Me, in the garden, planting seeds. These are the images that are shared with the outside world, to prove to those on other planets that here on New Plymouth we lead a idyllic, joyful, productive lives. And that if they, too, will live according to God’s law, this life could be theirs, as well. Not that they can come live in New Plymouth, of course. That would never be allowed. But they can create their own paradises, elsewhere, if they will trust in the Lord, and do good.
The music turns more serious, more somber, as Mr. Allerton’s figure appears again. “Today’s lesson for Sharing shows us an excellent example of a husband loving his wife as Christ loves the church.”
The image turns to a pile of dirty dishes, and then, from behind, a woman standing near a table, bouncing up and down on her toes, trying to sooth a screaming baby. Several small children are running around and yelling.
The woman’s husband approaches, touches her arm gently. She sits, and he sits beside her. We only see the backs of their heads, from the angle of the cam. The volume of the background music lowers, and we hear the husband speak. “Honey,” he says, “I’m sorry I haven’t been as good a leader of the household as I should. It is totally my responsibility to make sure that everything here runs smoothly. So now I’m going to have to insist that you do a better job of keeping the kitchen clean. I’m tired after a long day at work, and it makes me even more tired to come home to a noisy, messy house.”
I recognize the man’s voice. It is Connor, my sister Victoria’s friendly, cheerful husband. And the woman, of course, is Victoria.
“But Sweetheart, if only… ” she starts. Then she looks around and sees the cam. Her face is slightly blurred, obscured, but I can tell for sure that it’s my sister. She turns her head away from the cam, shoulders slumped.
“Of course, Sweetheart,” she says. “You’re absolutely right, and I promise to do better.”
The music becomes cheerful again, as a voiceover from Mr. Allerton says, “You have just witnessed the correct way to admonish a recalcitrant wife. You must be firm and kind, never blaming her or overwhelming her with too many commands at once.”
November 25, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Barb, I am very interested in your story!
November 25, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Oh, my goodness, I’m getting a Margaret-Atwood-A-Handmaid’s-Tale kind of chill – looking forward to your book, Barb!
November 25, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Thanks, Savannah. Some things are similar, of course, but this is not A-Handmaid’s-Tale redux. New Plymouth is dystopic with a totally different feel than The Republic of Gilead. For one thing, they started over from scratch and weren’t trying to enforce their theocracy on a non-theocratic world. By the time we get to 16yo Cady’s generation she doesn’t know anything different. She’s never been exposed to a world in which women get choices, or in which other lifestyles are tolerated. And the Overseers of New Plymouth are authoritarian, but for the most part not corrupt in the sense that the New Gilead generals were.
The point here is that patriarchy and theocracy can be oppressive even if they’re NOT corrupt and violent. Although there is a fair amount of violence (stoning for OT capital offenses) in my book too.
November 25, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Oh, I didn’t mean it was Handmaid’s-Tale-redux, I just meant I got that same kind of chill from reading your teaser. Which is a good thing
And I’m asking this in all honesty – to anyone – does anyone really believe that patriarchy can possibly be NOT corrupt? Because I’m leaning towards “no” on that one. By its very premise, I believe it corrupts God’s Word, His Plan, and His view of His much-adored creation: women.
November 25, 2009 at 5:26 pm
That’s why I said, “for the most part not corrupt.” I think that most of the men in New Plymouth have good intentions, in that they think they ARE trying to follow God’s Word and ARE trying to “honor their wives” while not giving them a voice.
There are, of course, those who let power go to their heads: Connor (in my clip) on a “small” scale, and some of the Overseers on a larger scale.
And Savannah, you’d be a great one to read mine since you have read A Handmaid’s Tale. Let me know if you’d be interested in reading the first draft of the first half.
- Barb (dell.barb at gmail.com)
November 30, 2009 at 11:46 am
Barb, I’d be honored to read your draft. I sent you an email.
Thanks!
January 16, 2010 at 1:38 am
Just happened upon your blog looking for something uplifting.
There seems to be a lot of hate spewing from this blog that I thought was a Christian blog.
Don’t take this wrong but I thought I would like to share some things.
Ephesians 4:29 (NIV)
Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
1 Timothy 5:13 ESV
Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not.
Proverbs 26:22 ESV
The words of a whisperer are like delicious morsels; they go down into the inner parts of the body
http://psalm121.ca/gossipa.html
The things you ladies are saying to one another are not building up but tearing down. Please don’t disgrace Christ.
What was it our mothers and grandmothers used to say?
If you can’t say something nice don’t say anything at all.
January 16, 2010 at 10:17 am
There’s also a saying.
Evil abounds when good men do nothing.
The scriptural equivalant would go along the lines of something said somewhere in Proverbs. Don’t remain silent when the innocent are being drug off to their deaths.
There’s physical death.
But there is also emotional and spiritual death.
What we are fighting against is the spiritual slaying of the innocent… Women, and children, and yes even men, who are ignorantly following the doctrines of demons, Baal worship, as one poster put so well here. These doctrines have produced only death in families.
Are you telling us that we need to keep it all sweetness and light when people are are being emotionally and spiritually destroyed?
I’m pretty sure you aren’t.
I just don’t think you are aware of what we are dealing with.
You assume we are gossiping. You assume wrong.
If you don’t want to stick around and find out what we battle against, that’s fine. God may not be calling you to fight along with us.
But others here are called to it. They are doing it with words here and also actions.
You mislabeling it gossip doesn’t make it gossip.
January 16, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Julie,
“What was it our mothers and grandmothers used to say?
If you can’t say something nice don’t say anything at all.”
My guess is that you are very young, from your words. Another saying from my part of the world is, “if you don’t know what someone is talking about, it is best to keep foot out of mouth”.
Also, the idea that truth seekers may only say sweet things likely had its origination from patriarchal patronizers seeking to silence the complaints of those they abused.