For the record, I do not recall any posting of anyone here who advised Michael’s wife to divorce him. Some expressed that they were not surprised that she had left him, based on his statements both on his website and this site, but no one advised that she should divorce him.
Michael’s wife had left him and started divorce proceedings long before we became aware of situation, anyway. I doubt very seriously, if she is in her right mind, that she would put much weight on what posters on the internet have to say, anyway.
I personally believe that if the two people involved in the marriage are truly willing to open their hearts and minds to God and the wise counsel of other Believers, and put aside pride and hurt, that God can work a very good work in their marriage. I’ve stated as much, as have others.
Would I advise a woman to physically separate from her husband? In certain situations, yes. Those situations would have to involve physical, emotional, or sexual abuse of either her or the children. A mother (as does a father if the situation is reversed) has a primary duty to protect her children. Another situation that would qualify is serial infidelity, where little remorse or repentance is demonstrated.
Supporting a person in protecting themselves and their children by separating from an abuser is not the same as advocating for divorce, however.
“Would I advise a woman to physically separate from her husband? In certain situations, yes. Those situations would have to involve physical, emotional, or sexual abuse of either her or the children. A mother (as does a father if the situation is reversed) has a primary duty to protect her children. Another situation that would qualify is serial infidelity, where little remorse or repentance is demonstrated.
Supporting a person in protecting themselves and their children by separating from an abuser is not the same as advocating for divorce, however.”
From Part Three of William Einwechter’s series (just added) on how the creation order applies to all of life:
In conclusion, we assert, on the basis of the Genesis account of creation of the man and woman and on the teaching of other Scriptures, that the creation order establishes a full complementarian view of the relationship between men and women. In summarizing our study and drawing out its implications for the debate over the roles of men and women today, we offer the following affirmations:
1. The creation order reflects the plan of God and establishes the lawful arrangement of all things in the creation. The creation order is universal in terms of time, place, and culture.
2. Male headship is part of the creation order, and thus it applies to all of man’s life and to all spheres of government—family, church, state, and society. Male headship is a creation ordinance, and it continues in the post-fall world being affirmed in the Old Testament and specifically affirmed in the New Testament as part of the order of Christ’s mediatorial kingdom.
3. Egalitarianism is false and stands in direct contradiction to the specific revelation of the creation order in Scripture and to the many individual texts that affirm, apply, and uphold the creation order in family, church, and state.
4. Semi-complementarianism (or “two-point complementarianism”) is correct in applying the creation order to family and church, but is wrong in denying the application of the creation order to civil government and society. Semi-complementarianism is really, to coin a phrase, semi-creation orderism because it denies that the creation order applies to all spheres of life. It also introduces conflict between the various spheres.
5. Full complementarianism is the biblical model for all mankind. It is only when men and women live in harmony with this model that they will experience fullness, wholeness, and success — physically, materially, psychologically, and spiritually.[5]
6. The successful integration of family, church, state, and society is based on the faithful application of the creation order to all of these spheres. When the creation order for men and women is ignored, confusion and conflicts between these spheres will be introduced.
Oh yay! I wonder whether my husband would like me to purchase them for him. After all, our 7th wedding anniversary is coming up next week… it would make a nifty anniversary gift, don’t you think? He’s coming up on 30. Maybe it’s time for him to to find out “What every man needs to know before he dies”.
Like you, I wonder, why the price tag?
At least the price may put some people off buying that stuff… (and will probably add a burden where it’s least necessary, but, what can you do?)
BTW, I have been reading through the visionary Daughters thread #1 and am being reminded of so many things I had forgotten that started this whole conversation in the first place. It is a great overview of the issues and there are lots of quotes and links.
If the creation order is that important and clearly reveals who ought to rule over whom, then why is it that humans were created last?
And why did God give dominion over the animals to the male AND female together?
I think God meant that humankind has dominion over the animals, and are meant to work together.
The article would have annoyed me a year or so ago. Now I just find it amusing how they can fail to see, over and over and over again, that it’s not Christ like to seek to rule over others. They keep missing it.
Lol at comment #7, Savannah!
I *might* listen (although I’m the wrong gender!) if he paid me for doing so, and if he gave me (and all my friends over here) time on his show to refute him!
(I didn’t realize we had started a new page, so I’m moving this comment I just made on Thread Nine over here.)
“But you ladies, and the church have told my wife to abandon her vows, file for a divorce, and to make sure that I am made a slave in the process.”
A woman may divorce her husband and still remain true to her vows, Michael — and (as Savannah just pointed out) no one here on this board has told your wife to do anything at all — we’ve been talking to you, not her.
And, this is what I personally would advise your wife to do — to separate from you for a time, and remain true to her vows until such time as the two of you reunite; and if you never do reunite, BOTH of you should remain single.
On the purely legal side of things, though, she SHOULD divorce you in a court of law, so as to insure that you will continue to do your duty as a Christian husband, and continue to support her and your children until such time as you do reunite.
Divorce, for a Christian, doesn’t mean that either party goes out looking for another spouse.
It does mean economic protection under the law for the wife and children, should the husband decide he’s not going to do his duty and support his wife and kids while the he and his wife sort things out.
Judging by your comments, where you compare supporting your family to “being made a slave”, your wife is very wise to seek such protection NOW by entering into a legal divorce, instead of merely “separating for a time” and waking up one morning to find that YOU have decided to stop supporting her, and have justified that in your mind by deciding that she has deserted you!
May I ask why there is always a price tag for these things?”
Because that’s how these folks make their money.
Beware any religious paradigm that comes with a price tag:
Tts 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.”
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
…For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
This is from Doug Phillip’s blog where he talks about his brother, Samuel, going up against Virginia Military Inst. (“feminized institution”) and how Samuel memorized and recited this poem in response to their inquiries on his feelings about his views of women in the military academies.
“Deny my God! yes, I could do it well;
Yet if I did, what of my race, my name?
How they would spit on me, these dogs of hell!
Spurn me, and put on me the brand of shame.
A white man’s honour! what of that, I say?
Shall these black curs cry “Coward” in my face?
They who would perish for their gods of clay —
Shall I defile my country and my race? ”
““Best” triumphs over “Beast”, — and so I think
Humanity itself is glorified. . . .”
These are a couple of lines from this “pointed” poem. Doug tells his readers to “enjoy the poem”.
Maybe I am missing something but isn’t this poem rather racist in nature?
“May I ask why there is always a price tag for these things?”
Because that’s how these folks make their money.”
The rest of this post is directed at the whole industry of patriocentricity and not at just one patriocentric retailer.
And that is why some will go to great measures to shut up those they view as the opposition (ie., lie about the opposition, ascribe evil motives to the opposition, legal measures, etc) lest their followers should come out of their betwitched state, their state of captivity (Col. 2), because of the vain philosophies and traditions of man peddled to them by these vendors, wake up and stop paying $49 for the things that led them into bondage in the first place.
Those at the top of the patriocentric heap live very comfortable lifestyles and they bind heavy burdens on the backs of their followers and refuse to lift a finger to help those they have burdened. Many of these patriocentric families have hardly anything and live around the poverty line but are told that they must buy these teachings in order to have a successful, godly and happy family.
I now have MUCH more money in my wallet that can go directly to the care and keeping of my family and helping those in need rather than filling their wallets for poisonous teachings we don’t need.
If they made them free, as they should be, because, after all, they call themselves a “ministry” (are they really? are they 501c3 or do they solicit donations under the guise of being a “ministry” but are doing this as a career? Make sure you ask these ministries if they are 501c3 before clicking the “donation” button or you may just be funding their legal expenses or comfortable lifestyles) but I don’t see much “ministering” going on.
That is why gaining new converts is so important and preying on those young in their faith is so advantageous. It is like the Arby’s commercial but replace the Arby’s hat with a dollar sign.
Another book. Another cd. Another dvd. Another speaking venue. They must continually come up with avenues and new products in order to keep their families living at the level that they are accustomed to living all the while being free from the constraints their teachings have placed on others. (Therein lies the gross hypocrisy we see among the leaders in the patriocentric movement- their teachings, many times, do not line up with their lifestyles.)
It would be helpful to know the historical setting of the poem in order to answer that question.
The poem references spears several times, and so this could be referring to an incident in some colonial war in a place where they use spears- Africa? Pacific islands?
Whatever the history, the “other” in this poem, the enemy, is clearly being demonized by the soldier and it is equally clear that they use spears and are called “black curs” – though black in this instance could be a synonym for evil (a common usage at one time: ex- it was a black day when he darkened my door).
The use of the poem makes clear that the person quoting it believes accepting women in the military is the same as denying God.
So heartening to know VMI checks these things out and doesn’t give out scholarships to misogynists!
I did a double take on #4 because until the other day, I had never heard of William Einwechter. While researching I came across his article “Stoning Disobedient Children?”
Here is a quote:
The case law in discussion does not apply to young children during the formative years, but applies, instead, to a grown son (and by extension to a daughter as well) who, for whatever reason, has rebelled against the authority of his parents and will not profit from any of their discipline nor obey their voice in any thing. It is a case of habitual contempt of parental authority characterized by a young adult living a life without moral restraint who lashes out verbally and/or physically against his mother and father. It is a case where the evil character of the son is apparently set, and there is no reasonable hope of him ever changing.
The kind of rebellion against parental authority described in this case law is called “evil” (v. 21). It is evil because it holds both God and His law (i.e., the command to honor parents) in derision. It is evil because it threatens the very existence of the family, and therefore, of society itself. It is evil because it signals the rejection of all God-ordained authority and leads to civil and ecclesiastical disorder. God considers it such a dangerous evil that it must be extinguished by death at the hands of the civil magistrate.4
Inescapable Death
Those who consider death as a horrible punishment here must realize that in such a case as described in Deut. 21:18-21 death is inescapable. Contempt of parental authority, if left unchecked, is the death of the family, law, and order. The question then is: Who or what should die? The rebel, or family and society?
Furthermore, the life of a rebel inevitably leads to the grave (sheol; cf. Prov. 30:17); he will die an early death, and probably take others with him.
Finally, God Himself declares that even if such a rebel against parental authority escapes the judgment of man, His curse is upon that man and he shall be cut off (Deut. 27:16; Prov. 30:17). Therefore, the execution of the rebel in view is just, merciful, and preventive. Just, in that the transgressor deserves to die; merciful, in that his quick death prevents the destruction of the family, society, and others; preventive, in that it strikes fear in the heart of other would be rebels and restrains them from taking a similar ruinous course.
Thanks for the kind words, ladies. I’ve missed the conversation here, too. I have been everywhere on the internet lately, but for some reason I haven’t spent much time with blogs in a couple of months.
I think when I was commenting on the Pat Robertson stuff, I was not thinking totally clearly in order to say what I believed vs. what I thought he was saying, and didn’t make very clear at first that I didn’t agree with his statements. I think it’s easy to jump to conclusions based on what the news tells us, but after watching him say what he said, I saw it a little differently than what the news outlets were interpreting, even though, in the end, what was said here is very true, that he can’t know the mind of God and I really don’t believe that Haiti (or any victims of disaster) are being punished by God. It’s disappointing that so many vocal Christians are so quick to judge things in this way, all the while bringing shame on the rest of us who don’t actually think those things, but are still also called Christians.
I haven’t followed this Michael thing from the beginning, but I wanted to throw in my two cents about my own husband! In any marriage, there is give and take, and in a healthy one, there should always be more giving than taking on both ends (in general). There have been times that my husband and I have not gotten along very well, but often those are followed with times where we dig in and work on our relationship heavily. But most of the time, we really “delight” in one another. I hope this continues to be the case for us. We are celebrating 9 years of marriage this summer, and it is really hard to believe that this much time has gone by. I’ve been frustrated by a lot of friends’ marriages failing, especially college friends, and how flippant some can be about marriage. I’m really blessed to have a husband who treats me as his equal in Christ, not because he thinks he should, but because he loves me and respects me, and because we are equal. It saddens me to see a husband destroy his wife’s life/reputation/self-worth all because he still struggles to control her even though she has left him and he no longer has any power over her, when he never should have had that power to begin with.
Shadowspring, I’d say that the source of the poem is unimportant — it speaks of “a WHITE MAN’S honor” and juxtaposes that with mention of “black curs”.
It’s racist, pure and simple, regardless of the source or the theology, and while the original author may be excused somewhat on the basis of the culture in which he lives, Doug and Samuel Phillips can claim no such excuse.
The fact that Samuel Phillips quoted this particular poem should be announced from the rooftops, as crystal clear evidence of the White Supremacist paradigm that the Phillips family in particular and Patriocentricity in general are guilty of promoting.
It was Samuel’s stubborn insubordination, quoting poetry when asked if he could obey a woman officer or if he could put following orders above his religious prefernces unlike Judge Roy Moore, that cost him his scholarship.
Any answer other than “yes sir, or yes maam” makes a cadet unfit for service.
“The creation order reflects the plan of God and establishes the lawful arrangement of all things in the creation. The creation order is universal in terms of time, place, and culture.”
So this means that fish & birds have authority over all the other animals, who then have authority over men and women since God created them in that order, and we all know that the creation order establishes the chain of command and “lawful arrangement of all things in the creation.”
“I’d say that the source of the poem is unimportant — it speaks of “a WHITE MAN’S honor” and juxtaposes that with mention of “black curs”.
It’s racist, pure and simple, regardless of the source or the theology, and while the original author may be excused somewhat on the basis of the culture in which he lives, Doug and Samuel Phillips can claim no such excuse.”
Ah, I missed the phrase “white man’s honor”. I was (like the good literary critic I have pretensions of being =) trying to place it historical context BUT (being the lazy literary critic that I actually am) didn’t read it all that carefully OR do any further research.
(hangs head in shame) I didn’t even look up a bio of the author.
Yes, if it is honor that belongs to white and cur that belongs with black, it is blatantly and unmistakeably racist.
And again, thanking God that VMI looked deep enough to see the truth about Samuel and give him the boot.
“And again, thanking God that VMI looked deep enough to see the truth about Samuel and give him the boot.”
And now, the onus is on everybody to keep right on publicizing the racist nature of Patriocentricity in general and the Phillips clan in particular — from Howard Phillips, the family patriarch and founder of the Pro-Patrio Constitution Party, to Doug Phillips, the Party Director of Religious Affairs and Chief Koolaid Dispenser, right down to Samuel, who obviously learned this crock of racist hooey at his father’s and brother’s knee.
The poem incident clearly demonstrates the surreal bubble Vision Forum people live in. I have a real hard time getting my mind around how anyone who calls themselves “Christian” would think it normal or Christ-like or Godly to believe something like that as admirable.
In Canada, Samuel and Doug Phillips would have a whole lot more to deal with than a lost scholarship.
The part that brought a leap of joy to my heart and sent me racing to post the link here is this part:
This piece on women is really outstanding, the best I have seen. This sentence particularly caught my eye for comment: “… Just as Adam fell into a deep sleep when his wife came forth from his side, so Christ descended into the sleep of death and when his side was pierced the bride was birthed.” Jesus had said, “Truly, truly, I say unto you, Unless a corn of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone: but if it dies, it brings forth much fruit.” I had not seen this aspect of the piercing of His side before you put it the way you did. Once again, you have been instrumental in giving me a treasure from the Lord!
–Jay Ferris, Bostic, NC; Author with Lisa Weger of Not Left Behind: Going Back for the Offended.
Our Lord and Savior Jesus himself pierced on our behalf!
First of all, my heart is overcome with praise for the Lord who loves us so deeply, completely, without reservation, and knowing every reality of our hearts in his choice to love us! Thank you Jesus! Words will never be enough to show how grateful the redeemed truly are! We love you Lord!
Second of all, if there was any shame in ever being “pierced” Jesus shared in it on the cross. Hahahahaha! That whole ridiculous article about piercing being a shameful connotation is refuted at the cross!
I just love that the Holy Spirit inspired a believer to use that particular word in announcing the depth of our Savior’s love for us! His piercing brought forth the church. Beautiful.
That article, and book, look very interesting. I’ll have to spend a little more time checking it out!
I’ve been contemplating for a while reviewing the Old Testament treatment of women, and discussing what the text really says/means, in light of the culture, and how I’ve come to realize that the Old Testament law was actually kinder to women than the culture was. I’ve heard a lot of arguments about how there are some really horrible things in the OT, and while that’s true, the point that I think people often miss is that those horrible things are often a blatant violation of Levitical law. The best example of this is the tragedy in the last few chapters of Judges, where the whole country seems to have gone astray, but the worst crime is the return to the ways of Sodom and Gomorrah and what happens to the poor woman who was stuck in the middle.
Anyway, in light of the laws handed down by Moses, what happens in those chapters is one of the most horrendous things the people of God did that is put down in writing.
I’ve really come to learn that God has a lot more respect and love for women/children than any culture has had ever.
“Aw. I see how it is. If the couple is a Christian, and the wife should decided that she wants to not live with her husband, she should divorce him under civil law so that she can extract money from him. However, she has no duty at all to ever returned to him as his wife.
And, by your view, both parties are forbidden to marry. Hmm. That is a strained reading of the scripture for me. After all, Paul states, if an unbeliever decide to leave the believer, the believer is not bound.”
No, Michael, you’re misunderstanding me and the Bible on several points.
First of all, it is true that the scriptures say that a Christian woman should not leave her husband. Certainly couples shouldn’t separate for any but the most serious reasons, but the Church has always recognized that sometimes this is necessary, such as when a wife or (especially) her children are being abused, or if a husband refuses to support his family.
Paul writes, “1Cr 7:10 And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband: and let not the husband put away [his] wife.
The wife in such cases is under no direct command to return to her husband, but she is commanded to remain single, and the husband is forbidden to divorce her.
Second, it is not “by my view” that a separated couple is forbidden to remarry, it is by JESUS’S “view”.
To begin with, true divorce (as opposed to separation or civil divorce) is spiritually impossible for the Christian.
Jesus said,
Mark 10:8 “And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
AND
Mar 10:11 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Third, as Paul teaches, a person is under no obligation to remain single if his or her spouse is not a Christian and wants to end the marriage.
This is because they never had a Christian marriage in the first place — a nonChristian is dead in sin and cannot properly understand or enter into a Christian covenant or Sacrament.
In YOUR case, though, this does not apply. Your wife IS a believer, and in the case of two Christians, even if one or both are back-slidden, true divorce is impossible — even if they should leave one another, they are still married.
Fourth, because a Christian couple cannot truly divorce and is still MARRIED in the eyes of God even if they separate, the husband is still obliged to support his family if his wife leaves him. Even if she leaves him wrongfully, this is still the case — sin on HER part does not justify sin on HIS part.
Fifth, a man is always obligated to support his children, whether they live with him or not. This is true even in cases in which a wife who is not a believer has separated from her husband, taking the children with her. One’s children are one’s children, and NOTHING can ever change that fact, and a man who does not support his dependent children and relatives has denied the faith altogether:
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
And lastly, this thread has MOVED. It has grown far too long to load properly, and so is continuing here .
I will also post this comment on the new thread, and I invite you to join me there, should you wish to continue our discussion.
Abby wrote: I’ve really come to learn that God has a lot more respect and love for women/children than any culture has had ever.
I see that too, Abby. The Lord loves us. Jesus associated with women, healed women, answered their prayers, forgave their sins, rescued them and honored them in front of men, gave them a calling and sent them out to testify of him- all during his short time walking the earth as a man. We love you, Jesus!
I do not understand how any home school mom doing her due diligence as a teacher can fall for the patriarchal line. Even a cursory study of world history and world culture will show that male rule is a constant manifestation of sin running through human culture.
There is nothing unique about it. How people can swallow that it is “Biblical” or a return to some lost way (“the ancient paths”) can only be a result of no research at all.
In our own country/era, gangsters of all races and backgrounds, pimps, bikers and organized crime all practice man-rule. How is that righteous or some restoration of forgotten ways of righteousness?
Communist USSR was one of the worst places on earth to be a woman- slave to society at work all day and slave to her husband when she got home. I don’t know if Communist China is any better, but Confucian China was totally man-rule. They actually bound girl’s feet so that they would be too crippled to ever run away from abuse!
All of the tribal cultures are patriarchal, probably because at its very core, patriarchy exists because men can beat the c*** out of women/children anytime they want to do so.
How on earth can anyone praise patriarchy as being “Christian”? They must either have a personal agenda, been letting others do their thinking for them (something a friend confessed recently with no shame at all! *gasp*), or have their access to information closely controlled by patriarchal sources.
It doesn’t take a whole lot of work to see that there is nothing righteous or godly about patriarchy.
According to some (divorced as Christians and remarried as Christians) patriocentrists, you would be a “legalist” for your interpretation on the verses concerning divorce and remarriage.
Not saying you are a legalist just saying that is what has been discussed recently on other patrio blogs.
Funny, because they are discussing legalism and how wrong it is to call others “legalists” and then using those who hold to your interpretation on divorce/remarriage as “legalism”.
I wonder if they would consider themselves legalistic about their interpretation of infant baptism or the regulative principle of worship, too?
Shadowpring: “All of the tribal cultures are patriarchal, probably because at its very core, patriarchy exists because men can beat the c*** out of women/children anytime they want to do so.”
Yep.
Their golden rules are not Bible based. They are worldly based. “Whoever has the gold (power) makes the rules.” And the other “Do unto others before they do unto you.”
That’s why the words of Jesus are so incredible.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It’s so much a part of our culture we lose sight of how profound they really are.
Those in power… The man who can beat the crap out of the women and children around him, thereby establishing and holding onto his power doesn’t need to know what empathy is. He just needs to know how to maintain control.
Jesus says that we are not to be like this.
Totally turning the wisdom of this world on its head.
Patriarchy is the wisdom of this world.
Men who promote it are promoting a worldly system. And some stamp the false stamp “Biblical” on it and use it to do what men have always done. Maintain control.
But in Christ, we are set free. It was for Freedom that Christ set us free. Why are we so easily entangled in the yoke of bondage again? (Gal 5:1)
Some even say, “Women, in your submitting, you will find freedom” which would be true if men would lay down their lives like Jesus instructed them. But many men want the women to submit while the men dismiss their own part. Then there is no freedom for the woman, only bondage as men use the submission doctrine against them to do what they’ve always done from the fall to this day.
Sorry. It was Paul that instructed men to lay down their lives for their wives, not Jesus. But Paul’s instruction is and extention, supernatural progression, and application of what Jesus said to all.
I was told in church, though I’m not entirely certain of this, that in ancient Israel, a woman was permitted to divorce her husband legally if he refused to work to support the family.
Imagine if more women today put this into power. I would think there would be a lot more husbands working hard to make a living. There’s a difference, of course, between losing a job due to the economy and actively looking for work, and say, sitting at home refusing to work while your wife works her tailbone off to support his “Laziness.”
This is just another example of permissible divorce (kind of what was mentioned above), but I find it interesting that this was actually an available option for women at that time.
“Not saying you are a legalist just saying that is what has been discussed recently on other patrio blogs.”
LOL… actually, when it comes to adhereing to the things that Jesus very plainly stated, I suppose I AM a legalist — it’s not like that’s a BAD thing, after all.
Abbey,
Have you read any of Carolyn Custis James’ books? I think you might really enjoy her “Lost Women of the Bible” and “The Gospel of Ruth.” She’s done a lot of research to bring out the real stories within the stories of women in the Bible.
Okay, it took we all morning but I gave a thorough listen to Karen’s podcast from the Free Elsie link on facebook.
Ayiyiyi! For many years my brother-in-law kept name dropping about his good friend Phil Lancaster. This went completely over my head. My husband had no idea who the guy was either, but we got the hint we were supposed to be impressed for some reason.
If only we had known, we would have stopped supporting his ministry financially long before we did! It just makes me sick how much of our money has gone to promote “another gospel”.
I feel that way about every penny I ever gave to HSLDA, since every email I get from them now has a prominent advertisement for Vision Forum.
I was just so ignorant. Not that it is always a bad thing-LOL! I was able to take the straw from the sticks and carry on in blissful ignorance about where all the stick were coming from.
But now that I know, I am saddened. Maybe I could have done more to help my nieces if I had been aware of how much danger they were in. On the other hand, maybe not. They were Brethren their whole life.
But when they were young, the girls played soccer, went hiking, camping, kayaking, snow boarding, etc. right along with the guys. They wore jeans and went to public school. They listened to Christian rock and played in the school band. All that was weird about them was their church services.
They didn’t start home schooling until that name started popping up in their Dad’s conversations…
“I was told in church, though I’m not entirely certain of this, that in ancient Israel, a woman was permitted to divorce her husband legally if he refused to work to support the family.”
Abby, I heard this too, although my pastor said it was permissible for failure to provide any of the following:
#1- physical/financial provision
#2 – emotional availability
or
#3 – sexual/conjugal rights
If these basic needs were not met she was free to divorce him and take the dowry and any personal earnings she had earned while married.
I was shocked when I heard this. I don’t remember if he sited Scripture or if it was ancient Hebrew tradition, but regardless, the esteem and respect given women in that culture was far greater than they receive in modern day, evangelical America!
In many modern day evangelical (egalitarian, complementarian in the old definition) homes woman ARE given respect and esteem.
I will agree that respect seems to be eroding quickly due to the CBMW. But there are other ministries speaking out just as loudly about mutual submission and respect in marriage.
And of course every American woman has the right to divorce her husband in our country, for all of the above reasons or “irreconcilable differences”.
“Divorce, for a Christian, doesn’t mean that either party goes out looking for another spouse.
It does mean economic protection under the law for the wife and children, should the husband decide he’s not going to do his duty and support his wife and kids while the he and his wife sort things out.”
This statement has no basis in scripture. Nor in the historic Christian tradition.
This is a prime example on how people add to the word of God. Not unlike with the pharisees did.
“I was told in church, though I’m not entirely certain of this, that in ancient Israel, a woman was permitted to divorce her husband legally if he refused to work to support the family.”
That a lie.
In ancient Israel, women did not even have the capability to divorce their husband. Remember, it was the husband who had to issue the certificate of divorce.
I’m amazed how little people have read the OT.
Sounds like that pastor is looking to give women excuses to divorce their husbands.
”
Abby, I heard this too, although my pastor said it was permissible for failure to provide any of the following:
#1- physical/financial provision
#2 – emotional availability
or
#3 – sexual/conjugal rights
If these basic needs were not met she was free to divorce him and take the dowry and any personal earnings she had earned while married. ”
Sound like yet another pastor supporting divorce.
So by this pastor’s definition, if a man come into hard times, and can not support his family to their liking, she can divorce him. Also, reason number 2 is flaky, since it is subjective. Christ only gave one fast rule where it was permissible, and that was in the case of adultery.
And Paul stated if an unbeliever want to part, then the believer is not bound.
Meaning, the word of God only gives two reason how a believer can divorce and not be considered in sin. The first being their spouse committed adultery, or the unbelieving spouse deserting the marriage.
I believe the authors of the Westminster Confession Go it right when they stated adultery or willful desertion that the church or the state can not remedy. These exceptions to the rule are purely objection and are easily determined. Whereas all other exceptions are not so easily to judge rightly 100%. People are emotional creature. A wife can nag a husband to death, thus creating an emotional reaction, when seen by itself may seem like abuse. Not that it is justified by the wife’s nagging, but the fact is that she had a part in his sin.
Anyhow, here what the PCA’s confession says that I agreed with prior to all this mess, and still do:
WCF 24.6 Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.
Ladies, note, the authors of the WCF state is because man is corrupt, that man is apt to study arguments for divorce, other than what is explicitly stated in scripture. Those pastor that state a wife can leave her husbands apart from the two exception spoke of in scripture indicate to me that they are not representing God on these matters, and that they show that they are not free to do the will of God, but are instead still in bondage to Satan. Why else would they contradict the direct teaching of Christ. These pastors that do this are wolves in sheep’s clothing, and they are indeed an antichrist.
“Supporting a person in protecting themselves and their children by separating from an abuser is not the same as advocating for divorce, however.”
I would agree to this to some a certain point.
If there is suspected abuse, then a separation is warranted. But continued separation is only warranted if the allegation of abuse is proven to be factual, and the abuse is to the extent as to place the woman or child in harms way.
However, if the allegation of abuse remains just an allegation, then the separation is in fact desertion.
Additionally, with todays climate, some women seeing that they can claim abuse can garner much support from others and the courts to the point where a mob client exist and the man is not judged fairly or in a objective matter.
People are naturally outraged, when they see a women being abused, or a child being abused. However, they are not equally outraged when the alleged abuse is claimed to be false. Even though the alleged abuser has been destroyed financially, relationally with his children, and emotionally. As it would seem, only those who have been accused falsely can really empathize with such a person.
Also, in the case that I have seen, the courts do not seem interested to find out if an abuse actually occurred. They would rather act on the assumption that it has occurred, without any find of fact that it indeed has or has not. This is like sending a man to the electric chair before he is given a trial to see if he is guilty. The courts might in due find even find the man wasn’t guilty of any wrong doing, however by the time event occurs, he has already been gutted.
Kay–I haven’t had a chance to read any of her books. It’s hard for me to buy books, so I usually get them at the library if I can, but some books are not available locally, since they do not get a very wide audience.
I just read a great book that dealt with women’s issues, in a fictional way, but still, it was really good and makes you think! The book was Till We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis. It is based on mythology, but the principles learned in the book are for all times. Great story.
I’ll be honest, sometimes I think that patriarchalists have a point in all their madness, specifically, they want to see the culture shift back toward Christ, and they want to see happy homes, good marriages and well-behaved children, but they’ve put the cart before the horse, because they don’t understand that the grace of God comes first, not the rules and submission.
If we spent all of our time “trying” to be good Christians, we would be wasting it. I’ve found that the times that I feel like I’m the worst person are the times when I grow the most in Christ, because I have to depend on his grace to change me, not my own will.
And the works over grace thing isn’t new to Christianity, it’s not even exclusive to patriarchy. There are branches of the church that spend all their time teaching the ‘regulations’ that Christians have to be under, but miss the boat when it comes to salvation. I have some Orthodox friends, and since my husband comes from a culture where the Orthodox church is the prevalent church (about 10% of people in Egypt are “Christian”, 90% of Christians are Orthodox), I have been asking him a lot of questions about it, and been researching orthodoxy a lot. I’ve found in discussions with him and with his mom that it is similar to the majority of Catholicism, in that most devout orthodox stick to the fasts and customs, but really don’t know much about the grace of the cross. I see patriarchy the same way. They stick to the books that tell them how to raise their kids in a “godly” way and courting, and homeschooling, etc., but they have a superficial faith, because they don’t understand what it means to depend on God.
Well, in all honesty, I did mean modern day, evangelical America.
I know it is different everywhere, but in my experience, about 80% of the church in America (disclaimer: that I have encountered!) is under the influence of CBMW and their views towards women and their roles, specifically how they should be “second in command” and completely submissive in their marriages. Of the remaining amount I’ve encountered, about 17% would consider themselves comp but by the grace of God conduct themselves as egals (my present local body would fall here), while the remaining 3% silently believed and lived as intellectual and practical egalitarians.
I absolutely recognize that this is my personal experience talking here, but I do believe complementarianism with it’s patriarchal inferences has permeated and infested the majority of the American church… whater percentage you want to put on it.
Michael, I know you are feeling defensive right now, but please do not attack what I said just because you don’t want to hear it. I don’t know anything about your situation or whether it had anything to do with the things I mentioned, nor do I particularly care at this point. The discussion here morphed into one about divorce in the church in general, and I was adding what I have learned. And in fact, if you would have spent a little more time reading and less time thinking up clever responses, you would have seen the link I posted in #44 that hashes out the very things I said as TRUTH. Whether something is “in the Bible” or not was not as important to the ancient Israelites and Jews as whether it had a place in the oral traditions. The Talmud and the Pentateuch have equal standing in the eyes of a Jew. Both are considered “law.”
And to clarify whether or not my “church” source had authority on the things he said, he is from an Orthodox Jewish background, having grow up going to Hebrew school and learning the Talmud and the Law. And has a college degree in Religion and a J.D. So I think he knows what he’s saying, and would never put something like this out there (in church) that he did not have evidentiary proof of. So thank you for your comments, but you are wrong.
Alisa,
I think that it really does depend on where you live, too. I agree that in some states/areas of the country, there are much tougher views on women divorcing their husbands, but in others, both have equal footing.
It’s stranger to me now than it was then, but I grew up in a very egalitarian church! I never knew that it was such a big deal, but we had woman elders, many women “ran” the church, so to speak–teaching classes, singing, playing piano, leading choirs, etc., and we even had a woman pastor for a while. And in general most of the men were awesome, too, and very faithful husbands who also did a lot of service in the church. Looking back, it was really an ideal situation to grow up in, because women really had an equal footing there. Now, I know some people disagree with some of the things I mentioned, even people here, but it had a great influence on me, in that I never really thought that as a woman, I couldn’t do anything that men also do within the church. I always recognized genetic differences between men and women, and never once have I thought that my “feminism” would lead to a “matriarchal” view or that I would find homosexual lifestyles acceptable. To me, there was always a line. Equality, not sameness.
But I’ve come to learn, and it has never ceased to surprise me, that it is just not this way in most places. I have a friend who cannot conceive of the church being someplace that equal or non-misogynist. She grew up in the very churches you are speaking of, and is now an atheist, most likely because of her feminist pride. Funny how feminism can lead you to extremes, though, because I think I’m a stronger Christian because of the feminist leanings I grew up with, because I never saw the church as a place were men rule and women are subservient. I pray that one day all churches would be like that in spirit, yet still continue to hold to the truth of the gospel.
Also, Michael, I find it insulting that you would attack a pastor you do not know based on what they said in one snippet from a sermon you have not heard, but only heard a paraphrase from.
I don’t know about Alisa, but my church has a growing Marriage ministry that seeks to prevent divorce and reconcile marriages. We have a program for couples who are on the verge that has saved dozens of marriages that were failing. My senior pastor (who spoke on divorce) has made it very clear in many sermons that divorce is not the only way, but that reconciliation is possible if BOTH parties are willing to get the assistance they need.
Frankly, your wording makes it seem to me like you are angry at your wife for taking the initiative to get a divorce, when you would have her continue to be under your authority. In a country like ours, women have equal footing in court, and the idea that the church should step in over and above the laws of the land and try to stop her from getting the legal protection she needs disturbs me greatly.
Women can and should have the right to divorce their husbands for certain reasons, even within the church. Perhaps your wife’s reasons are not biblical, I don’t know her side of the story. But even in that case, she has a legal right, if not a moral one, in America, to seek a divorce, unfortunately. If there was a chance that there could be reconciliation between you, then that can also be sought while you are living separately, and often this is for the good of the marriage. Spouses ARE permitted to forgo sexual relationships when there is a need to do so for the spiritual good of both partners.
I know another man whose wife left him a year ago, and who is still hurting and brokenhearted over her decision, but if I compare the reactions between you, they are like night and day. I am saddened by the fact that you are hurting, but I do not believe that your actions are going to help you get over this divorce. I hope you can find healing and peace one day.
Michael, Scripture says that if a man and woman “divorce” they are STILL ONE FLESH — they are STILL MARRIED in the eyes of GOD — and Scripture says that any man who does not support his dependents is an infidel. Thus, even a man who is separated from his partner must still support his family, if they were both Christians going into the marriage, since in GOD’S eyes, they are STILL ONE FLESH.
But as it relates to your case, maybe you have a point – if a Christian and an unbeliever are married, and the unbeliever chooses to leave, the believing spouse is no longer bound to the marriage.
Your words are those of an infidel – you obviously don’t want to support your family – so perhaps your wife, being a Christian, had best write you off and move on.
If there is suspected abuse, then a separation is warranted. But continued separation is only warranted if the allegation of abuse is proven to be factual, and the abuse is to the extent as to place the woman or child in harms way.
It’s not always that easy to prove that abuse indeed has happened. Abusers can seem like the most loving and caring people to outsiders and many may never know what happens behind closed doors.
Abuse is abuse. Whether you consider it “bad enough” or not, it’s the abused who know how it feels.
You may decide that demanding sex from a woman who feels hurt and unloved is not abusive, but any woman who hears about that would cringe, knowing how physically painful and emotionally destroying that is. To you, that is not a big deal, after all, it’s her “duty”, and he is “making love” to her after all.
To you, yelling at a child or sending that child to sit out in the cold may not be abuse, but ask the child how that feels.
(these are examples of things that may not register on some people’s abuse radar)
However, if the allegation of abuse remains just an allegation, then the separation is in fact desertion.
It’s not desertion. It’s still a separation. Just because there are no facts to prove that abuse has happened, it doesn’t mean it didn’t take place.
Additionally, with todays climate, some women seeing that they can claim abuse can garner much support from others and the courts to the point where a mob client exist and the man is not judged fairly or in a objective matter.
I don’t know what climate you are talking about. Do you mean that women and children are actually listened to and believed?
People are naturally outraged, when they see a women being abused, or a child being abused. However, they are not equally outraged when the alleged abuse is claimed to be false. Even though the alleged abuser has been destroyed financially, relationally with his children, and emotionally. As it would seem, only those who have been accused falsely can really empathize with such a person.
Michael, people are outraged when alleged abuse turns out to be false. Not when there is no proof. No proof doesn’t indicate lack of abuse.
Also, in the case that I have seen, the courts do not seem interested to find out if an abuse actually occurred. They would rather act on the assumption that it has occurred, without any find of fact that it indeed has or has not.
As I stated before, most abuse happens with no witnesses, or with no witnesses willing to speak up about it and call it abuse. I’m glad that courts will go on the word of the abused. It probably has something to do with their knowledge that abusers are usually very good at twisting situations to make them look like they are innocent or even the victim. An abuser who cries out “find facts”! is actually confirming that he has abused the person who made the claim.
Michael,
It doesn’t look good at all when a man who has been accused of abuse keeps crying out for proof, how unjust the system is and how sinful everyone else is. If he would show some empathy towards those who claim to have been abused by him, if he would ask how he can make restitution, be a better father/husband, etc… I think things would look a little different. Demanding his rights and the upper hand in the home is not going to get him anywhere any time soon.
Abby,
On #49 – I agree that the motives behind most patriarchists are not bad, but misguided by human ideas of carts before horses. Changes of heart simply cannot be legislated.
Will your library borrow books from other libraries for you? When I lived in or near small towns, their libraries have been willing to do that.
Would you mind defining “complementarian in the old definition” for those of us who have never heard “complementarian” mentioned outside of a patrio reference?
Sure! I used to characterize myself as complementarian. I had never heard any of the teachings on the original Greek or Hebrew meaning of words like “help (meet)” or “head”. I just took it pretty much at face value as the crown-appointed scholars of the 1600s translated those words for us.
I had no problem agreeing with the shibboleth that if we came to an impasse, I would defer to my husband on a decision. It was easy for me to agree because I did not have an overbearing, demanding husband. In fact, he married a competent woman so that he wouldn’t have to make all these life decision on his own. So I could agree with that, no problem.
I believe I could also agree because I was taught that “to submit as unto the Lord” meant to submit as long as your husband was acting like Jesus. This was submission I could ascribe to. =)
The teaching of complementary roles was a good thing: men are generally logical, women are generally more tender-hearted. Both genders bring to the table something different that blesses the other and makes the relationship as a whole stronger.
And how often did I even hear this preached about? Once or twice a year, at most. No big deal.
Then along comes the CBMW, and how things have changed! Complementarian has gone from meaning male and female have complementary roles in their relationships to meaning that men rule over women. Very, very different definition than what I grew up with in the Lord!
And so I no longer call myself complementarian. Not at all!
In fact, I will go on to say that those endless teachings about husbands=leaders did nothing for me but breed dissatisfaction with my husband. I definitely am a go-getter, he is laid back. Teachings that focused on men leading made laid back look like a bad thing (it’s not).
So as I would pray about that, I would just go back to focusing on the truth that he is first and foremost my brother in Christ, and to accept him as Christ accepted me. My love for him would quickly return.
Once I told him how I listened to a woman teach that if I would just hold back, stop getting things done, and not pray or read the Word anymore then he would step up.
But when I asked the Lord about it, the Holy Spirit reminded me that we are to run the race of faith to win! I told my man I wasn’t holding back for anyone. And he laughed and said he wouldn’t have me any other way.
Recently we have learned a lot about the word “ezer” and the meaning of head as “source” and it has revolutionized our marriage in a very positive way! My husband was never attracted to lording it over anyone. He had an overt aversion to it actually.
But being taught that he is the source of spiritual life for his family has changed his perspective entirely. He is following after the Lord now with a passion I have never seen before.
God is good. Good Bible interpretation is wonderful thing.
A shorter way of saying it: for many years I was taught that the men love/woman submit to that loving man was the way to live in a Christian marriage, with the understanding that if a man failed to love the woman was likewise released from any call to submit.
The responsibility was on the man to make the complementarian ideal work. If he wasn’t serving in love there was no obligation on the Christian wife to submit to ungodliness. Of ANY kind!
Current teaching is backwards- with the woman responsible to submit no matter what, unless the man is repeatedly physically violent!! It is even taught that submission to an unloving man will somehow magically bring him to repentance. All responsibility is on the one partner- the weaker vessel if you prefer- to carry the whole relationship.
That is the state of complementarianism today. I cannot and will not align with such teaching.
Kay–
“Changes of heart simply cannot be legislated.”
Wow. What a great statement. This is exactly what I meant, really.
I am usually careful about questioning the salvation of other people, but in patriarchy, I have to wonder sometimes, if there’s no grace, is there no salvation? If changes of behavior are all that is required, then there is absolutely no salvation.
I have really struggled with the idea that my children are not “grandchildren” of God, mostly because I want to be the best witness and I think I would be disappointed if they didn’t follow Christ, but I am slowly coming to realize that I cannot control their hearts. I can (but I don’t) manipulate their behaviors, but this does nothing to turn their hearts toward me, or toward Jesus. Does that make sense?
I think it is why I have also been so disturbed by many patriarch’s wives writing blogs about how they are raising their children. While their children may turn out to be fine copies of themselves, does that make them Christians? Every decision to be a part of the body of Christ, his family, is personal.
Realistically, I can only hope and pray for the best with my children, and I can raise them with grace and love, accepting them even with all of their faults (whatever those might end up being), but my faith is not their faith.
Even Gabriel Anast recommends that some posts be taken down after the original poster gets an answer. He must know that the “discipline” this woman describes is no longer discipline but abuse. I’m sickened.
This is how a a reluctant 3 year-old’s haircut goes…
My (then) 3 year old son has always hated haircuts. From haircut number 1 he has cried through them, screamed a bit, and has made them very hard to do. Infact, the last haircut I gave him, a couple of months ago, I had to literally sit on him to get it done. We have tried disciplining him, but it seems like he’d rather be over my knee, than getting his hair cut. When questioned why he hates getting it done, he says it hurts. Ok, so that’s fine…if it hurts, we’ll make sure we do it gently, but he has to learn to “be brave, like a good soldier”.
So, a couple of days ago, my husband (the best Daddy in the whole world!) sat him down, explained that he was going to cut his hair, and if he didn’t cry then Daddy was going to take everyone out for icecream. So son sat down, and Daddy got out the scissors.
Well!
You’d think World War III had hit our lounge. Son, before the scissors even touched a hair on his head, was writhing on the ground screaming at Daddy “GET AWAY FROM ME”, he suddenly turned into a child that Daddy couldn’t even forcibly hold to calm down, he was…almost like a mad man. It really frightened me. But what scared us the most was the anger we saw coming from him. He was uncontrollable, and just yelling AT my husband.
He was spanked, without anger, until he calmed down. He was then sat down…and we went through it all again. He was spanked again, and sat down to try again. This time he sat through the whole haircut (and Daddy took a loooong time doing it, haha) absolutely perfect. Not a wimper, not a murmer…just very happy with no worries.
(We all then went out for icecream, while son watched on. Broke my tender, foolish heart, but an important step in the lesson for him). We have now decided that son is going to get a haircut every day until he can sit there happily, without the rebellion.
Here, Gabriel Anast clearly says that:
-a wife is property of the husband
- if she defrauds him (sexually), he can put her away
- If she is not able to give him sex, he must still care for her, but he may take another woman
- If a man is impotent, his wife can go off and find another man.
In another thread, about marriage and divorce, Gabriel makes a statement that seems to mean he is ok with polygamy too.
How are these people reading their Bibles??? I’m stunned.
Shadowspring,
I don’t know how to take screenshots.
There’s a discussion about this thread over on Freejinger. Lots of people are shocked and disgusted.
I don’t live in the US, can you even report someone if you don’t even live in the country?
It doesn’t surprise me that that board gives advice that goes against the law. It’s the second generation of Pearl, which seems to be getting worse. Check out Gabriel Anasts beliefs on marriage for a mind-blowing experience.
I’ve considered joining the site to give that mother (and others) some humane advice, but I’m afraid it would only lead to the site becoming private.
Hillary and madame, thanks for posting the links to those philosophies on raising children. Stoning children to death? Why do these people act as though those OT laws that were given to Israel are to be reinstated today? Scary to think these people want to run the government. And think about the fact that Doug Phillips stated that bringing an end to DCFS should be one of the goals of homeschoolers! Really scary!
That whole story about the haircut was so wrong on a number of levels. Of course this was abusive behavior. But the first question I had to ask was why they would make such an issue of this. And since when are haircuts painful? No wonder the child screamed. I kept thinking about how little these parents understand children and, even worse, how they don’t seem to think that empathizing with children is important. It looks like the Pearls have incited another generation of parents who aren’t able to practice one anothering in their homes.
He has long said that this movement, to be true to their ideals, would end up practicing or promoting polygamy. I guess I just expected this sort of thinking to be a little further removed from the “main stream” of patriocentricity. Imagine how cherished any wife would feel if she was unable to have a sexual relationship with her husband so he picks up another wife for that need. And how appealing would it be to be that woman who is there only to meet the sexual needs of the man? Maybe this will have some appeal to Mr. McNeil.
“Yeah, I’ll bet that little child IS very angry at all the control and domination of his little heart that fills that ungodly home.”
And then parents wonder why a few years down the road their children choose a different path in life and often leave home under bitter circumstances. It is like men who are abusive for years and then when their wives leave them they are stunned and surprised and place all the blame on her.
Karen,
I just got thinking about how the Pearls don’t care much about the law at all. They won’t submit to the authorities of the country they live in, and they are all for going back to the ways of ancient patriarchal times, like that were the ideal Christian society.
This came to mind as I was reading Gabriel Anast’s advice to a woman who was sharing a difficult situation she is in and asking for advice. She is married to one man but living with another one. Her husband has another woman too, I believe.
Gabriel considers them each married to the person they are with now. She has “gone whoring”, and he is not committing adultery unless he is sleeping with another man’s wife.
Gabriel’s advice is that she just be a good wife to the man she is living with now. If she has slept with him, her husband (whom he already considers her ex-husband) couldn’t take her back anyway, as she is “defiled”.
You can see how the laws of the US are disregarded.
I don’t think they even believe in marrying legally at all.
I think they read the Bible much like Molly (from AinM) has said, like a manual for some electronic device. They don’t see the whole, they only see certain passages addressing certain situations. Like they only see the famous Proverbs verses when they approach child discipline, completely ignoring the one-anothering (I like that term!), loving others as we love ourselves, doing unto others…. etc.
I kept thinking about how little these parents understand children and, even worse, how they don’t seem to think that empathizing with children is important.
I don’t think they believe in empathy at all. I’ts all about keeping the law. A child’s or anyone else’s feelings are disregarded in the process.
A good example is the advice for a man to go to the elders and even put away a wife who doesn’t give him sex (for reasons other than physical disability or inability to do so). He never said to talk with the wife, see what it causing her lack of desire. No. She’s not fulfilling her marital DUTY. That alone is the issue.
It makes me so sad to see the beauty of building a relationship based on love, trust, understanding, empathy, turned into a relationship built on duty, law and rules.
Parenting is all about parents controlling their children. Break the will, demand first time obedience, spank, spank, spank (’cause the Bible says to). They are destroying the iron- sharpens-iron relationship of parenting! My children teach me so much when I let them!
I don’t agree with Driscoll very often, but this I do agree with: Problems in the bedroom are usually solved outside of the bedroom.
Kay, this is so very true. And this is one of the down sides to the whole notion of taking problems through a church court procedure. So often in family situations or marriage situations where two Christians are struggling, the counseling is only band-aid and church courts end up getting in the middle of things they really aren’t qualified to deal with or don’t understand at all.
Think about it. The Biblical qualifications for church leadership are ignored so much of the time and men are placed in places of authority because they have some sort of “position” in the secular world. Then they are placed in the position to “excommunicate” those who won’t obey them. After decades of church discipline being so passe, in the last few years the pendulum has swung so far the other direction that now churches even excommunicate daughters who desire to leave home and live independently even when they are in their twenties! I can only imagine what other spiritual abuse we will see in the future.
I have been working on a series of podcasts on women mentoring women and one of the things that I keep realizing is how this isn’t a top down situation as so many of the patriocentrists seem to think it is. We are supposed to one another each other, even when it comes to mentoring each other, including our children. I just can’t stand it when I see an “older woman” talk down to a younger one as though her age gives her the right to be arrogant! We all learn from each other if we have teachable spirits and a spirit of graciousness. This includes how we relate to our children, too! (really everyone)
Another very disturbing thread from that forum. It begins as a theoretical discussion of wife discipline, and then a woman comments that she was spanked by her “command” husband (Pearl term) for
getting upset. She is advised to be more sweet and submissive to him. No one advises her to get counseling, no one asks if there has been a history of abuse, no one takes any of the steps that are necessary in assessing an abusive situation. So tragic.
That thing about the little boy made me so sad. I just can’t imagine what it is like for those children, and I know why there is so much “anger” in their little hearts! It’s all about modeling at that age.
I know in my house I get frustrated and I tend to yell, and then I see my daughter acting exactly the same way, and you know what, I’m ashamed. Ashamed of myself for letting anger get the best of me and showing her that this is somehow an acceptable behavior. The only way to change it in her is to change it in me. There can’t be a double-standard.
When our kids have tantrums like that, we do not beat them into submission, we take them somewhere where they are safe and we don’t have to listen to them throw the tantrum (their bedroom, usually), and let them finish in private. We do not sit on them to get them to obey, because that only tells them that the bigger/stronger person gets their way, while the little guy must submit. What a marriage this couple must have, too!
Madame, it won’t help for you to join the 7xsunday forums. I am a member there (shame) and I haven’t been there or posted in a long time. You can’t sign up just to tell people the right way to do things, they see you as a troublemaker and threaten to ban you.
Anyhow I had a gutful of that site, I read it once in a while and post something scathing if I can figure out how to do it in a way that I’ll get away with it. But those people are nuts. In our patriarchial stint, I thought they might be right and that’s why I signed up, but so glad I saw the light.
Oh, and you are not allowed to be against “Created to Be His Help Meet” on there, they just call you ungrateful etc and delete the posts exposing the book.
“”Sex is not just a pleasurable act of procreation. It is an act of kindness, care, and generosity. For a woman, it is like an act of worship; for a man, it is an act of joy in the blessings and gifts of his wife.”
(Quote source: “Safeguarding Your Children” Article by Rebekah and Gabriel Anast, September 2003)”
Reading more quotes from Michael and Debi Pearl on sex it seems that they also believe that a woman is to worship her husband through sex.
“Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pearl,
When I picked up your book, Holy Sex, I was afraid to read it. I thought you would tell me that what I was feeling was wrong–but you didn’t, and instead you have given me a wonderful gift . . . Enjoying my husband has always been fine with me, but I have experienced a deeper longing and a “hunger” for him. I thought this was wrong. Times when I kissed and touched him from head to toe, for me were feelings of adoration and sometimes worship of him, and I felt it was wrong. I loved him so much, I desired to pour all of my being into him, but I struggled with whether it was right to do so.
(Quote source: Created to be His Helpmeet by Debi Pearl pg 171)”
Debi responds with, basically, “this is how it should be”.
I thought that we were to worship no one but God? But, now they have turned the act of sex into a woman worshiping a man and a man receiving the gifts of a woman’s worship?
What happened to giving one’s self to the other in mutuality? What happened to 1 Cor. 7 where it doesn’t say anything about this stuff at all but makes it clear that the woman has just as much authority/right in the bedroom as the man? How can it be one-sided worship of men if this verse is true?
“Here, Gabriel Anast clearly says that:
-a wife is property of the husband
- if she defrauds him (sexually), he can put her away
- If she is not able to give him sex, he must still care for her, but he may take another woman
- If a man is impotent, his wife can go off and find another man.”
Sheesh….what part of Matthew 19:9 (“Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery”) does this guy not understand??????????
Whenever a person or church advocates a return to Old Testament/Mosaic
Law ways of doing things, sooner or later they are going to find that they will have to choose between the “ancient paths” and OT ways of behaving, and the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Looks like Gabriel Anast has made his choice – but it’s too bad about the folks who may be following him into apostasy.
My 4 year old used to hate having his hair cut. My solution with the boys has been to use clippers and give them crew cuts. They don’t mind having it done, and they always get rewarded for sitting still and letting me get on with it. Still, the first few haircuts involved some persuading from my side, including holding the clippers, feeling how they vibrate when switched on, and assuring that I wouldn’t cut anything but hair.
It’s a different story with my 2.5 year old daughter. She needs a haircut because her 4 year old brother cut one pigtail off last week (yes… he climbed up to the top of a bookcase to retrieve the blunt scissors he used!) so one side is longer than the other.
I bought some sharp scissors and have attempted to cut her hair a couple of times with no success. She says NO, that will hurt! It makes perfect sense as I’ve been telling her that scissors are dangerous for a long time now.
Any tips on how to get her to let me cut her hair?
I’ve snipped a little bit off my own hair to show her it doesn’t hurt, but she still shakes her head wildly and says no.
Now, this is interesting. From “for men, not boys” by Michael Pearl
God did not command the man to rule over his wife.
You said, “I have told her that she needs to obey me.” Let me say it again, God did not command the man to rule over his wife. There are several passages that address the woman, telling her to be in subjection to her husband; for that reason men get the impression that God has granted them some divine right to rule their wives. Not so. The Bible never gives the man license to command his wife. That is a Muslim practice, not Christian. God does command the wife to submit to and follow her husband, but it does not command the man to demand submission. God did not create one sex to rule, and the other to be ruled. A wife’s submission is a gift to be given. It is a praise and honor to her man. No man deserves the submission of another human being. No man has a right to subjugate another—especially not a woman whom he loves. The role of a woman’s submission to her husband is a spiritual duty before God, not a social class system to be politically enforced. When Sarah called Abraham lord (1Peter 3:6), God commended her for it because it was a voluntary act of humility and faith and an expression of her submission to God.
No authority over her
You said, “She does not acknowledge that I have any authority over her. I have told her that she needs to obey me and leave it up to God to deal with me if I am wrong.” Authority is the power to constrain. God did not give you that authority, nor even the authority to rebuke. I have been married for 37 years and I have never so much as hinted to my wife that she should be in subjection to me. I have acted as one in charge, and in most cases she has honored that. But in our early marriage, when she was sometimes cantankerous, I left her alone and moved forward as if I were in charge and she were voluntarily following. In time, she always caught up and was right by my side with her support. I knew well what her God-ordained duty was, but I also knew that God had asked more of her than I deserved. I felt that it was my duty to earn her respect and trust, not to come between her and her God, lashing her with my words when she did not obey God’s command. A man is never so arrogant and small as when he acts the dictator and presumes upon his wife’s spiritual duty to be his helpmeet. She is a voluntary helper, not a ward of his state.
The sentence in italics seems to contradict the rest. If you act like “the one in charge” and keep going, even if your wife is not following, you are basically forcing her to follow you.
It spoils the rest of it, which I think is very good.
I like what Michael Pearl wrote in that article because he puts his finger on what is so wrong about Patriarchal/CBMW-complementarian teaching: They pair up submission with leadership and ruling, when God never called the man to rule or lead the wife. He called him to love her.
Michael Pearl seems to believe he is to lead, or “be in charge”. It would be interesting to know where he finds support for this belief.
And I wonder, if he believes what he wrote in that article, how he recommends his wife’s book!
About the 2.5 yr old. I would see if I could trim the other side while she is napping sometime. When my kids were toddlers, I could only trim a little while before they got too squirmy. So I would finish the sides while they were sleeping.
Mary, it looks to me like he IS advocating polygamy FOR MEN.
Anast says, “If she is not able to give him sex, he must still care for her, but he may take another woman”,
…but on the other hand, he tells women to “go off and find another man” if their husbands become impotent, even though Jesus says that that is adultery.
So in essence, he tells the men to revert to OT morality, and he tells the women to go to H***.
He’s not a nuanced writer, and that’s what’s confusing me. Here’s how I’m reading it:
It’s okay for a man or woman to get divorced and remarried for sexual needs. HOWEVER, in the case of a man leaving for another woman, he needs to continue to take care of his ex-wife.
Is this a reasonable interpretation, or am I completely misreading him?
I just posted a quote from VF Ministries website on the “best of” thread. Here’s a sample:
“Furthermore, the biblical text does not say, as it did concerning the man, that God breathed into her nostrils the breath of life. The import of this difference is not explained in the text, but it may show that she also derived the immaterial aspect of her life from the man. If this be the case, then it means that she received both her body and soul from man by divine design and through God’s creative power (i.e., the principle of life being first implanted in man by God and now extended to the woman through the man by God’s power).[1] The woman’s origin is, literally, from the man.”
I am in the process of reading through the OT looking specifically at what God says about women and marriage and families. Is it just my pride that causes me to be offended at the idea that my soul is derived from man’s rather than given directly from God? This “indirect creation” idea just bothers me a lot.
Rebekah Pearl Anast also has a website called Dreaming Awake. Maybe this has been discussed on truewomanhood before, but I don’t ever recall seeing anyone mention it here. http://www.dreaming-awake.com
Rebekah writes down her dreams, followed by the interpretation she and Gabe come up with.(Rather, it seems like she usually punts to Gabe and he gives her the interpretation)
It is unusual to say the least. The dreams under the category “War and Apocalyptic” make me scratch my head and go huh???? She writes under the pen name Ruby Archuletta. If you go to the archives, she states in Oct. 2006 that she is Rebekah Anast.
Here is an excerpt:
“Who’s Ruby, and are these really dreams?
Ruby Archuletta is the name of a character in a book called The Milagro Beanfield War by John Nichols, and was also filmed as a movie right here in New Mexico, where I live. The story is Hispanic (although I am not) and is quite hilarious in culture and human interaction. The person Ruby was a hard-working, passionate local who ran a mechanic shop, and tried to talk her people out of apathy. “Ruby” is a penname I chose because the character and the movie is of interest to me, the initials are the same as my own, and I live in NM, where the story took place. And, when I was a child, my play-pretend name was Ruby.
My real name is Rebekah Anast. I am an author and freelance writer for homeschool magazines. Some readers have tracked me here, wondered about the penname, and if these fantastic stories are really dreams, or just another outflow of my imagination and writing skills.”
Also wanted to share something I found interesting in my reading. In Exodus 2, the story of Moses’ deliverance is entirely credited to Moses’ mother and sister. I think it’s safe to assume that it was done with his father’s knowledge and approval, but there is no mention of him in its implementation.
“When SHE saw that he was a fine child, SHE hid him … SHE got a papyrus basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then SHE placed the child in it and put it amontg the reeds along the bank of the Nile. … His SISTER stood at a distance to see what would happen … His SISTER asked Pharaoh’s daughter, ‘Shall I go and get one of the Hebrew women to nurse the baby for you?’ … And the GIRL went and got the baby’s mother. … So the WOMAN took the baby and nursed him.” (Exodus 2:2-4, 7-9)
–my emphasis–
God credits them in Scripture for their deeds, just as he acknowledges the worth and work of the Hebrew midwives, who are named in Exodus 1, although the Pharaoh is not.
madame said:
Any tips on how to get her to let me cut her hair?
I’ve snipped a little bit off my own hair to show her it doesn’t hurt, but she still shakes her head wildly and says no.
I had a similar problem with my 3yo girl. She needed a haircut badly to fix her own attempt at a “hairtut”, but she would not let me get anywhere near her with scissors. So I took her with me to my hair appointment at the salon, she watched the hairdresser do my hair, and then I asked her if she wanted hers done too and she was more willing to let the hairdresser fix her hair! I guess it was less scary and more exciting and “grown up” for her.
“Some readers have tracked me here, wondered about the penname, and if these fantastic stories are really dreams, or just another outflow of my imagination and writing skills.”
Prideful much?
I haven’t been to this website, but after reading this self-praise, I have no desire to. And she doesn’t actually answer the questions very straightforward, either. Weird.
Why is it safe to assume that Moses mother had his father’s approval? The whole world does not live a Vision Forum life. Could be that Dad is not mentioned precisely because he had nothing to do with it.
All we know for sure is that Moses mother and sister did act according to the leading of God in hiding Moses and later sending him down the Nile in a basket.
In my experience, it is just as likely that the father didn’t even know they were hiding Moses. Maybe he just assumed that he was quietly smothered to save him a worst fate. The Bible doesn’t claim he had a hand in saving his son.
I say that because in many primitive cultures, men do commit infanticide or demand that the child be abandoned. His Dad had to know that keeping the child would bring the government down on his head.
Maybe he knew, but I see no reason to presume that he did.
“For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.” 1 Cor.11:12
Ultimately, everyone’s life comes from God. However, that doesn’t mean that VF will not try to make it appear that the Bible is saying otherwise.
Keep in mind that every man since Adam has been “born of woman.”
Abby – Rebekah does go on to answer questions and further explain the dreams. It’s a long post and for brevity, I just posted the first part, where she tells her real name. Here’s a little more of how she explains the website. If anyone wants to read the whole thing they can look in her archives.
She states:
“I do write stories, screenplays, songs and poems, but this blog is reserved only and specifically for dreams that I have while totally, and completely asleep. If an entry is not a dream, it will located in the section titled “Musings” as this entry will be.”
I think you are right – The whole world does not live a Vision Forum life. There really is no reason to automatically presume. Abigail certainly did not have Nabal’s permission to approach David and intervene for her loved ones.
Shadowspring, I understand what you’re saying and that had occurred to me. I just think that, based on my experience, it would be very hard to hide a baby — while nursing him — for that long a time! Especially from someone in the same house, with whom you are presumably sleeping. And the writer of Hebrews praises the faith of “Moses’ parents” for hiding him.
As someone who has had a hard time with dreams in the past, I am a little concerned that someone is having this many vivid dreams that she is able to recall in great detail, and I would be more concerned that she isn’t getting very good sleep!
I was in a grumpy mood this morning, so I apologize if anyone thought I came across rudely when I wrote that earlier comment. I know I regretted the attitude later. I had a very restless night with a lot of dreams!
On the Exodus story: I find it interesting that the story at the beginning is about mostly women (and a girl) defying the authority of the land, with what seem to be no major ramifications. They were probably the first feminists!
The Hebrew Midwives: Not only did they defy pharaoh, they insulted the Egyptian women to him!
Moses’ Mother and Miriam: Hid a baby from being killed, then basically tricked the pharaoh’s own daughter into letting them take him back home to be safe.
Pharaoh’s daughter: Knew the baby was sentenced to death but took him as her son anyway with knowledge of the king (he had to have known at some point!)
And later in the story of Exodus, Miriam is called a prophetess and put on a level with her brothers as a leader of Israel.
Until Moses grows up, the women in his life were basically the most powerful force behind him.
Whether with the knowledge of men or not, these women (who undoubtedly “knew their place”) were not afraid of anything that might happen to them in order to do the right thing. I think that’s a pretty cool story.
There is much to speculate about Moses’ father, Amram. It could be that he was working away from home for a time (9 to 5 jobs hadn’t been invented yet), he may have died before the birth, or he may have divorced Jochebed – just a few possibilities. Also, it’s not mentioned directly that Moses had any personal relationhip with Amram. What we do know is that Jochebed and Miriam did all they could to save Moses’ life.
Hey, all…. just my 2 cents worth, but I think that while Gabriel Anast’s teachings are purely heretical and ought to be exposed as such, we should leave Rebekah Anast alone, and quit criticizing her blog. There’s a lot more going on there than meets the eye.
Abby, good points. And those few early years, however many they were, grounded Moses securely in his heritage and his faith. Although he was taken from his home and raised in the most pagan society of the time, groomed for power and success, given a (gasp!) pagan education — yet he still identified with the Hebrew slaves and was unwilling to see them mistreated. Those years with his mother shaped his character and helped to prepare him for what God had planned. Powerful stuff.
Another story that comes to mind is that of Zipporah circumcising her and Moses’ son because the Lord sought to and was about to kill him when he was on his way back to Egypt to lead God’s people out of slavery. She saved his life and didn’t go through some tortured and weird “appeal” process in order to do so.
I am studying Numbers in depth. I came to Numbers 6 concerning the Vow of Separation or the Nazarite Vow. It was interesting because it states that “when either man or WOMAN shall separate themselves to VOW a vow of a Nazarite….” Wow! Women can decide to take this vow? God must not have checked with the patriarchalists before He decided to write that.
And then I thought of Numbers 30 and had an “aha!” moment. Numbers 30 is used as patriocentrists to claim that an adult woman is forever and always under the authority of her father and that an adult woman is never to live under any other roof but that of her father or husband.
But, Numbers 30 does NOT say that at all. It is talking about vows. And it specifically is dealing with religious vows and the proper worship in the temple. And, then Numbers 6 tells us that a woman was free to make take the vow of a Nazarite. And I believe that Numbers 30 is directly referring to this vow in Numbers 6 and not saying what the patrios say it says.
Cynthia, I think you are right. I did “visit” that dream blog and read one of her dreams. Very detailed, which interested me. I think a lot of people have vivid dreams like that, me being one of them, of course most of the time I don’t remember them in great detail, but I’ve been told to keep a dream diary.
Perhaps her dreams are sometimes from God, perhaps not. I read the one about Native American wedding. To me, it was a lot more like if it was from God, I think her interpretation was off, but if she’s getting the interpretation from her husband, I’m certainly not surprised that there was some weird spin on it.
God does give dreams to non-believers, too; if we look at the Old Testament, many of the people who received dreams were not Jews. So he may just be trying to reach her through these dreams, but she’s missing the interpretation. Hopefully one day she’ll be given a dream that wakes her up to who God is and what he really wants her to be.
Corrie, I spent months slowly going through Exodus-Deuteronomy last year. I used a study Bible, which helped me, but I think I really saw things, particularly about how God “dealt” with women, that shook off a lot of the fog that I’ve been under. I realized that a lot of the things that even feminists say are misogynist are in fact the exact opposite, they are protective! The context is so important! How can a modern American feminist possibly understand (or live within!) a culture where women are so treated. It really gave me a “bigger picture” perspective to see that God ALWAYS protects his people when they give him the chance, and even when someone isn’t part of “His people” he still cares enough to offer them protection.
That Rahab doctrine is apparently alive and well at Trinity Baptist College (Jax, FL)
I hadn’t heard it in an IFB church myself, but a former member reports:
“The teacher of the SS class taught on Rahab and used her as an example of “truth to whom truth is due”. But God’s Word says we are not to lie. When I raised my hand and gave scripture to support that, the statement was something to the effect that there were those who thought differently. She was a high up at the college and was speaking of others at the college.”
“Truth to whom truth is due.”
Um…what about treating your neighbor as yourself??
ps. pls pray for my 2 daughters, who are currently stranded at an airport bcz of a winter storm coming in!
Abby, most of what passes for (and is excoriated as) feminism ISN’T, at least it’s not what feminism started out to be.
Take clothing styles — a lot of the 30/40 somethings in the Patrio movement claim that the trend toward immodesty in dress is the result of the feminist movement.
They aren’t old enough to remember the 1960′s, when the feminist movement steered fashion away from stiletto heels, mini-dresses, skin-tight dress bodices, obligatory hats, GIRDLES , lacquer-y looking makeup, and permed, cut and set hairdos, and into longer skirts, sensible shoes, and natural makeup and hair.
Before feminism, clothing was all about seducing and keeping a man; feminists REintroduced the idea that a man should come to love a woman for her beautiful MIND, and just maybe, for her beautiful SPIRIT. (Of course, Jesus and Paul had a 1960 year head start on the concept…)
“She saved his life and didn’t go through some tortured and weird “appeal” process in order to do so.”
Good point, Corrie!
Patrios don’t usually have much to say about Ruth, either. She definately took the initiative in her relationship with Boaz. Under cover of darkness, she made a proposal by uncovering his “feet.” Whether they were literal feet or a euphemism for reproductive organs, either way she did the instigating.
Of course, the latter would make a patrio gasp!
Another good verse that must be explained away by the patriocentrists:
“1 Listen to what the LORD says:
“Stand up, plead your case before the mountains;
let the hills hear what you have to say.
2 Hear, O mountains, the LORD’s accusation;
listen, you everlasting foundations of the earth.
For the LORD has a case against his people;
he is lodging a charge against Israel.
3 “My people, what have I done to you?
How have I burdened you? Answer me.
4 I brought you up out of Egypt
and redeemed you from the land of slavery.
I sent Moses to lead you,
also Aaron and Miriam.”
God set before the Israelites Moses, Aaron and Miriam to lead them? Must have been a typo.
And the Jewish literature on Miriam places her in a seat of great honor.
Miriam sounds like another one of those white-washed feminists.
Yes, it is hard to understand some of the verses in the Old testament concerning women, especially since we did not live in that culture. Frankly, some of them are troubling to me. On the surface they do not seem to value women. The attitude that women could be thrown out to gangs of perverts so a man could be protected and not suffer the shame, as if they are far above that sort of thing and women are not, deeply troubles me. But, it is also proof that the patriarchal mindset is neither Biblical nor godly. Women, in these patriarchal cultures, were constantly vulnerable and oppressed and they were looked down upon as lesser and worth less than men.
I just studied Numbers 5 concerning the “law of jealousy”. It troubled me at first. But, if we look at it as a vehicle of protecting women from an irrational husband who had the power of life and death over you, then it takes on another meaning. It is a bizarre chapter, for sure.
I had a father who was irrationally jealous of my mother and accused her of wild things that were never true. He was a serial adulterer so it may have been projection? But, when he would get in one of his irrationally jealous moods, my mother suffered horrendous abuse. And no matter how much she begged and pleaded with him and assured him that there was not another man, he would not believe her. He would even go after me, insisting that my mother was hiding a man in the house during the day while he was gone at work and when I didn’t admit to his irrational assertion, I would be beaten.
Maybe Numbers 5 was a way for a woman (and her children) to receive protection from this sort of emotional and physical torture/abuse?
A potion of water mixed with dirt and ink will cause a woman’s belly to swell and thigh to rot? Or was this a ruse to get an irrational husband off of his wife’s back? When neither her thigh rotted or her belly swelled, then he would have to face the fact that he has falsely and unfairly accused his wife and then he was now accountable to the priest to stop doing that.
I don’t think I will ever understand some of these things this side of eternity.
If women in leadership positions are always a curse per the patrios taking Isaiah 3:12 and ripping it out of its context, then why would God say through the prophet Micah that he sent Miriam along with Moses and Aaron to lead them through the wilderness? And the verses that precede the one in Micah that calls Miriam a leader, are ones that specifically point out that this was a blessing and not a burden to them.
““Some readers have tracked me here, wondered about the penname, and if these fantastic stories are really dreams, or just another outflow of my imagination and writing skills.””
Wow! This just popped in my inbox from an incredulous mother. A couples retreat for daddy and daughter? XP
Typical VF promo: they quote studies (and in:”studies are in”) but they do not give the name of the studies, probably because they just made up the whole thing.
They claim that the “average father” has nothing of eternal value to share with his daughter. How insulting to fathers everywhere! Again, no proof to offer for this factoid. They only wrote it to make the mark who reads the con feel superior about his desire to pass on something of value to his daughter.
Ugh. Posting right after the homosexual bent of Muslim misogynists, we see that Christian men are different. They don’t disdain ALL women- only women who are grown adults, and especially those dumb enough to marry them.
Married men should be working on their relationship with their wives, not their daughters. If you want to pass on something of eternal value to your daughters, love your wife. Love your wife, cherish your wife, serve your wife in love, humble yourself to your wife in front of your daughter- that’s how to show your daughter that she is valued and treasured.
Okay I just read the promo again and my reaction is no less indignant. I absolutely HATE the self-righteousness imbedded in this advert.
They totally slam fathers- dads of every race, religion and creed. *THEY* are the only dads who spend any time with their daughters, the only dads who have anything of value to pass on to their daughters, honestly they put themselves out there as the only men on the planet who notice that they have daughters!
How can people fall for such blatant lies? Do they all live on isolated farms apart from civilization? How could such a blatant lie be believable to the average person?
Every single day, you will see Dads playing with their children (daughters and sons) on my street. Jewish, Hindu, unknown-to-me spiritual beliefs, they are out there in droves on any nice day. Loving your daughter is not just a Christian thing.
And it’s not just an American thing. The Indian woman I tutor in English has very fond things to say about her father from her childhood in India. My daughters Chinese roommates have close relationships with their parents, including fathers.
Repeat: I absolutely HATE the self-righteousness imbedded in this advert.
Hey ladies,
I just thought of something. Do you know who subscribes to the Rahab’s Lie doctrine?
If you can find evidence that Phillips & Co. offer it, teach it at seminars, well…their lawsuits won’t be worth a flip, will they? I mean, they’re all Biblical Liars, right? No credibility in any courtroom. :no:
Corrie–Numbers 5. As far as that whole “potion” thing goes, I agree. It makes very little sense unless there’s something supernatural going on behind it. I do think that God, being all-knowing, would have used that as judgment on the woman if she were an adulteress, in some supernatural way. Or perhaps she would be so terrified of what it would do if she were guilty that she might confess before being subjected to it. Of course an innocent woman had nothing to fear.
I know a lot of people now think it’s horrible that a woman would have to stay married to such a man for the rest of her life, but it would have been a far worse fate if she had no way to disprove his lies and he was able to send her out with absolutely no proof. Even living forever with a jealous husband in that day would have been better than being turned out as an accused adulteress. It is absolutely the opposite of what we think it should be, but that’s because the culture is the opposite (in many ways) of what we live in, too.
On the Pearls/Anasts. I think I agree with Cynthia still, more because I believe that living so long in such a twisted belief system can leave a person completely vulnerable to misunderstanding. If this woman was taught the same beliefs her whole life and now her husband is telling her the same thing, I don’t think she’s a completely innocent victim, but how is she to know what else is out there or what might be True besides what she knows. She believes deeply what she preaches, and even though she’s wrong, it’s not as if her motives are evil, they are just wrong.
I don’t think we can judge whether or not her dreams are from God or from her own head, because I’ve known many people who receive dreams from God. Their theology is not perfect (though, I’d guess better than Rebekah”s (sp?)), but in the world I live in, people still receive dreams and visions. They are usually personal, not often given for the benefit of others, but they are still given as confirmation of something or to be confirmed by others.
I think we could be getting into a weird area, and I know that this isn’t something everyone here agrees with me on, so I’ll just leave it at that.
Ha! Of course, that is how her leadership will be explained away. Just like they explain away Deborah’s leadership of the nation of Israel. These two women and their leadership over the nation of Israel needs to be devalued in order to keep the paradigm in check. Surely God would NEVER put a woman in leadership over a nation!!!! So, since this is true, then we must change Scripture in order to fit our preconceived notion.
But, why would God mention her if she was only the leader of women when He was addressing the whole nation of Israel through Micah? That’s weird. Surely, Miriam wasn’t the only woman who led only the women in Israel? Why doesn’t God mention these other female leaders of women when He is addressing His people?
Fact:
Miriam was a prophet.
Deborah was a prophet.
God’s word tells us that Miriam and Deborah were both leaders over the nation of Israel.
God never tells us that Deborah was second choice since there was no man to be found to lead Israel. (That is an ASININE assertion! God is so impotent that He couldn’t raise a man up to do a man’s job?)
God never tells us that Deborah’s leadership was a curse to Israel. In fact, her leadership was a BLESSING to Israel and the nation of Israel still recognizes that FACT to this day.
God never tells us that Miriam was a leader over the women only. God’s word does tell us that He gave the NATION of Israel Moses, Aaron and Miriam to lead them and that their leadership was a blessing and not a burden. And the nation of Israel still understands Miriam’s great contribution to the leadership of Israel to this day.
“The report said: “When it was explained to him what was necessary, he reacted with disgust and asked, ‘How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean, when one could be with a man, who is clean? Surely this must be wrong.’”
Makes sense.
“The report also detailed a disturbing practice in which older “men of status” keep young boys on hand for sexual relationships. One of the country’s favorite sayings, the report said, is “women are for children, boys are for pleasure.”
This is just like old Roman culture. Many of the great philosophers of that time talked about this very same thing.
They like to blame the feminists for homosexuality in men but they need to start looking in the mirror at their own attitudes towards women to get to the crux of the issue.
“The report concluded that the widespread homosexual behavior stems from several factors, including the “severe segregation” of women in the society and the “prohibitive” cost of marriage. ”
Yes, lots of men spending lots of time together and women are kept separate.
I could make some suppositional parallels to some things I see in the patriocentrists and their behavior and the findings of this article, but I won’t.
Assiemama, I agree with you on this one. Although the patrio men may be driving the bus in these situations, the women do enormous harm with their “advice”, too.
Look at this discussion on Rebekah’s advice on FreeJinger:
“”It must be noticed in connection with sex-relations that a girl in surrendering her body loses her honour. With a man, however, the case is otherwise, because he has a field for ethical activity outside the family. A girl is destined in essence for the marriage tie and for that only; it is therefore demanded of her that her love shall take the form of marriage and that the different moments in love shall attain their true rational relation to each other.”
Sound familiar?
But the “Christian” patrios didn’t pen this.
I found it here…
Remember in “Saved by the Bell” when Zach would do a freeze take? That’s how I feel right now!
Okay: For Vision Forum to say that “the average father” does this or that, they must have met lots of people from lots of places with lots of backgrounds to know that this MUST be true (insert sarcastic voice).
I, for one, have probably one of the best relationships with a father that a grown-up married daughter could have. We can talk about anything, barring “feminine” issues, and both of my parents are really just good conversationalists. I am annoyed that the VF people would lump all dads except themselves into such a disparaging group.
I don’t think we have an unhealthy relationship, but from the pictures in that ad, I think the girls in those families do. Why are men spending so much time on their daughters? What about their sons and their wives? I haven’t heard about any marriage retreats, focusing on healthy marriages, or father-son weekends focusing on how to treat one another and teaching the younger men how to be good husbands in the future. Is that because once you’re married, that’s it? Sons don’t need any instruction, because holding up the marriage is all on the woman? What about mother-daughter weekends, too?
Abby, they do have a father son weekend mentioned for the future, but NOTHING for mothers!
No mother/son, or mother/daughter and no marriage retreat that I know about, but even if they did it would in no way make up for their outrageous self-righteous fear-mongering in the above advert.
How awful for their (normal) teens that they will have to give up daydreaming, peers, and thoughts of boys in order to what? Be daddy’s “helpmeet”?
Let the little girls be human, for crying out loud! Jeepers.
Re: Miriam and Deborah — check this out. Nobody ever says, “wait, we can’t ask her — she’s a woman.” Nope, Huldah just lays “Thus saith the Lord” on them and they accept it, no questions asked.
2 Kings 22:11-20
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Acbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant: “Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD’s anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.”
Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Acbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to speak to the prophetess Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem, in the Second District.
She said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Tell the man who sent you to me, ‘This is what the LORD says: I am going to bring disaster on this place and its people, according to everything written in the book the king of Judah has read. Because they have forsaken me and burned incense to other gods and provoked me to anger by all the idols their hands have made, my anger will burn against this place and will not be quenched.’ Tell the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the LORD, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says concerning the words you heard: Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people, that they would become accursed and laid waste, and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I have heard you, declares the LORD. Therefore I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be buried in peace. Your eyes will not see all the disaster I am going to bring on this place.’ So they took her answer back to the king.
I have noticed that every so often Vision Forum has a father-son retreat at a dude ranch somewhere. I don’t know if it’s annual or not, it’s not nearly as well advertised as the father-daughter one.
When I was in high school we had a father-daughter week-end. Some elements were always the same.
1) Meals. Just dinners, no fancy tea parties or anything that precious.
2) Performances – The dance, music and drama departments would come together to do some musical comedy. I remember Guys & Dolls and Once Upon A Mattress and The Music Man. Yes, girls played all the parts.
3) Sports – Not “Father/daughter Unity Games.” There was the annual tennis tournament, the annual golf tournament, and usually a number of others.
4) Academics – The science fair was set up, there were usually some student presentations in History, English and Theology, and so on.
5) Mass – Student led and in Latin, no less.
The point was to show off what you had accomplished for the year, or what you were capable of accomplishing. To take pride in your abilities. But these Vision Forum week-ends seem like just the opposite to me. It’s mostly about having it worked in that you’re noting but your father’s maid/nanny/doormat/surrogate wife, and that there’s nothing you can take pride in or do without him. It’s very fake and contrived. But then, what exactly have these girls accomplished? They can clean and cook, maybe, and diaper a baby and recite the party line. Is there anything else that they *can* take pride in?
And in case it comes up, yes I believe that taking care of a home, raising children and helping out in the family business are good and valuable things to do, and I know that homeschoolers can and have accomplished quite a lot over the years. I get that.
But as I understand it, being able to keep a house, raise a family and help out the family business are expected of patrio girls. Those aren’t special accomplishments related in any way to a young woman’s unique talents or the skills she’s chosen to nurture. And while you hear a lot about the accomplishments of patrio boys and non-patrio boys AND girls, You rarely, if ever, hear anything from the girls. At least I haven’t.
And none of that changes the idea that this week-end retreat of Vision Forum’s is more about absorbing the party line than anything.
My mission to Haiti is four-fold: First, I will be establishing one of the only distinctively Christian reporting operations to tell stories of both the present crisis and the work of Christians on behalf of the sick and the widows and the orphans in the midst of Haiti’s present horror. Second, I will be working to facilitate the rescue and delivery of orphans to Christian families in America. Third, I will be identifying specific families that need direct support from the people of God in America. Fourth, my team will be providing specific relief to people in distress.
Look I have been praying over this and even talking over it with my husband for over a day now. And in all honesty I am not someone who panics or overreacts or anything like this.
But we have both been so grieved and have been praying and, of course, donating money to certain organisations who are working with the poor people of Haiti who have been so devasted by the earthquake. And our money has mostly gone to a charity via our church but I also have a good friend involved in Doctors Without Borders and we have donated to that very confident in the good work they do.
Now in all honesty I am not looking to criticise those who go to work in disaster zones. God bless them. But having recently talked to our good friend… his advice was (and he has been in Africa TWICE with Doctors Without Borders (MSF)) ‘I am not going, in these cases they need people immediately equipped to cope with disaster zones… in six months, they might want me to rebuild…. but my skills are not needed in a disaster zone’.
Again I know this is just our acquaintance and of course many people ARE needed in disaster zones and the fact my friend specialises in training and assisting local people in improving themselves and their own resources… that’s not the only help available. People are of course needed in the here and now.
But look. With all my fertility problems, (though I would remain under 26 and very hopeful the Lord wil still bless us even though we are very enthusiastic about being adoptive parents at some point… perhaps if we cannot be natural parents, perhaps afterwards if we can, we would be blessed) adoption is something we have looked into a lot.
And to see Doug Phillips advertising taking children from their country, from their surviving family, in a matter or days or weeks.
I am so in favour of adoption.
But look. Imagine if a natural disaster swet through our country tomorrow. Would you want your children sent to Germany or China, or would you want a few weeks to see if your sister survived to care for them and determine if they should be sent abroad forever?
I am not saying the poor children who are sole survivors shouldn’t be helped. But to speed their departure from THEIR COUNTRY… it just seems like Doug Phillips, with his film crew, it’s like their priorities are completely backwards. Why is relief their fourth priority? Why is ‘Christian journalism’ their first? Feed the hungry first! Then tell your story!!!
I can’t help but feel like they are trying to capitalise upon this awful disaster.
I just want to be very clear that I am not suggesting that Vision Forum are embezzling or in any way insincere about their desire to help the orphans of Haiti. I do not doubt their good intentions for a moment.
I do just wonder about the wisdom of a Christian group without apparent previous disaster zone experience going to Haiti with their primary goal being Christian journalism. Christian reporting is very important but it is SO far from a priority right now. What matters is helping the poor people of Haiti. And I am not convinced that the swift extradition of the orphans of Haiti is the best thing for them. I am so in favour of adoption and I have personally ecxperienced the heart breaking delays – but the safeguards are there for a reason and it is protection of children! Swiftly shipping them out of the country is NEVER a safe or appropriate solution! They are traumatised children and they need to be protected!
I went to the thread you linked in comment 133. Her advice is terrible. Especially this:
There is no point (that I can find in the Bible) in “standing up to your husband.” Either stay, and figure out how to make it work, or leave and find a believing man.
What about Matthew 18? I think that’s standing up to anyone who is sinning against you. Including a husband.
On the NGJ site there are a few articles by Rebekah Anast where she clearly states what she thinks about submission and marriage.
One of them “Noah’s wife”, speaks volumes. If Michael Pearl really treated Debi the way Rebekah recounts in her article, it’s no wonder she believes submission is doormathood. Who knows how much abuse she suffered and witnessed in her life!
Apparently, she is heavily pregnant and living precariously on a reservation. Her husband left his paying job to “follow God”.
Reading the article “Noah’s wife” was very hard for me, because if God really wants me to throw all caution out the window and just jump on whatever train my husband chooses, I’m doomed because I didn’t do that when my husband wanted to jump on a particularly scary looking train.
Am I the only one who is not surprised? We need to be praying for this girl and this case. I have a feeling that it a trailblazing case for future situations like it.
“Swiftly shipping them out of the country is NEVER a safe or appropriate solution! They are traumatised children and they need to be protected!”
Claire,
EXACTLY.
God help these children. Please.
As if going through what they’ve gone through isn’t enough! God alone will be able to clear the confusion they’ll endure going from that to being in a patriarchal home.
Christian reporting is very important but it is SO far from a priority right now.
Claire, I so agree with you! Your statement above reminds me of this verse:
“If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?” (James 2:16)
His priorities are totally out of whack. The “Christian reporting” is, IMHO, nothing more than self-glorifying how great Doug Phillips is.
“First, I will be establishing one of the only distinctively Christian reporting operations to tell stories of both the present crisis and the work of Christians on behalf of the sick and the widows and the orphans in the midst of Haiti’s present horror.”
Okay, I did read on, and everything else seemed fine and good, but this really bugged me.
I have dozens of Christian friends on Facebook, all of whom are getting their information directly from missionaries and nationals who are in Haiti doing Christian work. To say that we aren’t getting the full “Christian” story is kind of ignorant.
We can easily find out what is going on in Haiti concerning Christian work, but obviously, Doug has not bothered to look outside his forums for information. I’m done now!
Claire,
I understand what you are thinking about the orphans, but look at it differently–there were already dozens of orphanages in Haiti, and there were already children awaiting adoption to other places. The children who lost family in the earthquake are just as important, but you’re right, they probably have family (if not parents) to help take care of them. But the children who were already waiting for a family, those are the children I hope Doug is talking about. But here’s the deal, I think they need *real* lawyers to assist with this, not “Christian experts in the law.”
One of my pastors is in Haiti helping out at an orphanage. It’s sad to say, but I think there are just hundreds of Haitian children who need a safe home to be adopted into. It’s these children whose futures are in most peril.
I will say what you hesitate to say: NOW is not the time to begin a new work in Haitia. There are many many Christian organizations with an established ministry that need help right now.
I think what they mostly need is money,not a film crew.
Also it is more arrogance to say they would be one of the ONLY distinctly Christian reporting agency. First of all its not true. Established ministries with blogs, websites and newsletters have abounded in Haiti for a long time. They are putting their stories out there in cyberspace and have been since day one of the earthquake and recovery. Also, I’m pretty sure CBN was there right away, with established connections, but I’m not 100% sure because I don’t watch that channel.
And second adding that word “only” is a narcissistic touch, meant to establish that VF is uniquely superior and they want everyone to know it.
It seems to me that they are trying to capitalize on the publicity surrounding the tragedy and grab a slice for themselves. Whatever happened to giving your alms in secret?
If anyone needs to know of any established ministries in Haiti that could use their help, just google “help Haiti”. Or check your inbox. I’ve received lots of requests from friends asking for help with ministries they have been supporting in Haiti for a long time.
Or, if you know someone who has family in Haiti, ask if you can help directly. Western Union is allowing relatives to send money to Haiti for only a dollar a transaction.
The government of Haiti will hopefully protect their young citizens from hasty (however well-intentioned) adoptions. There is a reason it takes so long. There needs to be home studies, character references, background checks. I would be VERY troubled if one could just pop down there and start packing off children to foreign countries. While I don’t believe VF to be child predators, if it’s that easy for VF it would be that easy for child predators also.
Better to humbly take a back seat at this time, and provide resources to those already well-positioned to carry on the work. Already established orphanages are probably going to be swamped. Raise money and channel it where its needed, rather than go start your own work. It’s how the most good can be done, and if that’s your goal it seems to me that you would figure it out pretty quickly.
I agree with you. There seems to be a lot of people jumping up to help those in Haiti and that’s a good thing but things need to be sorted out some. My son, a USMC Captain, is currently on an aircraft carrier off the cost of Haiti and they are still sending in assessment teams in order to determine what exactly is needed. (For those of you on Facebook, it’s the 24th MEU – great photos). It’s still not determined what – except for emergency medical teams, food, etc are needed. It will take some time to sort things through in order to determine need.
I was watching the Canadian news the other night and saw a planeload of orphans arriving. However, as I understood it, these were orphans in the adoption process *before* the earthquake, and the Canadian State Department had expedited the paperwork to get them to safety quickly.
Which puts quite a different spin on things. Not a clue if that’s happening in the US, I’ve given up on US news.
Can someone tell me what exactly makes Christian reporting different than other reporting? The facts are the facts. Of course I’ve given up on US news because they give you one fact, then what the Democrats think you ought to think about that fact, then what the Republicans think you ought to think about that fact, then what the lobbyists/corporations think you ought to think about that fact, and then what some church leaders think you ought to think about that fact.
It’s amazing how many more facts you get from the BBC, CBC or Global Network in a half an hour.
So, I’m thinking he just wants his opinion out there. And he’s using the crisis to gain a larger audience. Because no one else is telling you what you ought to think in the context of the Patrio world view.
The government of Haiti will hopefully protect their young citizens from hasty (however well-intentioned) adoptions. There is a reason it takes so long. There needs to be home studies, character references, background checks. I would be VERY troubled if one could just pop down there and start packing off children to foreign countries. While I don’t believe VF to be child predators, if it’s that easy for VF it would be that easy for child predators also.
Glad that my faith in the Haitian government is well placed!
Alisa–on the Rifqa case, I know that the court ruling from the 19th said she did not have to go back home. No matter what her parents try to do right now, they are under that ruling. I would wonder when her 18th birthday is, because once that day hits, she is no longer subject to foster care or any juvenile/family court rulings. It’s possible that the state would put her in protective custody. It’s disappointing that her parents would intentionally go against the court ruling or complain about it, but on the other hand, there is a very strong Muslim community in Columbus, and they have very good lawyers. They also regularly make claims of discrimination or misunderstanding, and as there are so many variations of Muslim beliefs that it’s really hard to tell on the surface whether or not they are telling the truth.
“I have dozens of Christian friends on Facebook, all of whom are getting their information directly from missionaries and nationals who are in Haiti doing Christian work. To say that we aren’t getting the full “Christian” story is kind of ignorant.”
Sounds like VF has their own special definition of who is and who is not a Christian.
“Cynthia,
In comment 110, you say to leave Rebekah Anast and her blog alone. Do you mean the one about her dreams?”
Yes.
I can’t explain it, and as a rule I prefer to rely on provable facts, not instinct or “hunches”, but in this case, my gut tells me that her dreams (though not necessarily the interpretations) may well be of God.
Besides, she seems fragile and vulnerable, and dreams are a very personal thing. Critiquing someone’s dreams on a public forum such as this would be very unkind.
Oh, OK. That was weird.
Sorry for the double post.
Points very quickly ’cause I’ve typed them out a gazillion times…:)
(1) stoning isn’t the quickest way to die. In fact, it’s the cruelest. How could you, as a parent, sit and watch?
(2) I feeltremendously sorry for the Anasts and Pearls who subscribe to this “Noah’s Wife”type of marriage. Imagine what all those women could’ve been?
I think, as someone has stated on this log before, that this patriarchal lifestyle hurts the men just as much, if not more, than the women. In my estimation the men are brought up to be something short of tyrants disguised in a teddy-bear suit. All this insisting that women should submit is thinly veiled narcissism. I really wonder if all this prancing around and shouting about God’s plan for them to be the leaders of the home isn’t a product of their own upbringings fraught with periods of emotional famine where either their fathers or mothers neglected their emotional development.
When I first read it, the blog was more dramatic. It didn’t explain that it was Rebecca’s last day at work, and they talked about freeing her from slavery. They’ve toned it down and given some more information.
Oh well, it’s still a good laugh, I think!
Two unmarried daughter’s advice to wives and daughters on how to support “the men in their lives” and not “saw off their legs”.
This “advice” leaves me wondering, who is doing the “leading”?
18. Understand that men lead men, men motivate men, and they make men better men. Your effort to lead him will only frustrate him, derail him and eventually if you succeed essentially debilitate him. If he doesn’t have a manly fellowship that he’s apart of, encourage him in that direction. If he does, help nourish the relationship. Also, understand that sometimes running with the “big dogs” can be a little rough. It may challenge him like never before. Your behind-the-scenes talk about that leadership and the heroes in his life can make or break his relationship with them.
I do think being raised in that paradigm has a lot to do with embracing it. In the lives of the people I know, their emotional needs were not met as children, there was a lot of rejection due to putting doctrine over the hearts of children and major life decisions made with no concern for childhood development issues.
My husband was hurt by it, as were his brothers to varying degrees. However the one who was sent away to boarding school the earliest is clearly the one with the most trouble emotionally. He is also the one not just affected by patriocentrism, but fully embracing it and living it today, much to the detriment of his entire family.
I will say this in his behalf: he really believes that he is living a life pleasing to God. His whole life is filled with people who believe like he does. No dissenters allowed. He thinks the rest of us have sold out, and I am sure he honestly believes that his is a happy rich full life and that the rest of us are living on spiritual scraps. (You can easily come to believe that if you don’t allow yourself to associate with anyone outside of your belief system.)
Surely no boys have been hurt more than those emotionally underdeveloped home schooled men who committed murder in frustration over their sexual passions (Couty Alexander and David Ludwig). I lay the blame for those murders directly at the feet of the home that produced these young men.
Seemingly the more hurt a person is, the more damage they do to others.
And reading on this blog about Rebekah Anast, her story sounds very much like others I have heard of that went terribly wrong. One woman’s story is on No Longer Quivering, another (the Robert Hale family of Alaska) I found on my blog grazing tour the other day. I hope she gets out early on if that’s the case, but it doesn’t appear that she will.
So yes, I think these men do suffer terribly. I believe they WANT happy homes, happy children, healthy family dynamics- and so they apply what they have been taught and it fails them. But they have so much shame associated with rejecting what they were taught is “God’s way” that even when it is NOT WORKING they just try applying it in a more extreme fashion. And it does not end up the way the preacher/teachers/their parents taught them it would. Very sad.
17. Let him provide and give him a reason to. Some women try to carry part of the monetary burden when there’s no need to. Others have no need for anything. Often women think they’re helping the finances by going without essential needs. I’m not talking a French manicure but let him take care of you. They’ve both essentially robbed him of his motivation to pursue and develop a vision for making things come together for his family.
Was the woman in Proverbs 31 robbing her husband of his motivation when she sold a field and bought another? And when she traded with the merchants? Or when she sewed clothes for her family? I mean, she should have let her husband buy them, right?
These two women come across as wealthy and spoiled.
My mother visited us recently, and in one conversation, it came out that my younger sister, who still lives at home, is the one paying for their food. She has a job, while my father has to turn down some jobs due to his health, and jobs are scarce these days with the economy crisis. Should she go home and let her dad provide for her?
Crossing the threshold excited great emotion in Rebecca that bubbled over as a loud “Wah-hoo!” Her last day of working for another man forever!
I can understand the relief of finally being able to give up a job you don’t want. But somehow making her now more virtuous than other women who may have to hold down jobs in order to be the helpers their husbands need, or in order to keep their family afloat because they are alone, or for whatever other good reason.
Why did Rebecca have that job in the first place? Was she supporting her husband until he could get a good job in his field? Was she helping him finish a degree and get established in his career?
There are many women who have kept a roof over their heads and paid the bills while the husband finished school, or who put their husbands through university.
Doesn’t it make more sense to be grateful that the wife had a job that allowed the husband to get to the place where he could provide for them and they could have a family with mom at home?
It seems very disrespectful to do something like “bringing home Rebecca”. It’s hilarious, because it’s so silly, but the meaning of it all is not so funny.
From my post above. I didn’t complete my sentence!
I can understand the relief of finally being able to give up a job you don’t want. But somehow making her now more virtuous than other women who may have to hold down jobs in order to be the helpers their husbands need, or in order to keep their family afloat because they are alone, or for whatever other good reason, seems wrong to me.
From the article:
Silsby said the group, including members from Texas and Kansas, only had the best of intentions and paid no money for the children, whom she said they obtained from Haitian pastor Jean Sanbil of the Sharing Jesus Ministries.
Silsby, 40, of Boise, Idaho, was asked if she didn’t consider it naive to cross the border without adoption papers at a time when Haitians are so concerned about child trafficking. “By no means are we any part of that. That’s exactly what we are trying to combat,” she said.
“This “advice” leaves me wondering, who is doing the “leading”?”
Madame,
Ha! Women, of course. Really, if you push aside all of the semantics and word gymnastics then you are left with women leading men and women as very powerful beings who can emasculate and “make or break” them.
Their definition of “leader” is not a leader at all. It is a weak follower who is dependent upon being the “leader” which is in direct proportion to how much his wife strokes his fragile ego. She is master of his destiny and will lead him into success or failure by even so much as a look.
Shadowspring,
It would be interesting, if not scary, to do a follow-up on these men, the products of the patriarchal societies. Maybe they’ll learn to drop it and move on. Maybe not.
Yes, i’ve seen the No Longer Quivering site and was totally floored by what I’d read. When I was in the Church, I thought it was just a minority who held those beliefs, and no one ever really brought up the issue of how much it was hurting women, children, or men. I wonder if these men don’t find later in life that their wives and children have deserted them and are flabberghasted as to what went wrong.
“If Warren’s not happy, then no one’s happy.”
BTW, I’m somewhat new to the site. What happened with Rebekah Anast?
I am sorry but that whole workplace thing is not going to make unbelievers attracted to Christ. They will just have more proof that Christians are freaks. I do not understand why people have to make such a ridiculous public spectacle out of something that should be very private based on their own preferences. We should live QUIET lives and that was anything but quiet!
“The Father and Daughter Retreat is a time of learning and fellowship, but it is also a time for celebration. Fathers and daughters can enjoy the world famous Callaway Butterfly Gardens; they will have time to enjoy long, meaningful walks; and, and they will participate in our Father and Daughter Unity Games.”
Yes, the so-called “unity games” where daughters practice shaving their daddy, dressing their daddy, combing their daddy’s hair and basically learning how to groom their daddy and serve his “needs”. They are also blind-folded and are to follow their daddy’s voice in total obedience as he leads his blind-folded daughter around by the mere sound of his voice through an obstacle course.
And, what is this really teaching the daughters? Since when does a father need to be shaved or his hair combed by his daughter unless he was paralyzed from the neck down? And what father would actually enjoy that sort of “game” which is really a guise for training daughters how they can serve their fathers? I am thinking these are great games for narcissists.
Please tell me you are kidding about the Unity Games.
Gracesong,
And I think the discussion about Rebeka Anast (daughter of the infamous Pearls) and her husband Gabe starts on this thread post #73. It’s my understanding her husband has dragged her out to an Indian reservation in the desert because God has called him Noah-fashion to go out and be even farther removed from normal civilization.
Compare those silly “unity games” to the weekend my 17 y.o. just spent with my husband. They went away for a father-daughter weekend and went snow tubing with some of the church youth group who also were there. Hubby also took her to our favorite humungous used bookstore where they browsed for hours and daughter got a bunch of books in the field of her career interest. They sat by a cozy fireplace in the lodge and looked over all the college classes she’s had so far (you can attend community college while you’re a h.s. senior around here), and planned out the next logical steps in her education. They talked about getting in touch with my husband’s professional contacts who may be able to give her a good job while she’s in college. So they got home an hour ago, and daughter is so excited about her future, field of study, college, and beyond. I’d ask them if shaving was involved in their weekend, but they’d probably think I was crazy.
I’ve seen the “bringing home Rebecca” story. As an employee, I cannot imagine having a group of people invade my office and disrupt my work to “liberate” a co-worker. Did Rebecca give notice to her supervisor, or did she just walk in and say “I quit?” Rude and unprofessional are the words that come to mind. This also puts a burden on the other employees who now have to (perhaps unexpectedly) pick up the slack.
It was Rebecca’s last day of work. She was going to leave anyway, but they decided to turn it into a show. Still very rude, if you ask me. It’s not like she had been held captive or anything, she was blessed to have a job, for goodness sakes!
The way the blog was first written, it was hard to know what had happened, but the bloggers have changed some wording and added information.
I am guessing that it was probably her last day of work. With the patriocentric high view of top-down authority surely they cleared their little party with her boss?
But I think it ugly and in-your-face. They basically insulted everyone else there as being slaves- with no prince charming to come and rescue them, the losers. They even posted a picture of a pregnant co-worker who wishes she could be a stay-at-home mom. STBU, co-worker! What else could they possibly mean by that picture and caption?
Hey, who out there lives near the Callaway Gardens? Wouldn’t it be fantastic to send in a mole to record all the shaving and blind-folded “follow my voice and not your own” activities?
I do worry about the rare girl that makes the error of showing up in pants for the outdoor Unity Games, especially after the pointed directive that MOST girls wear dresses for their outside indoctrination activities.
Can you imagine attending a picnic in a dress, not to mention running around blind-folded in a long prairie skirt? (Somehow I’m reminded of polygamists requiring their daughters to swim in prairie-dress garb, despite the risk of drowning.) How about the daughters shave their daddys while blindfolded, maybe using those Victorian-era open blades?
Something else about that Father-Daughter advertisement– They are careful to describe the rooms as having two double beds plus a “dressing room for changing.” Does this hotel really have “dressing rooms?” Or are we talking bathrooms? Perhaps they invested in dressing rooms instead of indoor plumbing, and guests use outhouses out back? Or more likely, the very mention of bathrooms is unladylike, especially if you’re a patrio high-tea stay-at-home type-of daughter? Just weird.
BTW, sorry I’ve not been around for a while. But like the good college-educated Christian feminist that I am, I did my homework and read every post I’d missed. You guys continually rock.
Is it just me, or are there too many “dramatic” photo opportunities that Doug is taking? Mainly of himself.
It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
Similar to when I hear Coca Cola and McDonalds are supporting “anti obesity campaigns”. Its a publicity opportunity whilst simultaneously adding to the problem.
Light, your husband’s relationship with your daughter sounds like how our family functions. Everything is more organic, not so contrived and controlled.
I noticed an interesting new trend…it seems that the number of independent patriocentric conferences is on the rise. There was the recent Sufficiency of Scripture conference and the upcoming Family Economics Conference and the Love the Church Conference. That is just off the top of my head. But the NCFIC seems to be coming up with one venue after another to promote their agenda. Is this because they aren’t as welcome in homeschooling conferences as they used to be?
I also noticed that much of the rhetoric is blending the ecclesiocentric agenda with the patriocentric agenda with lots of emphasis on elders etc. Finding it all curious….
“How about the daughters shave their daddys while blindfolded, maybe using those Victorian-era open blades?”
Debbie,
LOL! Now, that would be an interesting “unity” game.
“Something else about that Father-Daughter advertisement– They are careful to describe the rooms as having two double beds plus a “dressing room for changing.” Does this hotel really have “dressing rooms?” Or are we talking bathrooms? ”
Hmmmm….this is an aspect I never thought of. I don’t know exactly how to frame my concerns about this aspect, especially considering the whole Father/Daughter emphasis and “wooing” that goes on during this conference.
But, I don’t think there is a “dressing room”. I do think it is a bathroom but they just have to make everything sound so Victorian and fancy.
Andrea wrote,
“Similar to when I hear Coca Cola and McDonalds are supporting “anti obesity campaigns”. Its a publicity opportunity whilst simultaneously adding to the problem.”
Exactly. They’re doing a good deed, but by publicizing it, they also make themselves look good in the public eye, and are rewarded with more business at the same time.
Thus their good deed loses value as a good deed, because it loses the quality of altruism.
Now, that may be OK for corporations, but Jesus says that it’s NOT OK when it comes to our personal acts of charity:
Mat 6:2 Therefore when thou doest [thine] alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Mat 6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
I hope so! The rest of the home schooling movement needs to distance ourselves from these crazies if there is to be home schooling in the future.
The only reason I am bothering to speak out against patriocentricity is for the sake my possible grandchildren. I want the joy of home school freedom to be available to them as it was for my own children.
Otherwise, I am very much a live and let live kind of gal. If you want to go off and screw up your own life, well the Constitution gives you that right. But if you are going to go act crazy disguised as me, then I have to take a stand.
As a Christian who also home schools, these patrios are damaging my reputation in the community! As I read somewhere recently, “Hey, Vision Forum, get off of my cloud!”
Here is a quote from the above link but you will see that Doug Phillips states that each of these games was designed to teach these girls about a different aspect of their relationship with their father (Blech):
“Whether or not this is true, more questionable aspects of practicing being helpmeets abound. As one of the Botkins’ characters in So Much More suggests, it can mean fetching a father’s slippers for him in order to free the father up for weightier dominion tasks in reclaiming the world for Christ.
Anna Sofia has served thus herself, as her father explains in an appendix interview included in So Much More so it might contain some proper male authority to address fathers. One day, while father Botkin was entertaining a “very important political leader,” he called to his daughter. Anna Sofia, then five or six, came into the room to untie and remove her father’s shoes, and she then asked the guest if she could untie his shoes as well. Years later, Geoffrey Botkin says, the politician brought the evening up, telling Botkin, “‘You know when I decided we should have more children? It was that night your sweet little daughter helped me with my shoes.’ One simple act of hospitality had eternal consequences.”
The extent to which Botkin views his daughters as his ambassadors, or extensions of himself, is perplexingly hinted at when both he and Doug Phillips slip during the conference and refer to So Much More as Geoffrey Botkin’s book. This could seem either an indication of his daughters’ total identification with their father, or else, perhaps, indication of the heavy paternal hand guiding the virtuous daughters’ movement—as present in the writing of the book as it feels in every frame of the film and every still photograph taken of the two sisters.
Such lessons are repeated wide-scale at the father-daughter retreats, where daughters are given object lessons alongside the sermons through a series of ideological games, including a blindfolded obstacle course, where chains of blinded daughters were guided solely by relying on their fathers’ verbal commands; contests for fathers “wooing and winning the hearts of their daughters”; and intimacy-building “unity games” that teach daughters to serve their fathers by shaving their faces, grooming their hair, and knotting their shoes and ties. As three of Phillips’s young daughters, Jubilee, Liberty, and Faith, explained on a video posted on Vision Forum’s Web site, “Each of the games was designed to teach us a principle about our relationship with our fathers.”
Or as Doug Phillips explained to the fathers in attendance, he who “tells the story controls the culture,” and storytelling—setting up the basic architecture of your children’s worldview—is “one of the most significant patriarchal duties that God gives us.” So, he tells fathers, it’s imperative to start teaching your daughter now all “the stories she needs to know” because—in an alarming revelation about the young marriages patriarchs support—the nine-year-old before you now may, in six years’ time, be not just older, but married as well.
It’s a short window of opportunity for a father to guide his daughter where he wants her to go, and a short time for him to experience what Phillips calls “the greatest privilege of the ages: to have someone look at you and say, ‘Father, I love you. Father, shepherd me.’ Father, father. The very words we call our God and savior. God has given you fathers the opportunity to look at these girls and say, ‘You are mine. You are mine.’””
Here is a blog with firsthand descriptions about the Father/Daughter retreat.
“First 8 fathers serenaded their daughters a cappella, then there was a contest of how daughters could help their fathers ‘get ready for work’, by combing his hair, tying his tie, putting on his shoes, and the best part… ‘shaving’ him with shaving cream and a plastic knife.”
“Daddy and I got to bed late but stayed up talking about things like marriage, children, and… fishing. ”
“Anna Sofia has served thus herself, as her father explains in an appendix interview included in So Much More so it might contain some proper male authority to address fathers. One day, while father Botkin was entertaining a “very important political leader,” he called to his daughter. Anna Sofia, then five or six, came into the room to untie and remove her father’s shoes, and she then asked the guest if she could untie his shoes as well. Years later, Geoffrey Botkin says, the politician brought the evening up, telling Botkin, “‘You know when I decided we should have more children? It was that night your sweet little daughter helped me with my shoes.’ One simple act of hospitality had eternal consequences.””
I am trying to understand how a girl untying and removing one’s shoes causes them to have more children?
Is that the same as a person getting a dog because they see the neighbor’s dog fetching their newspaper every morning?
And do Botkin’s boys untie and remove the shoes of his guests or is this just a female’s job? If it is only a female’s job, why is it only a female’s job?
What picture does this give about their views concerning women?
Thatmom said: “I noticed an interesting new trend…it seems that the number of independent patriocentric conferences is on the rise. There was the recent Sufficiency of Scripture conference and the upcoming Family Economics Conference and the Love the Church Conference. That is just off the top of my head. But the NCFIC seems to be coming up with one venue after another to promote their agenda. Is this because they aren’t as welcome in homeschooling conferences as they used to be?”
Yes, I imagine (and hope) that this is the case. I also believe that patrio homeschool conferences are on the rise because currently it’s the only way for all those adult stay-at-home daughters out there to meet an appropriate head-ship. A target-rich environment, if you will.
I know a family that has little means but lately seems to be scrapping together enough money to send their grown daughters to many of these events. Other than attending church or the grocery store (always accompanied by a parent, of course), these gals had rarely left their four walls before. Suddenly they’re hitting the conference circuit, ala Vision Forum.
Hey, if it worked for Josh Duggar! He spotted his bride across the room at a conference, thought she looked Gothard and Duggar-worthy, and got his daddy to contact her daddy… And BOOM! A wedding and a new baby before you could say ATI.
I’m sure my acquaintances consider the financial sacrifice of sending their daughters to these conferences as a wise financial investment. I see desperation, with a need to prove that their methods work as advertised.
At least the girls are getting a chance to escape their heavy housework, childcare duties, and heat of the kitchen for a few days now and then. But I bet the daughters feel the heat to catch the eye of a worthy young man ready to dominate–and phone her daddy asking for permission to get that betrothal process moving, ASAP.
My niece from the patrio side was sent to Emmanuel College in Iowa, ostensibly to find a man.
She had some sort of mental breakdown requiring hospitalization (No details for me as I don’t have the required security clearance!)her senior year. I was told it was the pressure of finals that proved too much, but I wondered if it was not the pressure of and having to return home single, no prospects in sight, that really pushed her over the edge.
Not to worry, though. Daddy did find a nice patrio man for her eventually.
Corrie said: “But, I don’t think there is a “dressing room”. I do think it is a bathroom but they just have to make everything sound so Victorian and fancy.”
Oh, yes, I agree Corrie. At least I hope that’s the case! However, if the patrios were really trying to live an accurate life of their ante-bellum fantasies, they would use outhouses. Maybe they could call them “privies” or something.
Just another inconvenient fact to overlook in their Confederate obsession. That, and well, slavery.
“Something else about that Father-Daughter advertisement– They are careful to describe the rooms as having two double beds plus a “dressing room for changing.” Does this hotel really have “dressing rooms?” Or are we talking bathrooms? ”
I’ve been in a number of hotels that have a short hallway between the main room and the bathroom, usually with the closet on one side and a counter and mirrored wall on the other, and with doors between the main room and the bathroom. It’s usually billed as a “dressing room”.
Usually we found them in the lower-end, older places. So, for me at least, this wouldn’t be a selling point.
Light, your husband’s relationship with your daughter sounds like how our family functions. Everything is more organic, not so contrived and controlled.
Organic is the perfect descriptor, Karen. I have often likened my (egalitarian) marriage to “organic.” In an organic family relationship, people play to their God-given strengths, and are not trying to contort themselves to fit into man-made boxes.
The picture depicts the burning of a town near my home in PA by Confederate soldiers in the summer of 1864.
“The burning of Chambersburg was accomplished by General John A. McCausland under order of General Jubal A. Early who commanded him to capture the town, levy a tribute upon it of $100,000.00 in gold or $500,000.00 in U.S. currency and in default of the payment to burn the town.
The burning began at 8 a.m. before many were aware of the invasion and was completed by 11:OO a.m., leaving parts of 11 squares of Chambersburg in flames. 2,000 people were made homeless and 537 buildings burned with a value of real estate of $713,294.34. After the fire, rebuilding began at once, resulting in a uniform streetscape still to be seen in the greater part of the burned area.”
Real “Noble War”, that – burning a town to the ground because the citizens refused to capitulate to an extortion attempt.
“The house of Mr. James Watson, an old and feeble man of over eighty, was entered, and because his wife earnestly remonstrated against the burning, they fired the room, hurled her into it and locked the door on the outside. Her daughters rescued her by bursting in the door before her clothing took fire. Mr. Jacob Wolf kill, a very old citizen, and prostrated by sickness so that he was utterly unable to be out of bed, plead in vain to be spared a horrible death in the flames of his own house; but they fired the building. Through the superhuman efforts of some friends he was carried away safely. Mrs. Lindsay, a very feeble lady of nearly eighty, fainted when they fired her house, and was left to be devoured in the flames: but fortunately a relative reached the house in time, and lifting her in a buggy, pulled her away while the flames were kissing each other over their heads on the street.”
I just saw this quote on Annie C’s sidebar (at her blog) and thought it was good:
“True manliness differs also from the false in its attitude to woman. Its knightly feeling makes it wish to defend her rights, to maintain her claims, to be her protector and advocate. False manliness wishes to show its superiority by treating women as inferiors. It flatters them, but it does not respect them. It fears their competition on equal levels, and wishes to keep them confined, not within walls, as in the Mohammedan regions, but behind the more subtle barriers of opinion, prejudice, and supposed feminine aptitudes. True manliness holds out the hand to woman, and says, ” Do whatever you are able to do; whatever God meant you to do. Neither you nor I can tell what that is till all artificial barriers are removed, and you have full opportunity to try.”
And then there is always “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and the many other stories of what it was like to be a slave on a Southern plantation. Yes, yes, I have heard many protestations about how nice slave owners were to their slaves in spite of all the firsthand accounts of the horrible abuse they suffered at their “master’s” hands. But, I am of the opinion that it isn’t “nice” to think so highly of one’s self and so poorly of another. If you don’t want to be owned like property then it is not “nice” to own another human being like property.
The only time I would buy a slave was in order to set them free. That would have been the “nice” thing to do. Anything else is just semantics.
And let us not forget that Lady Lydia likes to wax eloquent about slave families living the dreamy patriocentric lifestyle where the “wife” stayed in her cabin and cooked dinner and took care of the kids while her “husband” was out in the fields.
“Hey, if it worked for Josh Duggar! He spotted his bride across the room at a conference, thought she looked Gothard and Duggar-worthy, and got his daddy to contact her daddy… And BOOM! A wedding and a new baby before you could say ATI.”
LOL!
Well, speaking of the Duggars…I wonder how Doug Phillips can rant on and on about the “world” being child-haters and persecuting those that have big families when the “world” is so gung-ho about the Duggars!
They have been on the morning shows and they are ALWAYS positive towards the Duggars. And People Magazine just did an article on them and that was also VERY positive towards the Duggars.
It seems that this is just more proof of the fear-mongering that the patrios use to keep their flocks in line. Oh, and don’t forget that true Christian homeschoolers want to do way with the public school systems AND the child protective agencies.
In fact, I am a sort of celebrity because of the amount of children I have. Oh, people might say things behind my back (I don’t know) but to my face they are always amazed that I have 10 children and they think I am some sort of rock star or something because of having so many children. Too bad that doesn’t pay off for me like it has for the Duggars. I could use a second washer and dryer!
“True manliness holds out the hand to woman, and says, ”Do whatever you are able to do; whatever God meant you to do. Neither you nor I can tell what that is till all artificial barriers are removed, and you have full opportunity to try.””
- James Freeman Clarke, 1886
Thanks to AnnieC for finding this and to Corrie for sharing it here. This is inspiring to me. “Whatever you are able to do; whatever God meant you to do.” Now THAT’S a real man.
Go into any bookstore and you can find first-hand accounts of what it was really like to be a slave. If you’re squeamish you can start with A Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglas and American Slave.
Y’all have to look at this. Not only do they tell the girls what to wear, but the dads too. (They really liked that Dockers ad!)
And they will have daughters aged 4 to 30?? That is a HUGE age range to plan activities for. How discouraging must it be to go to this with your dad when you’re 27, and you’re playing games alongside 8-year-olds.
The other thing I found very interesting is the bios of the Botkin girls. Previously they’ve been presented based on their book, their gifts, etc. These bios are all about how they are serving their father. It becomes, as Alice said, “Curiouser and curiouser.”
I was at the library tonight, and I was looking at a Christian book, reading the stuff on the back, and this quote caught my eye:
“Men have so horribly abused their power over women in the past that to wives, of all people, equality is in danger of appearing as an ideal…. Have as much equality as you please–the more the better–in our marriage laws: but at some level consent to inequality, nay delight in inequality is an *erotic* necessity.” C.S. Lewis (1943) “Present Concerns”
He’s basically talking about how he doesn’t see equality as something that can truly exist, because we intrinsically need something to bow down to, or to be bowed down to ourselves. Within marriage, he says that we cannot always *be* equals, because the relationship is not just a friendship. Anyway, I’ll have to re-read the essay again and try to glean more from it. The image I got was Philippians, and how we should learn to humble ourselves just as Jesus did.
Thanks, Corrie! It’s good to be back. You guys are like family, seriously.
Actually, I’ve been away since my husband went all patrio on me last November. Friends had mailed him some Doug Phillips literature about how he could be master of his universe, how he should be worshipped like a diety, how he deserved such treatment because of his gender. This appealed to him.
Hubby sold our home, quit his job, and bought an abandoned shack in central Montana, not far from the Unabomber’s old place.
We have no electricity or plumbing, so no internet for me to communicate with you ladies. Each morning I haul water from the muddy creek bed across the valley for us to drink. (I carry an ax to smash through several inches of ice, but at least there’s water underneath– not dry, like the coming summer months.) I gather prairie muffins deposited by our milk cow, Betsy, to heat our house.
I make candles to illuminate our two-room shack, my husband allotting me use of a single taper to knit dozens of colorful socks on these winter evenings. (Most of the socks go to hubby, but I’m supposed to start a home-business to save for his wish-list: A manly sword and a Doug Phillips-y Fedora.)
Yesterday the hunger pains hit hubby so hard that he slaughtered Betsy. Since he needed a large space to slice and dress our poor old girl, I was allowed to leave our kitchen for a couple of hours.
I took the opportunity to sneak away, hitching a ride to a neighbor’s house. I used their dial-up computer to reach out to you all. I may need some help escaping farther down the dirt road–further weeks down the road.
My husband has plans to kidnap our daughters from their jobs and universities soon, and is making progress in accumulating a posse. He’s having less success convincing our grown sons to return home to further his vision–once he figures out what that vision is, anyway.
KIDDING! I’m doing great, still happily married (nearly 30 years) to a guy who respects and honors me, and shares my wicked sense of humor. We still have a house, job, and several normal, independent, grown kids.
It was my husband’s idea, in fact, to have some fun and write this tall tale. He gets it; he gets us. I am a lucky gal, for sure.
And I wasn’t joking about the “like family” comment, either.
“God’s Word speaks volumes to the relationship between fathers and daughters: His most sacred duty is her protection and preservation from childhood to virtuous womanhood…”
Really? I’m having a hard time finding these “volumes” of scripture that supposedly talk about the Godly father-daughter relationship. There’s a few stories in there but all the ones I can think of are terribly negative. David, whose daughter, Tamar, was raped by her brother; Jepthah who made a rash vow and ended up sacrificing his daughter; Jacob, whose daughter, Dinah, was also raped by a local prince; Mordecai, who let his “daughter” be given into a king’s harem; the man in Judges 19 who offered his daughter to the crowd of perverts (who gang-raped her all night); Lot and his daughters…….’nough said. Not a lot of “protection and preservation” going on in those Bible relationships.
Seriously, how can anyone knowledgable in scripture swallow any of those outlandish “scriptural” claims made by that group???
Abby, regarding Lewis, you can get a better idea of what he meant if you read the Perelandra Trilogy. It’s a three volume set, and the matter of equality of the sexes is dealt with splendidly in the last book, “That Hideous Strength”, but unfortunately it wasn’t written as a “stand alone” novel, and you’d need to read the first two to “get” the third one.
Wow! I’ve been away for a few days and the first post in my Google reader was yours, Debbie. You almost had me going there…nice writing, glad you are still safe and sane.
Cynthia–thanks for the suggestion! I’ve actually been waiting for the other two books to come back to my library, because they have That Hideous Strength, but the first two are out right now. I might have to reserve them, though!
“Compulsory schooling is one of the greatest social achievements of our time,” Josef Kraus, head of the German Teachers’ Association.
Wow. Why? Why should society force children to attend public school? This is something that I don’t understand, and it definitely ISN’T democratic.
It’s kind of a cause and effect situation: Forcing all children to attend school with the same curriculum will eventually make them indoctrinated into that society’s “System” and no one will ever question what the government does. Obviously that’s a little extreme, but nonetheless probable. It’s the same with Gotthardites and any other Christian group that makes its own curriculum. And it’s the same with Communist governments. When people are all forced to learn the same information, they will eventually all think the same way, and anyone who doesn’t is a troublemaker!
I added this new Voddie quote this am via the Generation Cedar blog:
“I believe one of the greatest crutches in the church is the nursery. Parents who have neglected to train their children have very little encouragement to do so when there is a place to hide them. The father who should be up in arms by the time he gets home from church because of the embarrassment to which his child subjected him ends up going home with a clear conscience while the nursery worker takes a handful of aspirin.” -Voddie Baucham
If we truly believe that children are part of the body of Christ, isn’t part of our job at church to minister to little ones? And part of that is understanding their developmental stages, what they are capable of, etc. This is just more of the same sort of teaching that comes out of the whole patriocentric mindset…control, power, making the dad look good.
One of my pet peeves is churches that don’t have a nursery. For me, the fact that there was a nursery available for each of my six children meant that I was able to participate at least a little in the worship service. Yes, I had the care of the other children, but it is so very hard to take care of them and a baby at the same time.
Most full time mothers are already with their children 24 hours a day. When faced with another church service with no available help, many reach the conclusion that it is easier to just stay home rather than try to sit with the child or spend the whole service in the foyer. What kind of church is not interested in the spiritual development of the mothers of young children?
I know that theoretically, the father is supposed to be there, but my husband has a job that keeps him away fairly often. Also, our pastor’s wife would be unable to have his help during the service. And I am sure that there are other reasons that more help is needed – not just “incompetence” of parenting methods.
kebbler–the other obvious flaw in that plan is that if the mother gets to go to church and participate while dad watches the little ones and has to go in and out of the service with them, then the dad misses out on a sermon or communion or whatever else might be part of the service if he has to take a child in the hallway to quiet them.
I grew up in a church where we had Sunday school before church, but there was a nursery for very young children DURING the service. Any child over 5 was expected to (and really ought to be able to handle–in any church if need be) stay with their parents during the service. But they wouldn’t really “get” any of it.
Churches NEED to focus on young children and how to reach them, as children coming to Christ before their teens is CRITICAL to future spiritual development. And I’m not talking about a superficial “I believe in God” kind of faith, but a lasting faith that holds on even when they leave their parents’ home.
Voddie Baucham can criticize all he wants, he just doesn’t understand at all what it is really about.
Karen, the more I read that quote the more infuriated I am! Am I to understand that any parent who wants to sit through a church service and put their children in a nursery are horrible parents? And that all nursery workers are secretly miserable? This is just absolutely ridiculous! My children’s teachers in church are absolutely wonderful, they clearly love teaching children about Jesus or just spending time with babies and toddlers while their parents have a time to worship God in community! They MISS my daughter when we go to a different service! They remember their names, they are wonderful Christian people and I wouldn’t trade a single one of them! My daughter even has a teacher that we see regularly in other church services who still remembers her name and I think that is just awesome! But perhaps we are just the exception, in our church of 7,000.
If we truly believe that children are part of the body of Christ, isn’t part of our job at church to minister to little ones? And part of that is understanding their developmental stages, what they are capable of, etc. This is just more of the same sort of teaching that comes out of the whole patriocentric mindset…control, power, making the dad look good.
Exactly!
I don’t want to be in a church where people don’t consider children as valuable members of the congregation, and where they aren’t interested enough in their needs that they are willing to participate or at least facilitate a nursery.
Our last church didn’t have a nursery or Sunday School(not enough children),and I ended up having to sit in the kitchen with our kids, Sunday after Sunday. I finally left, for many reasons, but the lack of interest in the children and the message that we ought to just discipline them more so they weren’t disruptive, was very high on my list of objections.
The father who should be up in arms by the time he gets home from church because of the embarrassment to which his child subjected him ends up going home with a clear conscience while the nursery worker takes a handful of aspirin.
This sentence oozes patriocentricity out of every pore. Oh my… It’s the “my children are there for me, to advance my cause, to bring me honor, polish my ego” mentality. So sad.
We rarely used a nursery as our children were growing up,usually beginning in the pew with the smaller ones and taking them out to walk as necessary. Much of it depended on the child at the time and what was at the root of the disruption they were causing. One of our boys has learning disabilities and there were seasons when he really struggled with self-control even though he was not little. He was also way too disruptive in the nursery when he was little (made a beeline for girls’ hair bows immediately and pulled them out!) so that wasn’t an option.
Now I have come to see the value of a nursery and think it should be an option but not one that everyone has to use. (There are some churches that frown on children in worship and I disagree with that.) If we really consider the developmental stages in a child’s life, we have to realize our littlest ones are not physically wired to sit through a long service, especially one of these highly regulated patrioentric ones with 2 hour sermons etc.. Sure, you can train a child to do it but at what cost? I have seen way too many “rods” sticking out of diaper bags and wooden spoons beating the ground around the a blanket during blanket training time. Why? What is the point? I think Voddie tells us…the father’s glory. (Do you remember the Scott Brown told us that a man’s goal is to bring glory to his earthy father?)
While I think it is good to get children into a regular worship service at a young age, I don’t think it should be the only option and certainly not a situation where a child is physically restrained or beaten in order to have them be there.
I have shared this story before, but we once went to church with a family who believed in thigh and cheek pinching in order to have well behaved children. I used to cringed to see a baby who was just learning to use his little voice at 8 or 9 months of age have his little cheek pinched so hard it left a red mark every time he babbled. He learned to be quiet alright but at what cost? And then one Sunday I looked over at a little one who was about 3 and when our eyes met I winked at him. He smiled at me but his father promptly pinched the little boy’s inner thigh until tears where running down the child’s cheeks. He began to sob without making a sound and I got the message, too. God’s house is not for smiling at older ladies! I was too stunned and intimidated to anything back then but boy oh boy if that were today it would be a different story.
The paradox here is that many patriarchal groups are credobaptist — they don’t even believe that children can be saved until they reach the age of reason, usually as a young adult.
So, what is the point of infants and toddlers having to sit through a two-hour church service?
Karen, I absolutely agree that there is a time to train children to sit through a service–how would we ever be able to attend a wedding or funeral or some other function where we needed to be quiet. They need to learn there are times when they need to sit quietly.
But we should always have an option in CHURCH for children, and children’s behavior in a service does not reflect on their parents as much as the parents would like to believe. If I took my 22 month old into an 11:30 church service without giving him lunch and expected him to sit quietly and not whine, well, I’m just being stupid. He needs to eat lunch at 11 or 12, and takes a nap soon after! He’d be hungry and tired, which would make him cranky–and sitting still? Forgetaboutit. He won’t sit still for five minutes at home, I’m not going to be able to get him to sit still AND be quiet in a church! It’s honestly laughable that we should expect things of children that are just not developmentally expected.
Besides that, abusing your children for behaving exactly as children naturally do, that just hurts my heart.
I honestly don’t get the whole “Children are there to honor their fathers” thing. Yes, we ought to honor our parents, but is this something that has to come down from the parents, like “HONOR ME, OR ELSE” or shouldn’t it be “I love you, Dad (or Mom), so I know it is right to honor you.” Dishonorable parents really don’t deserve any honor from their children, and I don’t think that commandment was ever meant for children to be abused into some sort of sick grovelling obedience. I also don’t think that “bringing honor” to your parents is something that children should be expected to do, I think that this, also is subjective. Children (even as adults) should be loved IN SPITE of any dishonorable thing they might do. I’m not seeing this in the Patrio world. We don’t live in the Old Testament, why would we want to bring that kind of culture to America?
emr, certainly not! He’s tying a heavy load on the backs of over-worked young parents, but he wouldn’t lift a finger to help them! And he probably has little idea of what it is really like, he’s the preacher!
“If we really consider the developmental stages in a child’s life, we have to realize our littlest ones are not physically wired to sit through a long service, especially one of these highly regulated patrioentric ones with 2 hour sermons etc.. ”
Well said, Thatmom. I actually am concerned, not impressed, when I see a very young child sitting still as a church mouse in church. It’s not natural for them–God made most of ‘em squirmy. If they’re not, usually something’s not right.
“The father who should be up in arms by the time he gets home from church because of the embarrassment to which his child subjected him ends up going home with a clear conscience while the nursery worker takes a handful of aspirin.”
Oh, Voddie Voddie Voddie. Why should the father be the one “up in arms”? That makes it sound like he is innocent of the problem. So the mom’s solely to blame, I guess? Bad kid behavior = mom’s fault. Good kid behavior = glorified father.
BTW, why do patrios rarely use the word DAD? They almost always go for the more exalted FATHER.
At my in-laws church in Denver they’ve walled off one side of the nave with soundproof glass. So that families with little children can sit in there, listen to the mass over a speaker, watch and participate, while no one else has to listen to their children crying. My MIL is a Eucharistic minister, it was her job the day we went to bring the host over to that section. It certainly seemed to be a workable system, just an expensive one.
Cynthia, there are some patriarchal groups that practice paedocommunion as well as paedobaptism.
I understand that it’s necessary for small children to be able to sit quietly when necessary, but I wonder how much they are learning. (Of course it’s a point of pride that nothing in the service is “dumbed down” to be accessible from a child’s viewpoint.) Some kids are going to pick up on the message and have some level of understanding. Some kids, I fear, are just going to learn that church is *really, really* boring.
Re: # 231
I’ve been on both sides of this too. But eventually realized, like a lot of things, it isn’t necessarily an “either/or” decision. There are many variables and it comes down to using common sense.
Thatmom posted, “And then one Sunday I looked over at a little one who was about 3 and when our eyes met I winked at him. He smiled at me but his father promptly pinched the little boy’s inner thigh until tears where running down the child’s cheeks. He began to sob without making a sound and I got the message, too. God’s house is not for smiling at older ladies! I was too stunned and intimidated to anything back then but boy oh boy if that were today it would be a different story.”
Oh, my. My breath caught a bit in my throat just reading that. How incredibly heartbreaking. Sobbing silently. For smiling. I know these people believe that they are “right”, even “oh-so-right”, but what kind of monsters??????
“while the nursery worker takes a handful of aspirin.” -Voddie Baucham
Wow – what stuns me about this is his assumption of what nursery workers feel about serving in the nursery. I have volunteered in the nursery for YEARS, taking care of ages from newborn to 4 year olds. Never once have I felt the need to take an aspirin or looked at nursery duty with the type of disdain that Voddie does. Sure, there are occasionally children that act up, but my experience has been that it’s a BLESSING to care for those children.
millenniumwoman Said: “Sure, you can train a child to do it but at what cost? I have seen way too many “rods” sticking out of diaper bags and wooden spoons beating the ground around the a blanket during blanket training time. Why? What is the point? ”
Wow, your post hit a nerve. Every time I visit my daughter and attend her church I see this and it makes me ill. This is a church that had classes on GKGW and has been influenced by the teachings of Douglas Wilson, Ted Tripp, Fugate and some others. During the service it is common to see some of the fathers frequently taking their small children out of the service and I figured they were just taking them to the bathroom. Then I found out these children (mostly they are between ages 12mos to 5yrs) are being taken out and spanked for not obeying. Not obeying means they are told to stop moving a leg, keep still, not lean against the parent, sing when told to or stand up when told to and are being defiant which means they not instantly obeying with a cheerful attitude. These children are sitting right in front of me and I have never seen any of them disruptive in any way. They are well behaved, nice children so what I am seeing makes no sense to me. Some of these parents carry whackers in their pockets or purses. This is really offensive to me.
On one Sunday I watched the father sitting ahead of me take his little daughter (about 3yrs old) out several times and for the life of me I couldn’t figure out why, I mean she was quietly sitting there. After the third time I got up to go to the bathroom and saw her taken into the pastors office. As I walked past the office I could hear her being spanked and crying. A few minutes I came back past the office and she was still being spanked and crying. At this point I opened the door to the outer office, looked into the inner office and saw the child on the floor crying with both parents lecturing her about obeying. I was so upset, if they had still been spanking her I think I would have opened the office door and said something, but since they had stopped I went back into the church service.
After the service I had the opportunity to speak with the pastor in his office, and there in his office laying on a table was wooden paddle with holes in it. I told him that I was concerned for the children I had seen taken out to be spanked, concerned that they would view God as punitive, or view church as the place where they got spanked and said I felt what I had seen was excessive. He wanted to know if I had ever taken mine out of a service to be spanked, my answer was no, it had never been necessary. After the church service I have heard some of the moms say how frustrated they are because it seems to them that all they do is swat their children all day. It all makes me feel so sad.
When I spoke to the pastor of my daughter’s church, I said that the parents taking the children out to be spanked was more distracting than anything any child did. It is really distracting. I also said that if at my age I have difficulty sitting still in a church service then why should children be expected to sit still. Just thinking of that paddle being used on my grandchildren or any child still horrifies me. I find myself on Sundays in church thinking about those children and praying for them. My daughter and I are both members of the same denomination so it was a shock to see that happen in her church when nothing like that ever happens in the church I attend.
This occurred a few years back and I find it still appalling and offensive because it is still happening. These are all good parents who love their children, do really neat things with them and cherish them, hopefully their children will feel that even with the excessive spanking being done to them in the name of “godly discipline”.
At my in-laws church in Denver they’ve walled off one side of the nave with soundproof glass. So that families with little children can sit in there, listen to the mass over a speaker, watch and participate, while no one else has to listen to their children crying.
I’ve seen that too. They usually have toys to entertain little ones in there too.
emr Says: “Some kids are going to pick up on the message and have some level of understanding. Some kids, I fear, are just going to learn that church is *really, really* boring”
So true. When my oldest grandchild was 5yrs old, I was amazed that he could remember much of a sermon that we had heard that morning and that the two of us could sit out on the porch swing and discuss it. I have never felt that his sister who is a year younger than him gets it in the same way he still does.
Re. post 234. I agree with you.
You can’t force a child to honor you. You can beat a child into fearing you, and you can teach a child to obey out of fear for negative consequences, but is that what we want?
I don’t want my children to fear me, although they will naturally know that some actions will bring consequences, but I want them to obey out of trust and love, and a desire to please me, not fear.
I learned early enough to obey out of fear, and to hide disobedience (lie) out of fear too. I always felt burdened and bad, but the fear of punishment kept me in the vicious cycle.
I agree with you that children need to learn to sit still, but depending on their age and their personalities, they will be able to sit more or less still, and for longer. I wouldn’t expect my 6 yo and 4 yo to sit still through a two hour sermon, unless they had just eaten and were taking a nice, long nap! My 2 year old.. you can forget about that!
Our church growing up was a small house church. We children were expected to sit with some grownup during the first part of the service which included singing, some prayers, and communion. After that came the awaited “the children may now go to their classes”. Knowing when it will be over, and the fact that we participated in most of what was going on (singing), made it a lot easier for us to do.
Wow. Why? Why should society force children to attend public school? This is something that I don’t understand, and it definitely ISN’T democratic.
Children are not forced to attend public school, they are required to attend school from the age of 6 to 16. There are good Christian schools and other schools (Waldorf and Montessori come to mind), that are good alternatives for parents who don’t want their children to attend public school.
It’s kind of a cause and effect situation: Forcing all children to attend school with the same curriculum will eventually make them indoctrinated into that society’s “System” and no one will ever question what the government does. Obviously that’s a little extreme, but nonetheless probable. It’s the same with Gotthardites and any other Christian group that makes its own curriculum. And it’s the same with Communist governments. When people are all forced to learn the same information, they will eventually all think the same way, and anyone who doesn’t is a troublemaker!
You are right about people conforming. This is true. But the way I know Germans (I live here), they aren’t conformists who don’t ask questions. They are definitely law-abiding and like uniformity, like nice neat houses with perfect gardens, but at the same time, children don’t wear an uniform to school (like British children do), and are respected as individuals. At least, that’s what we have found in our first two years of Kindergarten (which is not yet school)
I’m not so afraid of indoctrination as I am of losing freedoms and of the government taking over our parental responsibility.
I don’t agree with the family fleeing Germany and seeking asylum in the US on the grounds of persecution, because all parents in Germany know that by the age of six their children must go to school, by law, so if they break the law, they can expect the government to come down on them. There are years to make plans, and there is a way to leave the country if you don’t want to send your children to school. We live in Germany and would like to leave, but if we can’t leave before our eldest has to enter public school, he’ll just have to go.
I see good reasons to have compulsory education, or, at least, that parents must show proof that their children are receiving a good education. There are parents who couldn’t care less and would not bother getting their children to school if there were no consequences.
All things considered, Germany is a country where we still enjoy a lot of freedom, and there is a lot of support for families. Many people have it much worse around the world.
Should Germany take into consideration parental right to (responsibly) choose whether to send their children to school or not? I think so. As I said, I’m more worried about freedom and personal responsibility being taken away in the name of protecting minorities, than I am of indoctrination.
“The other thing I found very interesting is the bios of the Botkin girls. Previously they’ve been presented based on their book, their gifts, etc. These bios are all about how they are serving their father. It becomes, as Alice said, “Curiouser and curiouser.”
emr,
I wonder what those patrio websites and bios will look like 50 years from now? Probably not so bragadocious – when the daughters are pushing their fathers in wheelchairs, helping them bathe and feeding them with a spoon.
“He smiled at me but his father promptly pinched the little boy’s inner thigh until tears where running down the child’s cheeks. He began to sob without making a sound and I got the message, too. God’s house is not for smiling at older ladies! I was too stunned and”
This and Mary’s similar comments just left me speechless for a while…Can they really believe this is what Jesus would do? Would they treat the child this way if they could see Jesus physically standing right there watching? It’s as though their Bibles have Col. 3:21 and all references to mercy, grace and understanding removed. I realize these are young parents – trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here – maybe they are simply THAT ignorant of child development…but this is hard to take. Years ago I spent about 1 1/2 years attending a patrio type church, but thankfully never witnessed or suspected anyone of treating/abusing their children in this way.
If the creation order is that important and clearly reveals who ought to rule over whom, then why is it that humans were created last?
And why did God give dominion over the animals to the male AND female together?
I think God meant that humankind has dominion over the animals, and are meant to work together.
The article would have annoyed me a year or so ago. Now I just find it amusing how they can fail to see, over and over and over again, that it’s not Christ like to seek to rule over others. They keep missing it.
My response:
I can see where this can be confusing. However, you must look at it from God’s view. When a man and women are married, they become one flesh. This oneness is much greater than sex, it is the intertwining of two lives into one life together. However, there are still two distinct individuals that can be seen. So often times God recognizes the two, and sometimes he recognizes the one.
But in the relationship, God has cleared set the man over the women. However this does not mean that she does not have a role in subjecting creation. I often think of one of my favorite movies, “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”, where the mother tells the daughter that her father is the head of the house, but that she is the neck, and she can turn the head to look in different directions to see different things. When I saw this, I thought to myself how true her words are. A good wife does herself credit and her family credit when she is able to turn her head’s eyes onto something that needs attention, which he must focus on. Needless to say, men need women to help us focus our eyes to where they should be. However, I will not go on about how women need men, for the focus on Genesis was that Adam was alone in the Garden, and God saw that this was not good, so he created women out of man for her to be his help mate. God’s statement it two fold, it sets up creation order, while at the same time clearly defines a women’s noble purpose.
Sheesh, those people should never come to our church or they’ll have a nervous break-down. In our chuch, it’s commonly expected that cute babies will distract everyone within 3 pews of them. Our pastor often “rebukes” (jokingly) from the pulpit all the folks who are smiling at a baby instead of listening to him. He’s been known to laugh and raise his voice to be heard over a screaming child being drug out of the sanctuary. Our church is noisy, distracting, and so full of love that you can feel it. We laugh at the kid who yells “amen!” or loudly answers the preacher when he asks a rhetorical question (some funny stories there!).
My heart goes out to that poor little boy who can’t even smile at church. I wonder how long he sticks around church when he’s older….
But in the relationship, God has cleared set the man over the women.
Check your creation account again. Nowhere does God command the man to rule over or lead the woman. Why don’t you give me the verse in Genesis where God tells the man he is OVER the woman? *crickets* … *crickets* … *crickets*
I often think of one of my favorite movies, “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”, where the mother tells the daughter that her father is the head of the house, but that she is the neck, and she can turn the head to look in different directions to see different things.
Actually, the mother in that movie says, “…and she can turn the neck ANY WAY SHE WANTS.” Which is, quite frankly, sad. But true, in far too many marriages. And it’s manipulation, pure and simple. And that’s the problem with the whole patrio movement, Michael, because women end up manipulating their husbands instead of dealing with them directly, since that can be seen as being “unsubmissive.”
it sets up creation order, while at the same time clearly defines a women’s noble purpose. Woman’s purpose is clearly laid out in scripture. She is man’s ezer. I suggest you do a word study on ezer. It is used 22 times in the OT, 21 times to refer to God as our ezer. It means rescuer, ally, helper … but does not connote subordination at all. God clearly tells us woman’s purpose in Genesis. It is to rule over the earth WITH the man. Not as his junior assistant, but right alongside him.
Mcneil: “But in the relationship, God has cleared set the man over the women.”
Clear to you and to all the men who conveniently ignore the words of Jesus Christ Himself, the Word of Life. But not clear if you take the WHOLE counsel of scripture and not just a few apparently male favoring ones.
Micheal, you search the scriptures because you think in them you have dominion(life). But those scriptures speak of Jesus Christ and bear witness of Him. But you refuse to go to Him that you may have life (and a happy marriage) (John 5:39 & 40)
Stop pushing your false doctrine down the throats of women. It’s bitter water and poisons the life out of us.
Come back when you have actually met and learned from Him who gives of Himself and Living water freely. Then you might have something to say to us. Otherwise, all you bring is death.
(P.S. Not saying you aren’t saved, but am saying you deeply misunderstand what being saved is all about. It’t NOT all about you being the boss and having your way. That’s the world’s system. Reject that worldly system so you can actually learn Life from God.)
Sorry ladies, I get so sick of men blabbing on about their authority.
Michael #249
The very fact that men and women are complementary means that they MUST be equal. How can the husband be “over” (have authority over) the wife if it is established that she has a unique contribution? How can the wife have authority over the husband when he has a different perspective and unique contribution? For how can the brain say it is better than the lungs? Or the blood has authority over the skin, when neither can function without the other?
No, that quote from Big Fat Greek Wedding is exactly what is all wrong.
You altered the quote slightly, so here it is word for word:
“The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants.”
This quote is about manipulation. It shows how little respect Maria has for Gus. It is not about helping him see a different perspective, it is about making him do what she wants him to do.
I caught Reb Bradley on Family Life Today last week talking about parents who are “standard bearers” vs. those who have their children’s hearts. Good to hear him get some airtime talking about this problem, which he sees as pervasive in the homeschooling world. This is the first episode of 3, for anyone who wants to listen. http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/FamilyLife_Today/archives.asp?bcd=2010-1-27
A visiting family’s little boy remarked, “Nobody coughs in that church” after sitting through a two hour service in our old church. Yet, parents hauled kids out of the service all the time and they were always coming back sodden faced and dry heaving.
I watched a very angry looking guest pastor haul off and repeatedly hit his two year old and lecture her on obedience and his authority for stepping back and forth from foot to foot and finally tugging on his jacket saying she had to go pee. Her mother had not come with them.
The man was busy talking theology with another “esteemed Man of God”. This happened after the service in the back foyer. I was standing with him and two other persons and the child was behaving no differently than anyone who waited too long to go pee.
I’m embarrassed to say I didn’t say anything. I’ve mentioned to a few of these type of men since, online about their inappropriate behaviour and they have always revealed their crazy character by going ballistic.
I’ve seen a lot of very, very mean people in reformed circles – controlling to the point of sheer stupidity. We were taught by pastors to “Beat your child until he breaks” and “close your windows so the neighbours don’t call social services on you when your kid is screaming.” The pastor who told us this had a daughter run away from home.
I spanked for all kinds of stupid reasons too, until one day I thought this is insane, I’m not doing this madness anymore. Things worked better by anticipating the kids’ needs and capabilities and working with that. I hate that we were ever caught up in that thinking.
What did the pastor say when you pointed out how you felt about the discipline? And what did he say when you pointed out that parents taking their children out to be spanked was more distracting than anything a child did during the service?
It’s sad that years after you spoke with him, these things are still going on.
I wonder whether that three year old little girl will leave the church when she is old enough. It wouldn’t suprise me in the least. Church, for her, is the place to go to be spanked for doing nothing other than being herself. And God is the one who wants it that way.
Every parent who treats their children like that, for no good reason, ought to get some of their own medicine. I propose those parents each get a “guardian” who whacks them every time they shift in their seat.
[...] This second one leads to a thread on the Blog True Womanhood and is basically a discussion between some very intelligent ladies on the subject of patrio-centrism and its impact on families and women trapped in them. patriocentricity 10 [...]
I said: Every parent who treats their children like that, for no good reason, ought to get some of their own medicine.
It should read:
Every parent who treats their children like that ought to get some of their own medicine.
There is no good reason to keep taking your children out of a church service to spank them. If they can’t sit quietly, work on it gradually. Those poor children are probably way too young to sit through a preaching!
Count me among those so stunned by reading these accounts of child abuse that I could not comment immediately.
Are these people really so stupid? Do they not understand that the message they are continually sending is that God is NOT love, rather that God can NOT stand love or happiness or friendliness or little children?
They think they are teaching their children how to follow Jesus? They are not teaching their children to follow Jesus!
They are teaching their children that love equals domination.
They are teaching their children that if you reject and hate yourself first then God will accept you, otherwise you WILL be punished.
They are teaching their children that God likes people who hide their true selves from others, so much so that adults are allowed to be petty, vain, proud, violent, hard-hearted and tyrannical as long as the outward persona is quiet around others.
They are teaching that peer approval is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing of all.
These children learning such things are the next generation of wounded hearts, cruelly abusing themselves and others because they know no other way to live.
Many of them will leave the religion, but few of them will ever be able to leave the abuse.
It’s always what we DO rather than what we SAY that is really shaping our children’s future lives.
“We adult Christians are supposed to become as little children, not take little children and make them into dour, sanctimonious adults.”
Amen!
I always grieves me to see children pushed into adulthood from an early age and then placed into a holding pattern once they are young adults. Does this make any sense at all?
Three cheers for Reb Bradley telling it like it is.
A couple years ago we heard Steve Lambert from Five in a Row talk about some of the same things. It was terrific. Someone recently told me that during one of the workshops we hadn’t attended, Steve talked about the number of “arranged marriages/betrothal deals” have resulted in divorce. I guess it was a powerful presentation and quite eye opening. Good for these men who are finally speaking out. They are joined by John Holzmann from Sonlight and even Norm Wakefield as Hillary points out.
Corrie, if you are reading today, maybe you should tell us that face-slapping story again. It would go with this thread of discussion and it really shows that a lack of respect for children and their autonomy is at the center of much of the patriocentric thinking.
“They are teaching their children that God likes people who hide their true selves from others, so much so that adults are allowed to be petty, vain, proud, violent, hard-hearted and tyrannical as long as the outward persona is quiet around others.”
AAAhhh, yes, that “gentle and quiet spirit” verse that has been hijacked out of context and used to whip women who have an opinion. As long as you are outwardly “quiet and gentle” in outward manner, you are godly.
The very last weekend my family was at my partiocentric brother-in-laws camp, our family suffered a violent and hear-breaking incident.
I was very emotional- crying, angrily denouncing the animal responsible (not the people who owned said animal, just the animal) and cursing like a sailor in my gut-wrenching mixture of pity, anger, fear, and regret. (I was holding a beloved family pet screaming in pain for twenty minutes. VERY TRAUMATIC!!!!)
My daughter, who was already depressed, was in emotional shock. It was her therapy pet, her best friend. She did not react at all, but was stone-faced and silent.
Later Mr. Patrio wrote to my husband about how “proud” he was at the way my daughter “handled” the situation. This was is the same email in which he denounced me as a wicked person.
Quiet=righteous, right?
In this case, quiet= extremely traumatized beyond words. My daughter l-o-v-e-d her little dog. It was three months before she could cry. She kept her wall plastered with pictures of her dog for two years after that, and wore his collar as a bracelet about the same amount of time. She lovingly tended the rose bush we planted over the dog’s grace, and I mean religiously tended it daily. It was the healthiest plant I have ever seen.
And all those years, she has hated her uncle. She hates him with a passion, albeit a quiet passion!
I have spoken with her on many occasions about forgiving him. I am still praying that she will be free to forgive him. As of the last time we talked, she still hates the man.
As for me, I got over it and forgave him within weeks. Being so expressive about my heart to God is really healing.
But to the patrios, I am wicked because I express emotion and because I dared confront a man about his reckless decisions and the violent result.
You know, I was thinking last night that in the same way this probably pretty small (I hope) segment of “Christian” parents who swat, hit, beat, whack, and pinch their little children give Christians who believe that corporal punishment has a limited and temperate place in an overall discipline plan a bad name – the same as those who have abused the concept of homeschooling to isolate and control their children far into adulthood have given a bad name to homeschoolers like thatmom and shadowspring and most others.
And in the same way that reasonable homeschoolers are frightened that those who flaunt the excesses and the worst of the homeschool scenario will cause negative ramifications on the legality of homeschooling, Christian parents who spank moderately, temperately, and infrequently should be concerned that it will become illegal to hit one’s children because of the excesses of people who are spanking literally babies *for smiling*, and some of the other scenarios that have been observed and reported on this board.
In our home, we did not hit our children as a matter of course. The few times that we did resort to it, we found it counterproductive and frankly, something ugly that we didn’t want to be a part of our home. That was OUR PERSONAL opinion and the way WE chose to deal with our sons.
However, I know many Christian parents who spank occasionally under certain circumstances, and they feel that it is a positive. I support their right to make the decision that they feel is right for their home, although it is different from ours. But they likely will not keep that right if these excesses come to light in the eyes of the overall public. Normal and reasonable people, Christian or not, will certainly be appalled.
Re: 261 Shadowspring,
In our church the emphasis was put on the fact that “foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child and the rod will beat it from him.” If you didn’t beat your child you were a bad parent. You were no better than a heathen and you may as well go push him off a cliff. You hated him. You were a disgrace. That is what we heard, day in, day out. There was no balance on love, mercy, grace. I remember the first time I suggested to my DH he consider practising grace toward one of our children as Christ had toward him. He looked like I’d picked up a 2 x 4 and stunned him with it.
Stupidity it appeared to be and did become. But I firmly believe it was simply from being in a very controlling and cultic church and ourselves being beat week in and week out with pulpit rage. Google for John Reisinger’s article “When Should A Christian Leave A Church?” We were part of that group of churches. They preach Christ but there is no question in our minds now that our experience was that of a cult.
The elders would be on your doorstep and in your bed and in your face and you would be hauled before the whole church and you would be shamed behind your back if you didn’t fall in line.
It truly rattles the thinking and normal respectable people end up beating their kids. They had a study for weeks on how to discipline your kids. The focus was on training/coercing this child, whose heart was totally depraved and filled with all manner of wickedness and evil, who God had so blessed you with and it was now your job and the job of the elders and the job of the church – SO HELP YOU GOD, PARENT! – to conform that child to God’s will.
I don’t think that people are stupid. Just mix in aberrant,twisted or incomplete understanding of pleasing God and suddenly rationality gets scewed.
Discipline in this group always meant beating. It never meant quiet talk or any other means of having the child understand his unacceptable behaviour. This is how kids were treated. This is how “unruly” members were treated.
madame–on the German homeschooling issue. I didn’t mean my words to come out as if they were absolute truth. I hope you didn’t take it that way. If, though, that is what is going on in some parts of Germany, then it is probably very dangerous.
The way I look at it (which is “American” in many ways), no child should be “forced” to go to any school other than the one his parents choose for him. If that means he is taught at home by his mother or father, then the government really ought not get all huffy about it, as long as learning is actually going on (that’s really the important part–that they aren’t raising a feral child or simply not educating the child).
It is disturbing when I hear stories about past governments (I’m talking like the Roman Empire) that took boys away from their parents to indoctrinate them for the “State” instead of letting parents do what parents do best, and that is to parent (can I say Parent enough times?).
I think that the government ought to take a more passive role in child-rearing when there are no abuses going on (Abuse of the child, lack of education, or neglect in general), but when there is a concern, this is why we have social services. Of course, even there, things aren’t as they should be, but in general, children’s rights and parents’ rights ALWAYS need to be considered.
It doesn’t sound to me like this family had “run out of options” so to speak, but if this was really just about the right to homeschool, they might have a case. If it was about their concerns about curriculum or indoctrination, not homeschool in specific, then this is something that they could have changed by finding a private institution. It really seems like the article was crafted to omit the true motives of the family.
I struggle a lot with the spanking issue. I’ll be honest and say that I was rarely spanked as a child, but for my husband, it was borderline (if not over the line) abuse when he got into trouble. Things were “done differently” where he was raised, but to me, this doesn’t mean that he has to be the same way.
I struggle with anger issues, and I’m very impatient, so when the house gets too noisy or chaotic, I get very frustrated and lash out. I have made mistakes, but I don’t believe I’m alone in this struggle, either. I wish it wasn’t so taboo to talk about this kind of issue without someone instantly calling children’s services just because a mom had a rough day. Giving parents options, tools, etc. to deal with anger more positively is really something I wish I could see more of.
But to see parents expect the impossible of their small children is absolutely heartbreaking. As someone who has worked for many years with young ones, I’ve learned a lot about development, and have a better understanding about what children can and can’t be expected to do at a certain age. This is why I love children’s ministry being available, because there are adults who want to hang out with kids in an appropriate setting and help them grow and learn about Jesus in a healthy, happy and loving environment. And so that I can take time out to do the same without being stressed out over my kids and whether or not they are behaving “righteously” or whatever.
“As someone who has worked for many years with young ones, I’ve learned a lot about development, and have a better understanding about what children can and can’t be expected to do at a certain age.”
Abby, this is one reason I really want to encourage moms to be aware of those stages. Sadly, I don’t think I have ever seen, not once, a patriocentric blog where this was even acknowledged. Shoot, all they can offer is a “don’t sin” approach to adults who struggle, so why should there be any greater empathy toward children?
“The focus was on training/coercing this child, whose heart was totally depraved and filled with all manner of wickedness and evil,”
And there’s a big clue to the whole Patrio problem – the heretical Calvinist doctrine of total depravity.
You know, if John Calvin’s parents had been Patrios, and had married him off young and encouraged him to take up farming instead of theology and law, the world could have been spared untold misery.
I have certainly read the scripture about “if you love your child, you will beat him”, etc. There is also scripture that demands that disobedient children be stoned – to death. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny that advocates of this type of extreme abuse would use selective scripture to back up their claims. Because they surely pick and choose what scriptures they’re going to use.
This is 2010. That does not mean that the Bible is not applicable – of course, it is, when read and applied in context. But when we’re talking about language written in the *BRONZE* age, with the relative primative understanding about the psychology and emotional well-being of people (including children)that people possessed at that time, we must firstly, recognize who the audience actually was, and secondly, we must temper it with the reason and advancement in understanding that God has also given us.
You know, I was thinking last night that in the same way this probably pretty small (I hope) segment of “Christian” parents who swat, hit, beat, whack, and pinch their little children give Christians who believe that corporal punishment has a limited and temperate place in an overall discipline plan a bad name – the same as those who have abused the concept of homeschooling to isolate and control their children far into adulthood have given a bad name to homeschoolers like thatmom and shadowspring and most others.
And in the same way that reasonable homeschoolers are frightened that those who flaunt the excesses and the worst of the homeschool scenario will cause negative ramifications on the legality of homeschooling, Christian parents who spank moderately, temperately, and infrequently should be concerned that it will become illegal to hit one’s children because of the excesses of people who are spanking literally babies *for smiling*, and some of the other scenarios that have been observed and reported on this board.
You should be.
As someone outside the Christian community, the prevailing belief that we see is that Christians and other religious fundamentalists beat their children to encourage mindless obedience. Full stop.
And I know not every Christian beats their children, and I know that there is supposed to be a difference between spanking and beating (although I disagree, that’s not my point), and I know that it’s not in the message of Christ. But there’s enough of this kind of thing:
In our church the emphasis was put on the fact that “foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child and the rod will beat it from him.” If you didn’t beat your child you were a bad parent. You were no better than a heathen and you may as well go push him off a cliff. You hated him. You were a disgrace. That is what we heard, day in, day out.
…
It truly rattles the thinking and normal respectable people end up beating their kids. They had a study for weeks on how to discipline your kids. The focus was on training/coercing this child, whose heart was totally depraved and filled with all manner of wickedness and evil, who God had so blessed you with and it was now your job and the job of the elders and the job of the church – SO HELP YOU GOD, PARENT! – to conform that child to God’s will.
…to color many opinions of both the church as a whole, and the faith as well.
madame Says: “What did the pastor say when you pointed out how you felt about the discipline? And what did he say when you pointed out that parents taking their children out to be spanked was more distracting than anything a child did during the service”
That’s when he asked me if I have never taken mine out of a service to be spanked. When I answered “no”, his response was his wife had occasionally taken theirs out during a service. He also made the comment that perhaps some of the parents were overdoing it. Apart from that he really didn’t have much else to say. I did notice a subtle difference after that; something I can’t exactly put my finger on, though children were and still are taken out, it doesn’t seem as excessive as it did.
madame Says: I propose those parents each get a “guardian” who whacks them every time
they shift in their seat
I have often thought the same thing. Someone needs to take a whacker or glue stick to them and see how they like it. On a side note I now look for glue sticks in the ladies rooms in that church and throw them in the trash when I find them while muttering under my breathe “you won’t be hitting any more children” to the glue stick.
Kay Says: “Can they really believe this is what Jesus would do? Would they treat the child this way if they could see Jesus physically standing right there watching? It’s as though their Bibles have Col. 3:21 and all references to mercy, grace and understanding removed.”
They rely heavily on the Scriptures are sufficient for raising our kids (Deut 6:4-9; Eph 6:4; 2 Tim 3:16&17).
And these verses from Proverbs:
Proverbs 29 – 17Correct your son, and he will give you rest; Yes, he will give delight to your soul.
Proverbs 13 – 24He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly
Proverbs 19 – 18Chasten your son while there is hope, And do not set your heart on his destruction.
Proverbs 22 – 15Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him.
Proverbs 22 – 6Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.
Proverbs 29 – 15The rod and rebuke give wisdom, But a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.
Hebrews 12 – 3 For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls. 4You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin. 5And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: “My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; 6For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.
As far as developmental stages, the attitude with them is that stages are a psychological term and excuse for sin. It is explaining away a childs sinful nature instead of correcting it.
It is very sad and frustrating to watch feeling helpness, unable to do much other than pray.
The article on the Romeike case has made German education law seem dictatorial, when the truth is, all German children (and according to the article from German Way, children residing in Germany) are expected to attend school from the ages of 6 to 16, but parents may decide which school they want their children to attend if they aren’t happy with the school in their catchment area.
My husband and all his siblings went to a Christian school, and we live very close to a Steiner/Waldorf school. If we wanted to, we could enroll our eldest in a Christian school, but we have decided it’s better for him to go to the village school because we (well I!) don’t really want him spending so much time on the bus every day.
Yes, you are right that parents should have the right to decide whether their children go to school at all, and I agree that parents shouldn’t be “relieved of their responsibility” or have their right taken away.
Mary you are spot on. All the hardline scriptures but nothing to compliment and no thinking outside of that. Psychology is completely dismissed.
I was told by the pastor that schizophrenia does not exist because there was no lab test for it.
On a happier note.
One of our sons recently said he wants to make his lifework advocating for those being taken advantage of – prompted by seeing how his younger brothers were treated in the second uber-controlling church we got tangled up in. He said, “I was powerless to do anything about it. Never again.”
“The article on the Romeike case has made German education law seem dictatorial, when the truth is, all German children (and according to the article from German Way, children residing in Germany) are expected to attend school from the ages of 6 to 16, but parents may decide which school they want their children to attend if they aren’t happy with the school in their catchment area.”
In my opinion, the part in bold IS dictatorial. It is not decreeing that all young citizens have a right to an education, it is dictating that all young citizens ATTEND SCHOOL.
That is a huge difference!
Here in the US, the Supreme Court decided that the state’s obligation to see that every young citizen has access to an education must be balanced with a parent’s right to privacy and to direct the upbringing of their children.
That is why home schooling can be and is regulated in every state, but can not be and is not prohibited in any state.
Just as the Germans can oversee or regulate private schools, they could easily make laws to oversee home schools to ensure that children are educated adequately.
It was my understanding that Germany would not allow home schooling because they are afraid that the large fundamentalist MUSLIM population would be further isolated from the rest of German society. Is this not the case? (My young Muslim neighbor from across the street once asked me to please not ever tell her parents about home schooling. She was afraid she would never be able to leave the house if they knew it was an option.)
I tend to see their point, though I am not sure how I might advocate resolving it. I do find home schooling itself an excellent way to teach and learn. Unfortunately, it is a ripe venue for zealots to abuse for their advantage unless there is oversight. Personally I expect to see more oversight of home schooling in America in the future.
“As far as developmental stages, the attitude with them is that stages are a psychological term and excuse for sin. It is explaining away a childs sinful nature instead of correcting it.”
Mary,
There just seems to be such disconnect with these people on certain things. I’m sure none of them would expect or require their 2 day old infant to walk into church, feed themselves and change their own diapers…It’s as though good sense just gets thrown out the window. We all have our blind spots, I know, but…????
Shadowspring,
I was just talking about this with my husband. I don’t know all the reasons why school is compulsory for children ages 6-16 in Germany.
Reading the sentence you boldened, it definitely sounds dictatorial, and I guess access to education shouldn’t be an obligation but a right.
The article made it sound like the parents had no option but to send their children to their local school or homeschool them (and risk losing them), but if their main problem was the anti-Christian curriculum, they had the option of sending their children to a Christian school. The parents were ready to make huge investments and sacrifices (move abroad and try their luck!), they could have also found a good Christian school to send their children to.
I’m not FOR the German homeschooling ban. I believe all parents should have the right to choose how their children will get the education they have the right to.
As you said:
Just as the Germans can oversee or regulate private schools, they could easily make laws to oversee home schools to ensure that children are educated adequately.
I struggle with anger issues, and I’m very impatient, so when the house gets too noisy or chaotic, I get very frustrated and lash out. I have made mistakes, but I don’t believe I’m alone in this struggle, either. I wish it wasn’t so taboo to talk about this kind of issue without someone instantly calling children’s services just because a mom had a rough day. Giving parents options, tools, etc. to deal with anger more positively is really something I wish I could see more of.
I wish mothers were more open to talk about their struggles and find support, in each other, from school teachers, etc…
My husband and I were talking about this recently when I told him I think I’m struggling with depression. Life becomes overwhelming and if the children are all clamoring for my attention (which they do frequently), the house is a mess, and I don’t feel on top of things, I can easily lose it.
I’m afraid of talking about this with mothers at the Kindergarten, and won’t raise the subject with the children’s teachers. In fact, I fear that they may tell their teachers, who could call CPS and have us investigated! So I don’t talk about it, and I just isolate myself a little bit more.
I know I’m not alone. My next door neighbor has let it slip that she fears losing her children, so they conform.
Another mother asked me once whether it ever happened to me that I just wanted to scream or hurt one of my children.
Absolutely! I’m human!
But I get the feeling that many parents are fighting very hard to keep the outward perfect look. Nobody wants to draw attention on themselves because nobody wants the CPS to come calling. There have been horrendous cases in the news where parents have lost their children for no good reason, but ironically, there are still just as horrendous cases of children being abused and/or neglected by their parents.
Mary, how do they use the glue sticks for discipline exactly? Sounds so strange. Whatever it is, I’m glad you throw them away when you spot them in the restroom.
“However, I will not go on about how women need men, for the focus on Genesis was that Adam was alone in the Garden, and God saw that this was not good, so he created women out of man for her to be his help mate. God’s statement it two fold, it sets up creation order, while at the same time clearly defines a women’s noble purpose.”
Yes, the focus was on man’s NEED.
As far as some sort of “creation order” being a clear definition of a woman’s noble purpose, I am not following it.
If being created before another thing is created means that that created thing gets to be boss then the animals should be ruling over us and not vice versa. Were not the beasts created on the same day as human beings? And which beast was created first because I really want to know which beast all the other beasts are to be subject to?
And, take a good look at the Bible because God *consistently” turns the idea of being first on its head. As we see, God chooses the younger and not the older to receive the blessing (Jacob’s sons; Joseph’s sons, eg). Jesus tells us that the first shall be LAST and the last shall be FIRST.
They use the glue sticks that are meant to be used with hot glue guns. They are about 10 inches or so long and vary in diameter but they are long and flexible and they sting. When this became popular with on the homeschooling speaker circuit, I took a glue stick and whacked myself with it and it stung like a you know what.
What really gets me is when I see people speaking about spanking and the implements of spanking and they seem excited. It really creeps me out.
I am not sure I am wholly sympathetic with the asylum plea either if it is because they want religious textbooks. As you wrote, that is obtainable at a private religious school if that is your objection.
Actually, as much as I LOVE home schooling I doubt if I would emigrate to avoid prosecution over it. I would emigrate to keep my children safe though, and I understood that a teen home schooled student who consistently expressed her desire to continue to be home schooled was committed to a German psychiatric ward with a diagnosis of “school phobia” :\
However I would try to get a green card any other way than claiming a need for political asylum. That seems melodramatic to me, but I freely admit I have no knowledge of international law.
Corrie,
I used corporal punishment on occasion. It’s best function was that it was out of the ordinary, and I only called on it when I got disrespectful taunts such as “so, I wanted to go to time out anyway” or some such.
I think it was Dobson who wrote that spanking is not appropriate after early elementary? I got that idea somewhere anyway.
I was very concerned that I not use my hands, as my mother used to slap me on the face. And I didn’t want to hit so hard as to leave marks because that would be cruel. It wasn’t a matter of searching for the perfect instrument. Like Corrie, I would’ve checked it out on my hand first.
But I don’t think it so awful if it is limited to true defiance/disrespect (wiggling or smiling does NOT fit that description!). I experienced corporal punishment in school (jr high) and I did not find it traumatic at all. However I did eventually quit band.
Oh, also if people count the toddler two finger hand spank “No! No! Don’t play with Daddy’s keys.” then I spanked then as well.
What these families are doing isn’t discipline for defiance/disrespect- it’s rejection and punishment for being human. It’s wrong on every level, and I think they will wish they had been drowned instead on the day they look Jesus in the eye and remember these incidents.
“As far as developmental stages, the attitude with them is that stages are a psychological term and excuse for sin. It is explaining away a child’s sinful nature instead of correcting it.”
Here’s what I can’t fathom–how can reaching your children where they are be used as an excuse to allow them to continue sinning? If I see my daughter, who is almost 5, begin to lie, intentionally with the idea that this will keep her out of trouble (this is about the age where they learn stuff like that), then I will address that head on. But I will address her HEAD and her HEART not her BOTTOM, because she needs to *understand* why it is wrong to lie to get out of trouble, and needs to feel some sort of remorse for it that comes out of her own understanding, not my beating it into her behind that lying is a sin. But I would never say “Well, that’s about the age they learn that, so I guess it’s okay.” Just because a behavior is figured out developmentally, doesn’t make the behavior a good one. When young toddlers begin to bite out of anger, do we allow them to continue biting other children? No, of course not, but hurting them to tell them not to hurt others is a little (okay, a lot) ironic.
“It’s wrong on every level, and I think they will wish they had been drowned instead on the day they look Jesus in the eye and remember these incidents.”
Maybe.. and as Christians we have a two-fold duty — a duty to expose such false teaching, AND a duty to pray for the people who are being deceived by it.
Those stories about kids and abuse IN the church building are really, really sad. The more I hear about this sort of thing the more grateful I am for my mom always bringing little snacks and things to color and a blanket to play on in front of the seats. We were expected to stay where we were put and be quiet, and once we were about 6 or so we were supposed to sit on pews, but we could still color if we wanted to. I actually still doodle a lot when listening to sermons, while trying to look up at the pastor often to show I AM listening, but I am very kinesthetic (or fidgety) and I cannot retain info while if I am not doodling while listening. I have heard that in the days of the Puritans the ushers carried long poles with a feather on one end and they would tickle people who fell asleep in the service. If they didn’t wake up they would use the other end to knock ‘em on the head. If you’re going to have corporal punishment at church for not sitting perfectly alert, then at least be equal opportunity and do adults too, I guess. Sheesh.
Shadowspring, it almost scares me some of the similarities between your family and mine. I lost my dog too as a teenager, probably about the same age as your daughter. It was also because of a neighbor’s consistent bad decisions (not a relative) that allowed their pit bulls to roam loose. Losing my dog was the absolute worst day I have ever experienced, even now. I know that losing a dog can be “trivial” compared to child slavery or starving in Africa so I don’t want to say that I have lived through some enormous tragedy, but it was very, very traumatic to me personally. I can sort of understand your daughter’s and your trauma in that situation and I really feel for her.
I’ve just dumped a lot of parenting books recently out of sheer frustration with all of the manipulation. I’ve picked up Alfie Kohn’s books and find them to be much more compatible with Christianity than anything else I’ve read. “Kindness leads to more kindness.” Gosh, it’s almost like “A soft answer turns away wrath.” Also things like loving your children eliminates fear. That sounds a lot like “Perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment.” Crazy how I memorized all those verses as a kid and then when I went to start parenting I just read Ezzo and Dobson. We’re so afraid of messing up. We’re so afraid to ruin our children. Then we ruin them forever by teaching them that love and discipline equals violence and that punishing through external means is the only way to change a heart. But then we talk about how “God is gracious and loves mankind.” I’m holding on to Jesus, but it’s oh so hard because so many messages I’ve been given through the years have tarnished His good name.
wow Corrie, your post in #287 really scares me.
Parents discussing spanking implements for their children and getting somewhat excited over them is a very scary thing to think about. What? Are they now deciding that in addition to subtly browbeating a woman into rightful subjection to her husband, they’re now gonna “not spare the rod” and beat submission into their children?
Very scary stuff!
Well, if we want to look at the whole subconscious thing, you might almost say they (being the patrio-centric men) want others to experience and feel the pain and loneliness they harbor inside as a result of never having their emotional needs fully met. Thoughts?
I wish I had the time to read through all these threads, but I just wanted to pop in and say thank you for being here. I was first exposed to the patriocentric movement a few years ago when I encountered quiverfull teachings in the God blogosphere (where I used to be an active blogger under my real name) and through two friends who gave me the Pearls’ stuff – To Train Up a Child & Created to Be His Helpmeet. I immediately saw red flags and immersed myself in researching the pattern that I knew must be part of something bigger, but when I quit blogging, I put it all aside to focus on my family. A year ago, we became homeschoolers, and once again, I began encountering the same stuff, so I picked up my research where I left off (which is how I found Karen and this site) and set out to blog “the Mother of all Posts” but, alas, life got in the way again, so here I am, just saying how much I appreciate the fact that this dialogue goes on, as my heart breaks for the women wearied and oppressed by extrabiblical legalism, but too prideful and/or fearful to examine it (and of course also forbidden from learning theology themselves). Where I live, it’s a mishmash of beliefs, so the patiarchal families don’t look as conservative as other places, but the underlying principles are there.
“As far as developmental stages, the attitude with them is that stages are a psychological term and excuse for sin. It is explaining away a child’s sinful nature instead of correcting it.”
What about Paul saying “when I was a child I spoke as a child, did childish things”?? The way he talks it would seem that it was commonly accepted truth that children grow in stages.
Or what about “I once needed milk but now I eat meat?” Why is the physical truth any different than the emotional one?
I am so sorry to hear about your beloved pet. Losing a family member to unprovoked violence is ALWAYS traumatic!
Our little dog was killed by my brother-in-law’s pit bull “American Staffordshire terrier”. The dog was still a puppy (about 6 mos.), but with a huge head and jaws. Our little 5 pound dog never stood any kind of chance.
My daughter consoles herself with the idea (and it could be true) that our little dog gave his life to save the life of a child. You see, this brother-in-law runs a Christian camp, and the dog as a puppy was already snapping and exhibiting dominant behaviors. Who knows what could have happened if we had not made such a big stink about the death of our little dog?
At the very least a child would have been traumatized by being bitten. Getting bit by this dog would’ve been like smashing your arm with a sledgehammer. This particular dog with its dominant tendencies and this breed are both ill-suited for a children’s camp.
There was a time, before my bro-in-law went whole hog with the patrio stuff, when he was tender to the heart of children. He very much looked out for their safety. The former camp dog was rescued from the pound, and chosen for her docile demeanor. He is such a different man from the person he was fifteen years ago.
I think all the pride and macho posturing of patriocentricity affected this decision. This dog was a purebred registered animal (no rescue dog this time), and if anyone questioned the wisdom of a pit bull as a camp dog (hello!), he was ready with a long lecture that more or less amounted to “pit bulls are really gentle-don’t believe all those news stories and statistics”.
That is also when I found out how deep his contempt for women ran, as he refused to even speak to me about the dog after the incident! He did not care two cents for the pain he caused my daughter, and he certainly wasn’t going to listen to some woman go on and on about it!
It was an eye-opening experience, that’s for sure. Before this, I was very much “live and let live” on the patriarchy issue. If you want to live that way, fine, just don’t expect me to do so. But through this incident I discovered that behind those head coverings lay a deep loathing for women, their hearts and their brains.
I have been on both sides of the issue: helpless child bearing the burden of an over-stressed, depressed parent’s selfish “disciplines” and as an over-stressed depressed parent who was selfish and domineering in my dealing with my children.
I never slapped them, like I was slapped, but I darn sure used words and tone of voice to try to dominate them into submission when I felt like being kind and reasonable wasn’t working.
I have already felt great shame and remorse as I “looked into the face of Jesus and remembered these things”. Though I never attempted the total domination of personality and body that I am reading these patriocentric families are doing to their little ones (and in CHURCH no less!), I have still sinned against my little ones.
When I was confronted by my conscience, the solution was to confess my sin to God, confess my sin to my children, humbly ask both to forgive me, and endeavor to eliminate that way of dealing/not dealing with life.
Once you have been forgiven by our faithful just God, you are cleansed and justified.
But for those who do not repent and humble themselves and go to their brother (no matter how young) and be reconciled, I do believe that judgment awaits.
Jesus is the one that said judgment awaits those who offend the little ones.
As I read somewhere recently (Steve Brown’s A Scandalous Freedom), we don’t break God’s laws, we are broken by them when we try to ignore them. This statement of Jesus concerning little ones is truth. It won’t change.
Better to admit when we have run smack up against one of God’s laws, humble ourselves, and be reconciled now in this lifetime, than to minimize our sin or even pretend it isn’t what it is.
As a wrote at first, I speak as one familiar with both sides of the issue.
As my husband and I are preparing to celebrate our 35th anniversary this week and also the upcoming marriage of our son, I have been thinking a lot about what it takes to be married to someone.
This morning I uploaded a new article on my website, one I previously had shared a few years ago on Valentine’s Day. I thought of you when I saw it today.
Still praying for reconciliation for you and your wife.
So good to hear your thoughts. I continue to be amazed at the number of families who are coming out of this movement, so many of them broken and struggling. Thanks for reminding us that we have to keep on keepin’ on.
Alisa said: ““As far as developmental stages, the attitude with them is that stages are a psychological term and excuse for sin. It is explaining away a child’s sinful nature instead of correcting it.”
What about Paul saying “when I was a child I spoke as a child, did childish things”?? The way he talks it would seem that it was commonly accepted truth that children grow in stages.
Or what about “I once needed milk but now I eat meat?” Why is the physical truth any different than the emotional one?”
Exactly. Imagine that, actually looking at what Scripture says rather than trying to make it say what you want it to say.
Has common sense gone out the window? If we read the Word of God, as believers, it makes sense to us. Especially when we come to it, fresh and open and not with man’s ideas or ideals clouding our vision.
“I’m holding on to Jesus, but it’s oh so hard because so many messages I’ve been given through the years have tarnished His good name.”
Holly, this is the cry of so many who have been abused by the paradigm peddlars. In their quest to build kingdoms for themselves,they hurt so many along the way and don’t even care. I so often cringe at the harsh edge on the pages of the patriocentrist writings. They seek to shame rather than to encourage and spur others on to good works.
Corrie, I agree about spanking. It is not mandated anywhere in Scripture. We spanked our children but rarely and if I had it to do over, I am not sure I would have. Maybe that is the Grandma in me. Anyone else ever hear Bill Wither’s Grandma’s Hands?
I, too, like Clarkson’s Heartfelt Discipline and also Tim Kimmel’s Grace-Based Parenting. These are my favorite two baby shower gifts.
“You know, if John Calvin’s parents had been Patrios, and had married him off young and encouraged him to take up farming instead of theology and law, the world could have been spared untold misery.”
Cynthia,
Your irony just cracked me up!…even though it is a serious subject. Hmmm…To laugh or to cry sometimes??
What really gets me is when I see people speaking about spanking and the implements of spanking and they seem excited. It really creeps me out.
That makes me feel sick.
I hope they keep the topic to times when the children are not around.
Anne 2,
In our church the emphasis was put on the fact that “foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child and the rod will beat it from him.” If you didn’t beat your child you were a bad parent.
I remember a conversation I had about 1.5 years ago with our former pastor. We were talking about child discipline (he LOVES the topic)and he was trying to convince me that things would run more smoothly if I would just take a wooden spoon to my children. I mentioned the fact that I live in a country with a smacking ban.
His answer? Obey God, and let the government arrest you and take your children. In prison you can witness! And consider it all pure joy!
I can’t stand the mentality. It makes me angry, like hearing that there are thousands of families homeschooling their children in Germany when they know that their children could be taken.
It makes me angry that the main focus is on the parents and how it will affect them, not the children. What’s better, for children to go to public school and come home to their parents every day, where they will be loved and nurtured, or for parents to resist the law, homeschool, and have their children go through the trauma of being separated from their parents?
While I don’t agree with laws banning smacking and homeschooling, I also think parents are not considering their children first when they choose to break the law and put their children through the fears and secrecy that come with living “underground”, whether the government ever finds out or not, or they decide to do anything about it.
“Nominee for Illinois lieutenant governor doesn’t think 2005 domestic battery charge ought to worry voters:”
Evidently the judge who heard the case was of the same opinion — the charges were dropped.
Of more concern is the fact that the nominee’s girlfriend was a drunken prostitute – but then, the incident took place in 2005, and the fellow claims to have cleaned up his personal life since then.
Maybe in the world of politics that’s long enough for bad associations to be forgiven – after all, Sarah Palin’s husband severed his political ties with secessionists, sumpremicists and seditionists back in 1996, and the GOP has pretty much forgiven Sarah for associating with him.
When I was confronted by my conscience, the solution was to confess my sin to God, confess my sin to my children, humbly ask both to forgive me, and endeavor to eliminate that way of dealing/not dealing with life.
Once you have been forgiven by our faithful just God, you are cleansed and justified.
But for those who do not repent and humble themselves and go to their brother (no matter how young) and be reconciled, I do believe that judgment awaits.
Thanks for that reminder, Shadowspring.
Acknowledging my sin to them, letting them be angry at me and tell me how I made them feel, and then accepting their forgiveness (And God’s) is very humbling.
“As far as developmental stages, the attitude with them is that stages are a psychological term and excuse for sin. It is explaining away a child’s sinful nature instead of correcting it.”
If our sinful natures can be corrected, what need do we have for Jesus?
“It makes me angry, like hearing that there are thousands of families homeschooling their children in Germany when they know that their children could be taken.”
I have to agree with you, madame. Once it became clear the wicked reprisals that the German government would take against dissenters (labeling it a mental illness to not want to attend a public school adn committing teens to mental institutions- sheesh!) then it was time to continue working for change in public opinion and government, but not time to continue home schooling.
One could still lobby for change while sending their children to public school. Home schooling has never been (in my mind) a command from God.
Home schooling is an awesome way of life that I believe should be open to anyone, but I would not sacrifice my children on that battlefield.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
In America parents faced fines and jail times, but no one was taking children from their homes or incarcerating outspoken teen home school advocates.
Parts of that Bradley article seemed familiar…I think we may have discussed some of it here before? Even if so, it’s good enough to merit a second look.
The article’s quite long, but full of excellent, thought-provoking points. I very much appreciate the author’s humility, too. The patrios could take lessons from him.
“But in the relationship, God has cleared set the man over the women.”
Michael McNeil,
Holding certain expectations of your spouse in a Christian marriage is fundamentally an attempt to get them to respond in a way that meets your needs. It is centered on you and that’s just the wrong focus. The mutual focus in a Christian marriage must be on acting for the good of the other as best you can. Loving your spouse as you love yourself.(Mk. 12:31)Serving one another. “You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature[a]; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.”(Gal.5:13-15)
The better you can shift the focus away from ‘what I desire to get from my partner’ and toward what you can do to act for the good of your partner, the healthier it will be for you and the marriage.
Ask yourself if it is effective, beneficial, or in any way helpful to live with your particular expectation(s)? Ask the Lord if it it is effective, beneficial, or in any way helpful to live with your particular expectation(s). Has it been beneficial for your children?
Harboring unmet expectations isn’t going to make a marriage better. Nor does it much matter who is justified in their expectation or not. They are going to build pressure and resentment on both sides. A marriage where people are trying to justify their expectations of the other has lost love, grace and mercy, and those expectations are the evidence.
There are no prescribed “jobs” or “roles” within a marriage. Both partners need to contribute and be actively engaged as best they can. It’s never going to be a 50/50 balance. More like 100/100. Expectations, since they involve a desire to change the other accomplish nothing, but increase your anger, frustration, and resentment. This in turn leads to even greater distance and even more entrenched positions on both sides. They contribute to the problem, not the solution. There may be a solution that preserves the marriage. But you are not particularly likely to find out if the whole relationship is weighed down under the burden of your unmet and frustrated expectations.
I’ve been reading Charles Swindoll’s book on Esther, and I came across a great passage (by Chuck, that is) about how men should not lord it over their wives. This coming from a clearly diehard “Comp” but it was really a blessing, because he was talking about Vashti and Xerxes. He was saying how women have every right to stand up to the abuses of their husbands, and not only is it right, it is THEIR right to do so. I’ll have to get the book and type out part of the quote after lunch!
Shadowspring #298 – thanks for the sympathy. I agree with your daughter, her dog probably did save a child’s life. Pit bulls as a breed are not bad and I do not hold resentment for them as a breed – the best ones have done many feats of bravery in war and emergencies, but so many people get them and breed them and train them specifically to act out the PERSON’S internal aggressions and these dogs are way too effective at that. And the fact that that dog was acting so bad at 6 months means it was well on its way to a very bad ‘life of crime.’
I wish I could say something comforting to your daughter, but all I can really say is life has been good again and I have recovered in many ways, but I will never forget my dog and I wouldn’t want to.
While the discussion on the unseemliness of “bumper b*lls” is an extremely valid one as already noted, let’s please do unto others as we would have them speak about us. An unfair and wholly untrue characterization of Doug Phillips only serves to undermine the credibility of those who are unmask the true dangers DP poses; ones that IMHO are far more alarming than our children seeing a fool’s ghastly bumper accessory. NOT that I don’t get offended by them myself, but I think there lies a more eternal, insidious danger to be reckoned with if we’re going to be bringing DP in the conversation.
Precisely, Alisa. There is still the Golden Rule and decency — much more winsome, in my mind. It struck me as I was questioning Rev. Baucham’s negative tone about church nurseries, that sometimes the ladies here (including me!) are just as negative — or more so — in portraying the “other side.” We can do better than that, especially if we are trying to convince people that we’re offering an attractive alternative to patriocentricity rather than just airing our gripes. Why shoot ourselves in the feet?
Alisa and Virginia, great insights. Thanks for reminding us of what one anothering ought to look like. Let’s see if we are up to the challenge of taking higher ground!
“Another thought — how would we react if a man wrote this way about us — different body parts of course?”
“An unfair and wholly untrue characterization of Doug Phillips only serves to undermine the credibility of those who are unmask the true dangers DP poses.”
Well said, both of you. Thank you.
This IS a public list, after all, and whatever disagreements we and the Patrios have with one another, I don’t think that DP would ever talk that way about US in public.
We owe him the same courtesy.
Yes, there’s ample about Doug Phillips to talk about, without discussing the potential decor on his mythical truck.
Such as his reports coming in from Haiti. Apparently the whole reason why those missionaries weren’t just given a slap on the hand and let go was because UNICEF wants more abortions in the world? Is that what he’s trying to say?
I apologize if my remarks regarding the bumper accessories appeared to be directed at Doug Phillips. Actually, I was only meaning to address what might cause someone to think it necessary to make such displays and how we sometimes judge books by their covers – as in the example I gave of my daughter’s truck. I’m really sorry if these came off as offensive.
Annie–I haven’t seen Doug’s reports, a link to anything like that would be helpful. But if that is any indication of what his “Christian reporting” is going to be, I’d rather be left out.
One of my pastors and good friend of my parents is in Haiti right now. When Charissa (I think–the nanny) was ill after the arrest, she was taken to the hospital where he and his medical team are working. He met with her, and he assured the church that while the intentions and legality of this group’s “mission” were severely misguided, they are definitely NOT traffickers in the common use of the word. They just lacked the sense to do everything “by the book.” Foolish haste, as I see it, and I think that in all honesty, they deserve to be prosecuted for the illegal actions they took. Whether they deserve long-term jail sentences is certainly up to the judge, but they broke the law, and even as a Christian, when you break the law and it requires jail time, you must serve it. They will undoubtedly NEVER be allowed to return to Haiti after they serve whatever time they end up serving, and any good that they could have done, had they taken the proper channels is now up to others.
This has nothing to do with abortion in my mind. It’s absurd and foolish of someone like Doug Phillips or any well-known Christian to say such a thing. He is beginning to sound like a broken record.
The quote I mentioned the other day (a little long, but very good!)
“I, too, admire Queen Vashti. In the midst of an unsavory scene she was brave enough to say no to that which was blatantly wrong, and in resisting this insulting act of indignity, she took a stand against the greatest power in her universe. Good for her!
Submission does not mean that a wife is a sexual pawn in the carnal desires of her husband. It was never God’s design that a wife submit to her husband’s evil desires. In King Ahasuerus’s case, this took the form of desiring to display her before those who would have nothing in mind but lust. What he asked was not submission; it was sexual slavery. And I applaud Queen Vashti for her courageous decision. Marriage does not give a husband the right or the license to fulfill his basest fantasies by using his wife as a sexual object.
Having been in ministry now for more than thirty-five years, I’m virtually unshockable. But every once in a while I have to suck in my breath when I hear what some men demand of their wives, calling it submission. It is, rather, insulting and shameful. So a word of warning here: Be careful, men, what you ask of the woman God has given you. Be certain that it doesn’t assault her dignity as a person, or turn a precious human being, created in God’s image, into a sexual object for your own carnal gratification.”
He goes on later to say (this is where I slightly differ from him, but it tells where he’s coming from):
“Make no mistake about it, I’m all for submission, as long as it’s the biblical kind of submission. And I’m certainly in favor of the husband’s being the leader of the home, as long as he is God’s kind of leader, set forth in Scripture, not some extreme, self-serving, and humiliating concept of leadership and submission. I’m all for the roles God has set forth for husbands and wives in His Word…But, husbands, we don’t get obedience by fiat. We don’t bring about submission by legislation.”
Oh, and Abby, I completely agree with your post. I don’t think this group intended to put these children up for adoption for profit, and I certainly don’t think this group intended to take these children away for any sort of sex trafficking scheme. I think they were trying to do the right thing, but they were doing it far too hastily, and ended up doing more harm than good.
What I don’t agree with is what seems to be coming out, that because they’re Christian and because their hearts were in the right place, that they should just get a slap on the wrist. They broke the law and have to answer for it, regardless of their personal beliefs. Sex trafficking and adoption-for-profit schemes are a serious problem worldwide, especially after a major catastrophe like this, and I can understand why Haiti would be so adamant about this conviction. If nothing else, they might be trying to make an example, and in their haste those missionaries ended up as “it”.
I mean, if someone from, say, France had gone into New Orleans after Katrina and taken children because the place was crazy and their parents had lost everything, as a nation we would have had fits! Justifiably! And we would make the people who tried it an example of how you do not walk all over the rights of our citizens. Just because Haiti is smaller and poorer and doesn’t hid the corruption as well as our government doesn’t meant they ought not to do the same.
One of the best quotes I saw about this situation is by (presumably) a non-Christian, who posted, “boy, wouldn’t it be great if Christians started really helping people and stopped helping themselves *to* people”.
Now I realize that may make some people upset, and I know that Christians do provide a lot of help in the world, but our Christianity or our good intentions do not preclude us from having to respect the laws and cultures of other countires, not to have to tell the truth (the major news stations were reporting that this Silsby lady had been caught in a number of lies), and that the fact that these children may have been headed towards “nice, Christian families in the USA” does NOT trump the fact that many of them already had parents who loved them, and these people had no legal right to try to take them.
I realize that some in this group may have been unwitting and with no bad intentions, and may just be guilty of ignorance or impatience or stupidity. But think how Americans would have reacted had some Muslim missionary group swooped down on New Orleans after Katrina and tried to spirit some children, who were also in chaotic, desperate situations, to Muslim families in other countries. Americans would have been screaming bloody murder, and rightly so.
Christianity or good intentions does not put people above the law.
“Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.” Titus 3:1-8
Just tried to read the article Virginia posted and the whole tone is nauseating to me. It smacks of ATI giving us a gazillion points where we can improve and become “better” Christians. Plus it is loaded with assumption that good Christians all home school, dress a certain way, don’t have televisions, etc., BLECH!
The gospel declares that we are saved by grace through faith and this itself is the gift of God. We are not made righteous by any of our “works” of “righteousness” lest any man should boast. People who do not accept this truth go about trying to establish their own righteousness.
The whole “Christian” home school movement reeks of this garbage. Being more selective about what garbage you include will not bring about a better result. That’s pretty much my impression of that article. Keep the rules and the regulations, but add a few more and THAT will finally fix the mess? Puh-leese.
Home schooling is a method of education. It is not a command of God. Families who home school are not more obedient to the Word in any way, shape or form. But many sure are puffed up with pride by believing that silly notion.
All our works of righteousness are filthy rags in God’s sight, because we are attempting to prove that we deserve what we do NOT- God’s mercy and love.
All our works of righteousness are filthy rags in God’s sight, because we are attempting to establish our own record of godliness, instead of relying on the blood of Jesus Christ as our only hope.
“My hope is built on nothing less that Jesus blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame but wholly lean on Jesus name. On Christ the solid rock I stand all other ground is sinking sand.”
Those “Christian” home schoolers mistakenly believe that they are the cream of the spiritual crop, when in reality they make a mockery of the grace of God with their “holiness” way of living.
For the record, I am a Christian who also home schools. I never once deluded myself that home schooling was any more righteous than sending my children to a public/private school.
For all of those believers home schooling who mistakenly thought it was, I pity you. You are sorely misled.
I finally had a chance to check out Doug’s blog entries about the orphans in Haiti. I am glad to see that he has taken an interest in orphan ministry since, in the past, any mention of orphans and adoption has been woefully missing from his militant fecundity rhetoric. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if there was a new emphasis placed on adoption buy these people?
#336- Shadowspring, if you’re referring to Reb Bradley’s article, I think he is pointing parents to the follies of living a “gospel of homeschooling”, having come from that background himself. He had actively taught strict behavioral principles of parenting on the homeschooling circuit, but has had a change of heart after humbly realizing the failure of these methods.
A friend whose family came out of a spiritually oppressive church, not without suffering some damage, loves the “new” Reb Bradley and passes along his recent messages to her homeschooling friends who may be striving in their own strength and principles to raise perfect families.
The article on the homeschooling crisis is long, but well worth reading, I believe. This is how Reb Bradley concludes it.
It is possible that the pure gospel of Jesus, which first led us to him, has become clouded for us. We may believe in the grace of the gospel, but we have unconsciously supplemented the finished work of Christ with our own efforts to implement our preferred formula. We may have muddied the gospel with our preoccupation with outward appearances and external controls.
Loving him isn’t about our children – it is about HIM! God intends that the side effect of loving Jesus, and enjoying the grace of the gospel, will be that all people, including our children, will be touched by the Savior in us. I pray in Jesus name that as you read these words you will experience the grace of God in a fresh and new way.
I feel it right to explain my frustration further. “Movement” home schooling starts with the notion that your children can be trained to spiritual greatness if you will only control all aspects of their childhoods in the appropriate way.
In spite of all the protestations otherwise, that is the bottom line. People as produce; children who can be molded into the right kind of person in the parents’ (and they believe God’s) estimation.
What about a better view of children? Children not as produce to be presented to God but as autonomous beings already belonging to God?
What about children as gifts of God created exactly for this time and this place in which they were brought forth to life?
If they already belong to God, if we believe that He is at work in their lives, then by faith we can allow them the freedom to live in response to God and not in subjection to our carefully crafted list of rules in our carefully constructed environment.
Perhaps in this aspect of daily giving our children to God and trusting in HIM to work out HIS relationship with our children (rather than relying on ourselves and our job as parents) our public school peers have a leg up on us. Every day as they pray and send their children off to school, they are exhibiting trust in God and in their children’s ability to hear and respond to God. They are living examples of trusting God and trusting their children to respond rightly to God.
Many movement home schoolers only give lip service to faith, in reality behaving as if they must control every aspect of what is “allowed” into the lives of their children. They do not trust God to preserve their children in the world. They do not trust their children to hear from and respond rightly God.
All believing parents (public, private, home schooling) are to teach the children the Word of God, at the same time hopefully living transparently open lives that their children grow up respecting. Our lives should point to the Living God as lover of our souls, Savior, Redeemer, friend and Counselor.
But for those striving to create perfection in their families, they are giving a false picture of God. He doesn’t demand perfection, He demands faith. Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God.
ps Home schooling families can also trust God to be at work in their children. (It helps to avoid the movement home school rhetoric, though. =)
Home education is a method of education.
It is not synonymous with isolation and control. That is something the movement home schoolers made it out to be (though they call it sheltering and training, a rose by any other name…).
For many, home school was about freedom from the get-go: freedom to teach our children in ways that classroom teachers would LOVE to be able to teach: according to each child’s learning style, tailored to each child’s talent and ability; using real life experiences over textbooks as often as possible, able to concentrate inter-disciplinary studies around each child’s current interests.
I agree that Reb Bradley has done a 180 with this article and was so pleased whens some one sent it my direction a couple years ago. One of the FIC churches were were part of had a pastor who loved the old Reb Bradley stuff and pushed it on parents.
I was reading about that father-daughter weekend on the VF site and look at the information of speaker Elizabeth Botkin!
Elizabeth Botkin has the privilege of assisting Geoffrey Botkin in his lifework. She finds her identity among her beloved father, her wonderful mother, Victoria, her sister and her five brothers, and finds her stimulation and adventure in helping them on reformation projects affecting family, church, and state. Through the grace of God, she has been learning over the years how to submit her will to her father and channel her interests into avenues that further his vision. She and her sister serve their father through their interests in filmmaking, orchestral harp, history, music theory and composition, theology, studying speech and deportment, the reconstruction of the West, hospitality, classical piano, the persecuted church, and homemaking. A perfect case study of a born rebel turned devoted daughter, she learns more each year about the practical side of helping a father become a great man.
Madame–yes. Where is Jesus? Where is religion, period? This leaves out any and all mention of how she is serving GOD in all of this, really. It’s clearly about helping DADDY serve God, not about serving him herself, because we wouldn’t want to have our own passion for Christ, now would we?
Uck.
How is a girl who wrote a book at a rather young age about being a “stay at home daughter” a “born rebel”? At least, anymore so than every human being is a “born rebel”?
And, I’m sorry, but what exactly is “the reconstruction of the West?” Totally missed that memo!
This is what Paul says:
“But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)–well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.” (Galatians 2:6)
(In other words, the apostles did not add anything to the message Paul was teaching, they said his message was sufficient.)
I think the “God shows no partiality” part is really important in situations like these, because the Botkin family have exalted themselves. They have called themselves the “great example” of what a family should be like, and yet they do not preach the gospel as it was given to the Apostles and to Paul: JESUS plus NOTHING.
I can imagine there are so many discouraged dads and discouraged daughters because their family’s lifestyle doesn’t look like the Botkins. Nor should it. But they have lost sight of the real goal and gone after something worthless. I just pray that people are not deceived by the flashy emptiness.
“Geoffrey Botkin is a Christian leader and mentor to pastors in New Zealand, a nation that holds promise for the reformation of Christian civilization.”
Huh? New Zealand? WHAT?? How is that going to reform Christian civilization? Are they going to take it over or something?
“Elizabeth Botkin has the privilege of assisting Geoffrey Botkin in his lifework. She finds her identity among her beloved father, her wonderful mother, Victoria, her sister and her five brothers”
I thought our identity was to be in Christ not man? Does she really know who she is? Is her lifework assisting her father in his lifework? Where is that found in scripture? She seems to be an extension of her father and her family instead of an individual. How sad.
To me it has been exciting watching my daughters grow up and become the women of God He intended them to be,not an extension of their parents.
“Through the grace of God, she has been learning over the years how to submit her will to her father and channel her interests into avenues that further his vision. She and her sister serve their father through their interests in”
madame,
It appears that they substitute ‘f’ather for ‘F’ather.
It appears that they substitute ‘f’ather for ‘F’ather.
Yes.
And It’s got me wondering whether there are any ulterior motives behind the use of father instead of dad.
It’s the first time I have seen it so clearly spelled out: children are there to do the will of their earthly fathers.
I wonder what they do with luke 14:
26″If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
Of course, they probably explain it away with some passage or verse pulled out of context.
I wonder whether these women (because they aren’t girls any more!) are free to marry if they so choose, and I wonder whether there have been good Christian men turned down because Mr. Botkin is not ready to give his daughters away.
So that’s the reason for minimum marriage ages in every state. I assumed there would be complications with pregnancies in the very young, but I guess as an American it never occurred to me what those might be.
madame,
Do you think the Botkin daughters have much opportunity to even met eligible bachelors? Few people I know would want to marry into such a family. I mean, they might think the girls cute and/or pity them, but get involved?
I think the list of potential suitors grows shorter by the day. But I guess they only need one.
Karen, that article was difficult for me to read. My mom is a woman who has suffered with a lot of problems, mostly stemming from giving birth at 15, during which she hemmoraged from a placenta abruption and she and my brother both almost died. How she managed to give birth (not a c-section) and go on to have 3 more children naturally is a miracle in and of itself. The fact that they both survived is, as well.
But I just can’t imagine living with such a horrible, yet curable, condition like these poor women, and it breaks my heart to even read it. It almost makes me want to become a nurse so I can do something to help.
How nice of AT&T to make their phone lines from Haiti available so DP, jauntily attired in surgical cap, could have a free forum to expound on his wise observations and enlighten everyone back home.
That Christianity Today article rang a lot of bells for me.
I’ve had that problem for years. Not the fistula, but anovulation, and all the accompanying problems that go with it, the big, lumpish body, the odd hair growth patterns, the non-feminine emotional states, and yes, the infertility. I’ve know I was infertile since I was diagnosed at age 13, after puberty went horribly wrong.
And for years, decades, I prayed to God to fix it. To somehow make me like all the other girls. I don’t know that motherhood is still the supreme virtue in our culture, but the appearance of young, vital, fertility certainly is. So I prayed to be normal, just like all the other girls. To be slender and healthy and active, just like all the other girls. To have mood swings and emotions, just like all the others girls. To end up with babies, just like all the other girls. I tried to do everything everyone told me God wanted me to do, just in the hopes that if I did it all right and had faith, He would make me somehow better.
And you know what happened?
Nothing.
In the meantime I got to watch the other girls, who didn’t even try to stay “pure” until marriage have their babies while still in high school, and have their parents take care of them until they married, also young, and live lives as homemakers that I envied. While I got to work my way through college, and then fight my way into a job through the recession in the 1990′s, with no safety net under me, at all.
I remember crying because if I’d done the wrong thing somehow and had a baby, then I would have had something to love, and no one would say anything. Yet most landlords wouldn’t even let me keep a goldfish or potted plant. Water damage to the carpets, you know.
I remember how my mother gave my cousins money for groceries, covered their bills, and bought their daughters full wardrobes, while they stayed home to raise their babies. At the time I was working three jobs and going to school at night, and barely making the bills.
And then after I married, finally, at 27 when everyone else I knew married by 20, and by then were were trying so hard, and watching scores of Christian women having 6-8-10 children and beating them with glue sticks and plumbing line. Or hearing report after report of sexual abuse in any and every church, all the while they filled up with more and more children while the victims were called liars. While we would never tell a child that God wanted them beaten, and would never ever prefer the word of anyone over our child, and yet the few babies I did manage to conceive I lost.
I think it was the FLDS that was the final straw. Here were these young girls, who for all indication were being molested and forced to live this horrible life, all done in the name of God. And God was given an opportunity on a golden platter to stop in when the state stepped in. And instead they were all sent right back in for more.
So either God was a righteous monster who *liked* this kind of thing. Who rewarded those who broke his rules, who didn’t wait for marriage and who hung the millstones of abuse around the necks of children while ignoring the sincere prayers of others. Or there was no God, and religion was just the justification evil people made up to continue to do whatever they wanted, unstopped.
Yea, that’s how I ended up an atheist.
This might not be the best place for all this, but that article set it off, and some people have been wondering. So, there you go.
“I tried to do everything everyone told me God wanted me to do, just in the hopes that if I did it all right and had faith, He would make me somehow better.
And you know what happened?
Nothing.”
I read your post through tears. I am sorry. I really don’t know what else to say except that, at some level, I can totally relate to the feelings in your post. No, I haven’t been through what you have but I have been through other things and I have also seen much of what you have spoken of.
For once, I have no words to offer, only my deep and heartfelt compassion and a very strong desire to hug you in person, and then maybe go out to Starbucks or wherever for some hot chocolate.
Jesus in Luke (9: 59-60) said to a traveler, “Follow me.” The traveler replied, “Let me bury my father first.” Jesus said in return, “Let the dead bury their dead; you go and proclaim the reign of God everywhere.”
Remember that the man’s father wasn’t dead. The man was affirming his traditional family obligation to stay around until his father died. There was no Social Security in those days and your provision for old ages was the number of sons you had to take care of you.
madame,
To your comment #351 I’d also add – Jesus in Luke (9: 59-60) said to a traveler, “Follow me.” The traveler replied, “Let me bury my father first.” Jesus said in return, “Let the dead bury their dead; you go and proclaim the reign of God everywhere.”
Remember that the man’s father wasn’t dead. The man was affirming his traditional family obligation to stay around until his father died. There was no Social Security in those days and your provision for old ages was the family. This was the situation of Jewish society for hundreds of years, the very one into which Jesus was born.
Look at how Jesus approached the family values of his day. Jesus started his earthly life as an unplanned pregnancy from his parents’ perspective, and his teenage mother was pregnant before she was married. It’s interesting that those facts haven’t made their way into Christmas carols so far.
There is no reference to Jesus being married and his closest twelve disciples were either single or left their families as quickly as they dropped their fishing nets to follow Jesus’ call.
Look at Jesus’ specific teaching about family according to the Gospel accounts. He predicts that because of him, “Brothers and sisters will betray each other to death, and parents their children; children will rise up against their parents and have them executed. Everyone will hate you because of me.” (Matt. 10:21-22, Inclusive New Testament)
Somehow those verses haven’t made their way into those books of comforting family promises taken from the Bible.
And how about Matthew 10: 35-37: “Don’t think I’ve come to make life cozy. I’ve come to cut – make a sharp knife-cut – between son and father, daughter and mother, bride and mother-in-law – cut through those cozy domestic arrangements and free you for God. Well-meaning family members can be your worst enemies. If you prefer father or mother over me, you don’t deserve me. If you prefer son or daughter over me, you don’t deserve me.” (The Message)
Still, another traveler approached Jesus in this way: “I’ll be your follower, Rabbi, but first let me say good-bye to my people at home.” Jesus answered, “Whoever puts a hand to the plow but keeps looking back is unfit for the reign of God.” (Luke 9:61-62 INT)
About this time, Jesus received a letter from an organization called First Century Family Values. It said:
Dear Jesus,
We have noticed some devaluing of traditional family life in your teachings. You do not treasure the family as our people have for centuries. Your preaching against our traditional family values gores against all that we hold dear in our religious and cultural heritage, the very foundation of our society. If you continue to do this we will make you the subject of one or our future market-place programs
Sincerely, Top Patriarch
Jesus evidently did not take heed. A short time later, this happened:
“Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived and sent a message asking for him. A crowd was sitting around Jesus, and they said to him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” Jesus replied, “Who is my mother? Who is my family? “ And looking around at everyone there, Jesus said, “This is my family! Anyone who does the will of God, that person is my sister, my brother, my mother.” (Mark 3:31-35 INT)
This sounds harsh today and it was quite incredible to Jesus’ original audience, which valued their family traditions above all else. Jesus said that he preferred his spiritual family over his biological family. But even more radically, Jesus redefined the family as those who do God’s will. What’s the will of God that makes for family? John said that whosever loves is of God. Family is those who love you, not necessarily those who physically produced you.
“Us “Titus2Lesbians” should unite against these hideous things!”
LOL… we’d be modernday heirs of Carrie Nation, but instead of smashing bars, we’d travel the country neutering pickup trucks –
and, wire cutters are much lighter than axes and sledgehammers!
“But I just can’t imagine living with such a horrible, yet curable, condition like these poor women, and it breaks my heart to even read it. It almost makes me want to become a nurse so I can do something to help.”
I lived with a fistula for almost two years, right here in the USA. When our second daughter was conceived, my husband was unemployed. He had a good job and we had health insurance by the time Erika was born, and the insurance covered Erika’s birth expenses, but not mine, since I was pregnant before we got the insurance, making my pregnancy a preexisting condition.
The insurance company made us leave the hospital the day after I gave birth, and when my episiotomy stitches fell out and a fistula developed between my vagina and rectum one day after Erika was born, Blue Cross said that it was due to a preexisting condition — my pregnancy — and wouldn’t cover an operation to repair it.
All they would pay for was antibiotics to prevent infection in the wound left from where I tore. So, I went home in that condition, and it was over a year later that we found a doctor who agreed to fix me up, without insurance to cover the cost of the procedure.
This still happens today, especially in Florida and Texas and other right-to-work states, where most blue-collar jobs don’t even offer health insurance, because the “good Christian” politicians down there do their literal damnedest to rig the legal system against UNIONS, those nasty bastions of Socialism that would make employers do right by their employees and offer affordable health insurance.
Annie C, thank you for sharing your life story with us. I am so sorry for all the pain you’ve experienced.
I, too, am glad you are here. You bring an important insight and a unique perspective to our discussions, and you are good at expressing yourself through the written word.
I hope you always feel loved and accepted in this place.
I’m sorry that you are feeling upset and disappointed. Please know that you are not alone.
It sounds like you may be open to the fact that there may be absolute meanings and values out there, but right now you’re not feeling them. Many of us have felt that way as well.
Personally, for myself, one reason I turned to God is because I see that He allows me the free will to do so. And if He allows me, then He allows others free will to choose right from wrong and good from evil also.
Jesus said that the first and foremost commandment was to “Love the Lord your God…”14 A personal relationship, characterized by the possibility of love, is only possible if created beings are given free will.
If God had created the universe with no possibility of evil or sin, then the created beings would have had no free will, and, as such, would be like programmed computers. Such beings would be incapable of love, since love involves making a choice – which requires the ability to choose not to love. For example, I can program my computer to say “I love you” when it starts up. Does this mean that the computer really loves me?
So, as humans, we can only experience real love because God has allowed free will possibility of choosing not to love, but to do evil.
I’m praying that you will find the comfort and love that you long for. ((hug))
Thank you, all of you, for your kind words. If any group has ever shown me that good Christians can also be good people it’s the ladies here. And I’m glad no one was too upset by my rant coming out here, that article just pushed one of my bigger buttons.
Just so you all know, I’m actually doing much better these days. When I stopped praying for a miracle, and started accepting what could be done without divine intervention, I was able to find medical treatment that has been helping immensely. I’ve been losing weight, and mentally and emotionally I’m more stable. I haven’t noticed any hair growing back in, but that’s supposed to take a few more months.
The only downside, which really isn’t, is that we’re going to end up building our family through adoption. Sadly, they can’t get me to healthy and make me fertile, the medication I need causes major birth defects. But it’s all working out for the best after all. Someday I hope to be a very healthy mommy to someone who needs a forever family.
From your writings here, you sound like a very loving, compassionate person, who is more interested in doing the right thing by others than in sticking to some dogma. The children you and your husband adopt are going to be very fortunate indeed to have you as their mother.
I’m also glad to hear you are getting treatment that is helping you feel happier.
Annie, the story of the FLDS kids broke my heart too. I had just been to Salt Lake City for my grandmother’s funeral a few months before that. Grandma never lived there and was never Mormon, but her second husband, who was much older than she was, had been born into a polygamous family with over 20 kids near there in the 1870′s. I did some research into this whole issue and it is so grieving to me that it is still going on and not just in those newsmaking big communities. I had the wonderful chance to meet some of my step-cousins while I was at the funeral, and I’ve often wondered if some of their distant relatives are in the FLDS communities. The thought sort of haunts me when I dwell on it.
There is a long video called “Lifting the Veil on Polygamy” on-line. It was produced even before the Texas story broke open. What an eye-opener on a horribly patriocentric situation. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7940067916847716536
You might also like to see the poem I wrote while flying into SLC and a follow-up about one of my artsy poetic non-conformist Mormon step-second-cousins.
Adoption is the greatest gift ever. You are affirming to a child that they are worthy of love and that their existence is a blessing in the world.
So many of my good friends either are adopted or have adopted. They have all built healthy families with strong bonds of love. There is not one I regret knowing or having a part of my life.
You are the kind of mom I would hope for my baby if I were in a situation that made raising my own child impossible.
Annie, your recent post made me think how so many people struggle with the constant tension between faith and doubt. Some people are led to one conclusion and some to another, and many of us flounder around, isolated, ashamed, and occasionally frightened – somewhere in the middle.
I have experienced much doubt, especially as I have grown older. There are a lot of questions that I’ve had since childhood that there seems to be no answer for other than, “have faith”. Often I felt shamed for even asking the question, at least within the church. Doubt is often seen as a sign of weakness: weakness of character, weakness of faith. Then comes the dreaded, “well, maybe you never have truly become a Christian, because *real* Christians don’t have these doubts”, (or if they do, they keep silent about them).
Although my outward life has never wavered much, I have thought about walking away from the Christian life from time to time. No one would know that unless I shared it, but it is there, nonetheless. I actually have come to dislike and distrust many Christians, as I have seen so much needless hurt inflicted on the vulnerable within the Church, and the world sees us as so unloving, with good reason sometimes. While I am never ashamed of Christ, I have often been ashamed of the behavior and attitudes of Christians (including myself at times). I also find the certitude of certain types very disconcerting, as it often seems like it is deep certitude without deep thought or deep consideration.
But the truth is, so far (at least for me), is that God is like the “great hound of heaven”, refusing to give up the chase for my faith. I struggle, and I share that struggle with those closest to me. My husband remains a “little Christ” in my life, and when things no longer make sense, he continues to “be Jesus to me”. My eldest son is much the same, so like his father that it brings tears to my eyes. So even in my darkest moments of flipping that coin that is faith on one side and doubt on the other, I try very hard to remain open to God and His possibilities. And I believe that is all He asking of me in those moments: “Lord, I believe – help thou my unbelief!”
I don’t know if this resembles at all your struggle, but I wanted to let you know, in a way that exposes my vulnerability, that doubt is not the death knell of faith, as it is so often portrayed within Christianity. Real Christians struggle with real doubt, and sometimes those issues remain unresolved in this lifetime. Sometimes the best we can hope for is to make peace with doubt, and give it its rightful place as the thing that makes us question, makes us re-evaluate, and makes our faith stronger if allowed to do its job.
Okay, I’m rambling. . . hopefully, this will make sense to a small degree to Annie or anybody who has struggled or is struggling with doubt. Annie, I’m not trying to “talk you into faith” or anything like that – I would not presume I could. I am hardly in a position to do so anyway. I hope you can understand what I am trying to say.
I would ditto Savannah. I couldn’t have put it better. I’ve been known to get quite disillusioned with many Christians’ behaviors and attitudes and it’s easy for me to project that onto God himself. I think the biggest mercy for me in recent years is that I have lost so much of my fear of doubt, failure, and rejection. I don’t beat myself up over it so much — just pick up and move on. I too get annoyed at “certitudes” which are so often either-or fallacies. I wish I could shake the sense into some people, but instead I work at teaching my 20 middle school English students to think for themselves and go deeper than the surface impression. At least that is my goal for myself, too.
Could you all pray for a very dear friend of mine, single mom to precious eight year old. She had to get a physical in order to get insurance and they found lumps in her breast and under her arm.
She needs healing, and money for treatment. Her name is Geneal and her daughter is Samara. Thanks.
I am very sorry to hear about your sad situation, Annie, and glad that it is getting better. I agree with the others, cheesy though it may be, that children will be lucky to be adopted into your family. I have also dealt with a lot of doubt, especially in the last few years, and felt like an outsider a lot. There are certain things I’ve seen I can’t explain without God being real and loving, and certain things I can’t seem to reconcile with Him being real and loving. It can be really tiring (understatement) to grapple with. It’s nice to have a few places to talk about it openly.
Anyway, I’m glad you’re here and I like your posts!
Titus Two Mentoring ~ Part Two ~ The Marks of the Titus Two Woman
“But this story teaches us something else about serving the Lord. God isn’t looking to come into the life of only the woman who neatly fits into a perfect paradigm, a woman who is “normative”, as they say, a married with children woman who is building His kingdom according to a list of man made rules. Instead, Jesus comes to those who recognize their own needs and beg for mercy, those who are broken and in need of a Savior, those who are so aware of their own lowliness before him that they can only offer enough faith to touch the hem of His garment.”
“And I believe that is all He asking of me in those moments: “Lord, I believe – help thou my unbelief!”
Annie,
I’m going to “ditto” Savanah here as she quoted Mark 9:24 – one of my favorite verses. Also adding that most of the times I’ve felt disappointed by God was because I was expecting Him to answer my prayer in a certain way at a certain time, but His answer was different and took longer than *I* planned for it come. I’ve prayed for a physical miracle and been answered with surgery as well, but it became a catalyst in my life and opened new doors that I hadn’t even imagined.
I think most of us would prefer to jump right to the “happy ending”, but sooner or later we realize that the journey itself adds so much to the “happy ending.” I hope that makes sense.
Thanks for the prayers for Geneal. She has an amazing personal story of courage in the face of extreme hardship already. I am NOT happy that she has to face this too. Please do continue to pray, internet friends.
“Some people are led to one conclusion and some to another, and many of us flounder around, isolated, ashamed, and occasionally frightened – somewhere in the middle.
I have experienced much doubt, especially as I have grown older.”
Savannah,
Thanks for “rambling”. I can totally relate to a lot of what you said about doubt and disillusionment within the Church. It was encouraging to read that.
I am in a season of doubt and it can be quite frightening.
Okay, finally got all the way through the Reb Bradley article, though I admit I skimmed through a lot of it, yet I do not see anywhere that he repents of kicking out his 18 year old son and using scripture to justify the decision.
He seems proud of doing so in the opening paragraph, if you ask me. Relating how much he and his wife cried about it just shows the serious disconnect between their hearts and their decisions- not a model of healthy living, imho.
Those of you who know my story know that I was kicked out of my home in similar fashion at the age of 17, eventually becoming homeless. Any of you who believe that doing similar is obedience to the gospel are messed up in your theology.
Reading through the rest of the article, I did find things worthy of support. Like children as people, not focusing on outward standards, and specifically “Cultivate a loving relationship with them” and especially “Help them find security in their relationship with you” but it seems out of step with how he actually lives his life. I am not sure he fully believes what he writes.
An eight year old distressed at seeing underwear ads in WalMart? That is an eight year old who is going to have a very hard time in his own marriage someday. You can’t teach that the female body is shameful for someone’s whole life and expect that to magically disappear once the marriage vows are spoken.
I think lecturing young children about modesty at a young age IS exposing them to thinking about sexuality long before they are ready to so so and it is dumping on them truckloads of shame that is not theirs to bear. Terrible parenting, imo.
I know that many of you ladies on her actually live a similar lifestyle to Reb Bradley’s. I never did. We were the family that you all stuck your noses in the air as you passed us by. We were not perfect by any means, but we did not operate under the delusion that we were above any one else. That delusion belongs to you “movement” home schoolers.
It sounds like Reb is starting to come the conclusion that he was wrong in many ways, but isn’t clearly able to let go of his standards yet. This is as close as he comes, imho:
“While I’ve seen sheltered children grow up and turn away from their parents’ standards, conversely, I’ve known some Christian young people who went to public school, watched TV, attended youth groups, and dated, yet they walk in purity, have respectful, loving relationships with their parents, and now enjoy good marriages. Their parents broke the all the “rules of sheltering,” yet these kids grew up close to their families and resilient in their walks with Christ.”
What does he mean “they walk in purity”? That they have a sincere devotion to Jesus? That they live unselfish lives? Or does it mean that they live up to his standards of dress and behavior? I can’t help but wonder.
Sorry to step on toes. I know I have. I have attempted to do so honestly and respectfully. I hope I succeeded in that, and I apologize in advance to anyone who feels I fell short of that goal.
There is a common and insidious notion that is sweeping through the church and society at large that faith is the opposite of doubt and that doubt is the opposite of faith. This is because faith is often misdefined as “belief,” when an accurate definition would be “loyal to a friend.” Faith and doubt are not mutually exclusive; in fact, doubt is a part of faith and plays an important role in strengthening faith.
For example, suppose that a man suspects his wife of adultery. Is this man entitled to commit his own sexual immorality? Not at all. Even if he doubts his wife, he is obligated to keep faithful to her until she either proves that is faithful or that she is unfaithful. If she proves herself faithful, the faith that he has in her is strengthened. If she proves unfaithful, he will become unfaithful as well.
The same rule applies to Christians; we may doubt God, but we must stay faithful until God becomes unfaithful. Since God is holy, He will always be faithful, so Christians have no excuse to lose faith in Him, even when plumbing the depths of doubt.
I just can’t get over the twistedness of an eight-year old being distressed by underwear models in WalMart!
My husband as an MK grew up around topless women as a matter of course. What would the “modesty” people do with that?
Reminds me of the clueless church that sent Marilyn Lazlo a crate of bras for the Papau New Guinea tribal people Marilyn, as a Wycliffe Bible Translator, lived among.
She amusedly passed the gift along. The tribal women found bras totally impractical for their lives, in which they were continually nursing their infants while they worked. Most of them were thrown away, but some wore the around the waist using the cups as belt and in that way at least got some use out of them. =)
*should read “some wore them around the waist as a belt using the cups as pockets”- sorry! I really should edit before I post, but life is going on all around me and I rarely take the time. Another sorry.
A Chinese Christian posted, “The same rule applies to Christians; we may doubt God, but we must stay faithful until God becomes unfaithful. Since God is holy, He will always be faithful, so Christians have no excuse to lose faith in Him, even when plumbing the depths of doubt.”
Thank you for taking the time to post this; however, it is not as simple as one may think. It is a complex ball of wax, and to be told things like “Christians have no excuse. . .” is not particularly helpful. Those of us who struggle with doubt or who are in a season of doubt already know that, at least intellectually.
We also know that our honesty about this issue makes many other Christians uncomfortable (and I have my own theory as to why they are so uncomfortable) and that is why it is a scary thing to talk about or admit to oftentimes.
I know Christians who de-converted, and they did not talk to those in their church or in their Bible study group about their doubts before they made that decision. They were isolated in their struggle because judgments are passed upon Christians who admit to doubt, and they knew it, so it is just better to keep quiet, which only served to isolate them further and this isolation is what pushes them over the edge, so to speak.
I have been the most lifted up and encouraged by reading and speaking to others who weathered a season of doubt. Michael Spencer comes to mind (the Internet Monk). He has written so many beautiful essays, many of which deal with his raw, unfiltered struggle in this area. He has ministered to me like no one other than my own immediate family, and I credit his writings with helping me to hang on in tough moments. I know many others in the Internetmonk community who have been ministered to in this way by Michael’s writings.
BTW, for those of you who may have come across Michael’s blog in the past but not recently, he is dealing with brain cancer/brain tumor. His post as of yesterday did not sound good in terms of prognosis, so please pray for Michael and Denise and their family.
I am in the enviable position of never having doubted God’s love for me.
However, I also do not believe in the “SAW-ven-tree of Ga-awd” as many people actually apply it.
In other words, I do not blame God for my having chronic asthma. I do not credit God with my having chronic asthma. I do not believe he “gave” it to me to teach me any lesson of any kind.
I do believe He could heal me miraculously but I gave up the silly doctrine that he must if I “believe” hard enough (is that even possible?) a la my charismatic stint. I trust in His word that we will all be made perfect together one day at His second coming and I am content with that.
What I do believe about asthma, my inherited condition (along with bunions and crooked teeth, but I digress *sigh*) is that once God set in motion the amazing process of recombinant DNA, the possibility that *I* would someday exist was set in motion.
I believed that as *I* was being formed in my mother’s womb, He rejoiced and welcomed me into existence and gave me life.
The very DNA that makes me *I* is also what cursed me with asthma, yet God will not do without me in the universe. If in order to get the unique recombinant DNA person that is *I*, there is some asthma, bunions and crooked teeth in the mix, oh well. He can take care of that later. (I believe He will someday heal the asthma when the entire church is glorified.)
In the meantime, I have albuterol, Singulair, and Symbicort, the technology of braces and possible foot surgeries/corrective footwear.
Oh yeah, and I know that I know that I know that I am loved (adored!) by God including my gimpiness and less-than-glamorous appearance!
I don’t want to attempt to influence Annie C. in any way personally, because I fear that it is intrusive but MY theology is:
GOD LOVES ANNIE C.! I’m talking cartwheels of delight over every breath she takes, and in the entirety of everything she is and feels and thinks. In this way I believe that she is fearfully and wonderfully made- not biologically perfect but 100% adorable to our Heavenly Father!
Stacy McDonald wrote a blog post about a line of children’s clothing, yesterday, and also was interviewed on the G. Gordon Liddy show concerning her opinions on modesty.
While I am certainly appalled by the slutty clothing lines for young girls, I am equally appalled by the “Stacked and Packed” calendar that G. Gordon Liddy puts out every year.
This calendar is named for the women who appear on it who have huge, fake (most of them are fake) breasts holding guns and they are barely clothed and in very suggestive poses.
Stacy talks about the poses of the girls in the ads. She speaks about the immodesty of the girls’ clothing line and how her 19 year old daughter wouldn’t wear clothing like that. That some of the outfits are right below the panty-line. But, the calendar put out by the G. Gordon Liddy show shows bare breasts (barely hiding the nipples) and bare rearends and YOUNG women with their legs spread open covered by a little thong/g-string.
The interviewer talks about Stacy’s statements about how you can judge a woman/girl by what she wears. Now, if that is true, what does the G. Gordon Liddy “Stacked and Packed” calendar say about those women and about the men who promote that calendar? The men who have this calendar like to brag about how it “pisses” off the feminists because women posing barely dressed is politically incorrect and that this calendar is doubly-politically incorrect because it shows women, barely dressed with big guns.
Is it okay to objectify women? What is the difference between the Hannah Montana clothing line and the calendar?
I cannot for the life of me understand the outrage concerning Sports Illustrated and the slutty clothing line for little girls but ignore the fact about the men on this show who promote this calendar? Sports Illustrated is NOTHING compared to the calendar that G. Gordon Liddy puts out. I also found a picture of him in a patriotic speedo.
Obviously modesty is not a huge issue concerning this show. And objectifying women is perfectly fine, especially when the women are “stacked” and “packed”.
Shadowspring, my toes weren’t stepped on because of your objection to Reb Bradley. I was not aware of him in the homeschooling world when he was first teaching, and only last year heard of his remorse, if not repentance, in how he had raised his children and led others to do so.
I know many people have been affected positively and had breakthroughs in their family life when they have read and heard of his more gracious parenting decisions. Hearing speakers like him who lean toward grace rather than those who are often featured who preach standard-based parenting is refreshing, so I passed on the links for others to listen and glean from.
Thankfully I did not have to go through major family crises based on spiritually oppressive teachers and churches, so I am not intimately aware of all of this as others are. Our church is healthy, our family is pretty healthy (thanks to God’s grace, not our doing), and I follow Jesus Christ, not any particular teacher, author or speaker. I’m certainly not leaning on Reb Bradley, but in the big spectrum of teachings, I think he has quite a bit more to offer than some others warned against here.
The forum is for sharing opinions, and I certainly appreciate yours, Shadowspring. I’m so thankful this is an open place to share and examine views in light of the Word, to guide us into God’s truth. So don’t worry about stepping on toes here.
I have barely had time to read here, let alone interact much, since dealing with my mom’s increasing dementia and recent TIA. When the rubber meets the road (is that a good metaphor?), essential time priorities make themselves known pretty clearly at this new stage of life.
Don’t mean to come across grouchy, but am fighting a migraine from having to call an ambulance for the first time yesterday, and listening to a DVD of Bill Gothard c*** to try to figure out what family members see in him. Done rambling now…Grace and peace to all here.
“I just can’t get over the twistedness of an eight-year old being distressed by underwear models in WalMart!”
Me, neither. I can’t imagine my 8 year old asking me why I take him to WalMart because there are underwear models. First, I am at Walmart a lot and I don’t even know what underwear models he is referring to. He said they were all around the store? I don’t think so. Second, my kids don’t even notice such things because I refuse to make a big deal about them.
If we look for things we will find them. It is like getting a new car and then suddenly noticing how many cars are on the road just like the one we just bought.
It is the same with people who are obsessed with women and the clothing they wear. They will see it because they are constantly looking for it.
To me, it is like Sports Illustrated Magazine interviewing Stacy concerning the immodesty of the new Montana clothing line. Both the show that she appeared on and Sports Illustrated put out a yearly publication where women are showed barely clothed. Except that “Stacked and Packed” is much worse in suggestive pose and nudity than Sports Illustrated, imho.
Stacy has had a campaign against Costco/Sams because of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.
“Recently, we discussed on my blog the difficulties some women face regarding intimacy in marriage. The results were alarming. Our poll, private emails to me, and our discussion, revealed that pornography played a huge part in harming marriages – and families. Women felt insecure, compared, rejected, and devalued. And why not? Pornography not only harms women and the way they view their bodies, it desensitizes men and fills them with an insatiable lust that can’t be quenched by godly intimacy. What do you think happens to the children?
Pornography, even the sugar coated kind, attacks marriage. And in the process, it devastates families. Ultimately, it gets to the core—it destroys godly seed. Children are either themselves harmed by abuse or the damaged marriage of their parents; or they never come to be—a destroyed marriage means no (more) children born from that union.”
Does this also apply to the “Stacked and Packed” calendar in which the link to the new calendar is prominently displayed on the G Gordon Liddy site and on the page where you can go to listen to the interviews?
So, when I go to listen to the interview, as well as all the men who will go listen to Doug Phillips speak about Haiti and Stacy speak about modesty, they will get to see the link to the “Stacked and Packed” calendar!?
“Hawkins: Is there anything else you would like to say or promote before we finish up?
G. Gordon Liddy: Well, there’s the calender that has caused so much upset.
John Hawkins: The Stacked and Packed calender.
G. Gordon Liddy: The Stacked and Packed calender. There is actually a website that has been established called BoycottLiddyCalender.com and there’s a lot of hysterical stuff in there. I might give a plug to my own website which is LiddyShow.com. StackedandPacked.com is devoted to the calender and how you can get it there. You can also get it by calling 1-800-737-1808. The calender is in its 10th year. On the cover this year, I appear with my Harley Davidson that I rode to Sturgis this past summer, 1846 miles, and the lovely lady sitting behind me is the executive producer of the show and she happens to be naked as a jaybird.
For the past several days, Stacy’s blog has had numerous comments in response to a survey about husband’s media viewing habits, which she says she is taking so that James can address husbands, letting them know how they may be offending their wives when they watch TV or movies.
Then yesterday her blog had information about a new line of immodest clothing for little girls with a link to an interview she did that aired live yesterday on the G. Gordon Liddy show. She also posted a link to her called-for boycott of Sam’s Club last year because they sold the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition.
Sorry, but the first thing I thought of when I saw that link to Liddy’s show was his Stacked and Packed calendar. He has published it for years and met with a lot of consternation on the part of both the secular feminists and conservative Christian women who are appalled by it.
Why are Liddy’s naked women ok to pedal but Sam’s Club’s Sports Illustrated magazine not? Where is the boycott of the G. Gordon Liddy show?
And real kicker is that Doug Phillips was also a featured guest on the Liddy show yesterday. What am I missing here?
I hope no one tried to spin it that it was really the Adam McManus show. It was the G. Gordon Liddy show Stacy announced she was a guest on and that both she and Phillips were, indeed, on. I haven’t looked to see if he linked to that website where we hope husbands don’t go.
I am confused. Once again I don’t understand the patriocentrist rules.
And I actually wasn’t thinking of any one person in particular. There are so many women who post here and even more who read here. So I was covering all my bases.
Listening to Bill Gothard? Yikes! Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! *waves tubular robot arms up and down in an excited manner*
I think you’d do better to google “what attracts people to cults” than listen to Bill Gothard if you want to know why your relatives are attracted to Gothard.
“I have barely had time to read here, let alone interact much, since dealing with my mom’s increasing dementia and recent TIA”
Kathy,
I missed that on my first read. I am so sorry you are having to deal with all that. I will add you and your mother to my prayers tonight.
And for those praying for Geneal, I have just hooked her up with a sympathetic and informed ear at the county health department. Thanks for your prayers! I’ll let you all know what comes of that.
Corrie, I’m just appalled by the apparent double-standard as well. After looking at the picture she posted of the two little girls, I was shocked–NOT my daughter! Never, at least while she’s living under my roof. I’m just as disgusted as anyone that this is considered “appropriate clothing” for young ladies.
I went further down the blog–and on an unrelated note I found a post about feminists and abortion, which not only disturbed me, but made me realize the lack of grace and understanding about feminism (at least its earliest forms) and the “history” which Stacey and the likes so pine for. She has no idea what the 19th century was like for women, and if she did, I seriously doubt she would disagree with the women who fought for HER rights. I’m personally, deeply offended by her lack of understanding of what women have really gone through in history.
The funny thing about the “Stacked and Packed” calendar is that the people who peddle this pornographic calendar are the ones who mock the “feminists” of having a problem with it. Yes, it seems that the only ones with a problem with the Big Boobs and Gun Toting Babes calendar are the feminists. You know..the bitter women who have no sense of humor?
So, it is okay to go on and on about Sports Illustrated and be outraged about other things such as tight t-shirts and tight pants and the like but as long as that criticism is aimed at the not-so-right-wing-conservatives.
I never heard about the calendar until I went to the website to listen to the interview. While following the link from her blog, I got an eyeful of “Stacked and Packed”. I was shocked. Truly. Then I Googled “Stacked and Packed” and found out it was very popular among the right-wing conservative men.
Don’t miss the part where Liddy brags about being on the cover of one of his calendars with his executive producer straddling right behind him on the bike and he describes her as being “as naked as a jaybird”.
There are also pictures on the website of interviews he does with the Stacked women in his studio; lots of cleavage and intimate closeness.
It seems that conservatives can oppress women, objectify women and brag about how they “piss off” the feminists by doing so and it is okay. And if you dare to have a problem with that calendar you are an evil feminist.
How would these same conservative women view me, a fellow pro-life conservative, if I would happen to pose for that calendar? They applaud the men but would they applaud me?
I think the clothing line for girls is disgusting but for a program to speak against that clothing line while at the same time peddling their own proud porn is to be quite inconsistent to say the least.
Also, as I listened to that interview I was stunned by some of the snarky comments about Hollywood moms who are against that same clothing line. Brooke Shields, says Stacy, is against the clothing line but then she points out that it was Brooke Shields who posed naked when she was 13. Well, motherhood has a way of causing us to see things differently, doesn’t it, and I am not at all surprised that Hollywood moms would have a problem with dressing their own daughters like sluts from hell.
And, then lets talk about Helen Andelin. She is the one who is highly promoted by Jenny Chancey and she is also the one that writes about how women should visit little girl clothing stores and observe the clothing made for little girls and then seek to dress like little girls (pantaloons and frilly frocks, etc) because this sexually excites men.
I find this JUST AS DISGUSTING as the Montana clothing line. It is even more disgusting because if innocent little girl clothing supposedly excites men then that is a huge problem for Christian women to be promoting adult women dress up as little girls.
After watching the Mormon video that Virginia posted, it was noted in that video that the reason why many FDLS fathers molest/rape their own daughters is because the line has been blurred and these old men are marrying all these little girls anyways. These men already have so many wives but they are molesting their own daughters because their perversion is never satiated.
“She has no idea what the 19th century was like for women, and if she did, I seriously doubt she would disagree with the women who fought for HER rights. I’m personally, deeply offended by her lack of understanding of what women have really gone through in history.”
I am too. I am sick of the white-washing of history the patrios do when it comes to the treatment of women.
Hello? Polygamy? For most of the history of this world it has NOT been one man and one woman! It has been one man and many women. Or women being sold off for the sake of riches and more power where they had no choice in the matter because they were considered PROPERTY.
“She has no idea what the 19th century was like for women, and if she did, I seriously doubt she would disagree with the women who fought for HER rights. I’m personally, deeply offended by her lack of understanding of what women have really gone through in history.”
Abby,
I really have to agree with you – she’s missing a lot of facts or so it seems. I believe that must be the case. I’ve seen it with many others who only read “conservative Christian” books and materials…sad but true. Hate to say it, but they get filtered information. But, otherwise her stance makes no sense unless she’s self-destructive.
And count me in – never heard of that calendar. Thankfully.
Thanks for the hugs and prayers, all–much appreciated!
I decided my time wasn’t worth weeding through the video of Gothard. Trying to reason logically and attempting to prove his faulty exegesis probably isn’t going to help as much as praying and loving in this case. My headache miraculously went away when I turned the stuff off–lol!
Concerning Liddy and the “stacked and packed” calendar, that just goes to show you that wolves can only wear sheep’s clothing for so long before their masks begin to slip.
For years Conservative politicians have billed themselves as being Christian and family-friendly, in order to get our votes. They have given lipservice to the Pro-Life movement, but have never really done anything to get rid of abortion, and with the election of pro-choice nude model Scott Brown, the mask has fallen away completely, revealing them for the Mammon-worshipping politicians they really are.
Well put, Cynthia. The “religious right” is only being manipulated by politicians.
I attended HSLDAs “Rally at the Capital” (1999?) ostensibly to put a face on home schooling to our Senators and Representatives.
When we got there it was obvious the real reason was to push a program called “A+” that HSLDA was telling the politicians that home schoolers wanted. I think it was to give us some kind of tax break?
Pffft. Home schoolers wanted to just be left alone to do our thing, actually. At least that was how I felt. And I told our Congressman just that, and he responded that my answer only confirmed his personal assessment of the situation.
So at the Rally, politician after politician spoke about supporting the “A+” drive, to lukewarm applause. Then came a politician (don’t know who) that actually WAS a home school Dad. And he expressed my feelings well, that home schoolers just want the freedom to do our thing without intrusive government regulation. The crowd went wild.
The “A+” initiative died. I think Michael Farris was hoping to show that if a politician could get the home school community behind him/her, they would have a massive and hard-working volunteer base.
I think instead it showed that the home school community is not that easily manipulated, and what we really are at heart is Libertarians, at least when it comes to nanny government telling US what to do.
Our family did have a great time in DC though! Our congressman’s aide gave us a tour of the Capitol, and we went to all the big monuments and musuems plus the zoo and Mount Vernon. Good times.
“And, then let’s talk about Helen Andelin. She is the one who is highly promoted by Jenny Chancey and she is also the one that writes about how women should visit little girl clothing stores and observe the clothing made for little girls and then seek to dress like little girls (pantaloons and frilly frocks, etc) because this sexually excites men.
I find this JUST AS DISGUSTING as the Montana clothing line. It is even more disgusting because if innocent little girl clothing supposedly excites men then that is a huge problem for Christian women to be promoting adult women dress up as little girls.”
Corrie, this is exactly how I responded to this stuff. Aren’t these both fulfilling the lustful desires of men rather than encouraging a mature mutually satisfying sexual relationship between a husband and a wife? And why in the world would any mature, Christian man be attracted to his wife dressing like a child? Granted, it can be argued that adult women are not the innocents that little girls are but then what of the young woman who goes straight from her father’s home to her husband’s, the entire time being taught to be completely dependent on a man? Does she know what a grown up woman is supposed to be like if her mom read and followed Andelin?
Here is a quote from Helen Andelin in Fascinating Womanhood. Jennie Chancey loves this book and highly recommends it to the women who frequent Ladies Against Feminism. While Jennie acknowledges that she disagrees with Andelin’s Mormonism, she claims the book is “biblical.”
“To achieve a youthful appearance, avoid matronly styles or styles worn by older women. Also avoid styles which are out of date, dresses, hairstyles, shoes, and make-up that were in vogue ten or more years ago. There’s a tendency for women to hang on to styles that were popular when they were young. To look youthful, avoid doing this….if you want to create some youthful styles of your own, especially housedresses, visit a little girls’ shop. There you will see buttons and bows, checks, plaids, pleats, stripes, jumpers, daisies, and even satin, lace, and velvet. All of their clothes are pretty….Little girls wear ribbons, bows, barrettes, and flowers in their hair. They wear cute little hats.”
Just one more thought….I tend to agree with Andelin that some women go matronly at a young age. I had a classmate from high school who looked to be in her late 60’s when she ws 30 because of her style choices. It was awful. And then there is a homeschooling mom I know who turned 40 and started dressing like her teenagers. It was appalling and since she was such a tin woman she could dress in the junior department and did!
On the subject of fashion, I just wanted to mention that a while back my daughter-in-law and I were talking about dresses for my son’s upcoming wedding this summer. I really do not want to go the traditional mother of the groom route. Talk about matronly and way too over the top formal for me, even for a wedding. We pulled a book off my shelf that I bought 5 years ago when I saw the Jackie Kennedy Onassis museum exhibit in Chicago. Page after page of lovely clothes, simple and modest and feminine. There are a few bows but there are no big flounces, little lace, and the hats are elegant and sophisticated. Not one thing smacks of little girl dressing. I love all the covered buttons, three strands of pearls, and how everything is understated. Why can’t this be the look for womanhood (when we aren’t in jeans and t-shirts, of course!)
Annie, I just wanted to share with you that I think adoption is a wonderful thing. I was adopted. (here my the story if you haven’t heard it) http://www.thatmom.com/?p=123
Annie, I believe that God has no plan B, only a plan A and that adoption will be His good gift to you! I can’t wait to hear how your story unfolds!
Where exactly does she say to wear pantaloons, etc.? Is there another quotation in the book?
For the record, to say I dislike the book would be putting it charitably. However, I don’t think Andelin is (in the quotation ThatMom cited above, anyway), advocating dressing like a little girl. She’s only saying to not give up feminine clothing *in general*, and (to prove her point) to look at how feminine girls’ clothing is.
At least, I think that’s what she means. She’s a horrible writer. I have to re-write sentences and paragraphs in my mind while I’m reading her just to make sense of what she’s trying to say.
Shadowspring posted, “How can you teach American history without studying American history?”
This is a very good question, although these folks seem to have absolutely no problem with it, beginning with the lies they tell about the founding fathers, the lie that our constitution does not provide for separation of church and state, and it goes on and on. You apparently do not necessarily need to know history to revise it.
I think that what honestly happened is that Stacey read Karen’s blog post and checked out the Feminists for Life website through there. Then she saw some quotes and ran with it, without really understanding the historical background. And the other commenters bugged me too, because they basically made blanket statements based on their own skewed perspective and opinions, not based in FACT. And then I showed it to my mom. Who called it bs (But she used the actual words), and told me that in fact they have no facts to back up their statements about abortion today. I don’t know how I’m going to approach the subject, but if she sends me internet links, I will most certainly post them for Stacey to see.
The fact that my mom is one of the most avid feminist women I’ve ever known, and is also a stauch pro-lifer (for lack of a better term), just really flies in the face of feminism being the cause of abortion! It’s truly amazing to me that feminism has become the scapegoat, when it is such a broad brush, there are so many different ways to “be” a feminist, and to say that all feminism is evil kind of like they do, it just says to me that they have already formed their opinion of anyone outside of the little patriarchy bubble. Some of the comments about women and voting, and women being educated, just made me shake my head in disbelief. (And these comments came from women who VOTE AND HAVE EDUCATIONS!)
It’s funny, you know. We can sit in our living rooms and write till our fingers fall off, but the people who are out there in the real world doing the work (not saying people HERE aren’t) are the ones whose opinions don’t seem to hold weight with bloggers like Stacey.
On a somewhat related note, I have checked out Doug Phillips’ blog reports, and from what I can really see on the blog, I think that he has, at least temporarily, begun to see that other Christians ARE doing good work. His personal opinions on certain issues are still a little wacky, but overall, his reporting (though limited to specific issues) is not untruthful. Our missions pastor was at the very same field hospital for the last 3 weeks–their teams actually helped run the hospital and took over logistics for a while, and I am glad to see that Doug reported on the good being done there in the hospital. I may not agree with his religious and political opinions, but at least his reporting is not clashing with what I’m hearing from other sources in the exact same place. His reporting somewhat lacks the arrogance I was expecting.
Well said, Savannah.
A lie must contain only enough truth to make it believable beyond that, the liar (or historical revisionist, they are the same thing) can give free rein to his imagination.
Savannah, are you talking about the fact the the phrase itself “separation of church and state” is NOT in fact found in the Constitution?
The wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” clearly supports Jefferson’s idea expressed in his personal letter that religion and government are to remain separate spheres of society.
Politicians may practice (or abstain from practicing) religion in their private lives, and religions may continue to carry on their religious activities no matter who is in office.
It is not revisionist history to admit that the phrase “separation of church and state” os not in the Constitution.
Theonomists plainly declare that the Constitution doesn’t matter, the Bible is sufficient for all things, including the government. I pulled out my theonominst propaganda “Biblical Economics in Comics” by Vic Lockman and right there on page 75, “antinomians and liberals” are ruining our government and it should be reformed on the basis of the given scripture references. The Constitution isn’t even mentioned.
Not just self-identified theonomists. There seems to be a growing segment of the religious right who claim that the founding fathers did not intend for church and state to be separated, commonly known as the establishment clause of the first amendment of the US Constitution. More accurately, they seem to claim that it is only a one-way street that was intended, that the church should be involved in state business, but not the other way around.
The words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the constitution although the establishment clause is pretty well spelled out. Thomas Jefferson later wrote what is known as the Danbury letter in which he used words to that effect.
Of course, most of you already know this, as many of you homeschool your children and this is pretty basic civics. But the important thing is that there are people that want to take this precious freedom away from all Americans, so that they can push their view of theology/theocracy on our country.
They also want to conflate faith and politics even more by insisting that churches should defy the IRS statutes about how churches (not individuals – I am not even remotely suggesting that individuals should not be involved) should involve themselves in the political arena.
I developed a much deeper understanding of this situation by reading Michael Babcock’s “Unchristian America: Living with Faith in a Nation that Never was Under God”. Babcock is a Liberty Univeristy professor and this is an excellent book regarding the history of the situation and also challenges Christians on how to approach the issue.
In my opinion, nothing makes a woman look older than trying to dress too young. For backup on this, watch almost any episode of “What Not To Wear”!
Karen, my mother has worked at many weddings. She informs me (I have two sons) that the mother of the groom has two responsibilities: wear beige and keep her mouth shut. Unfortunately, I’m really bad at both of those!
“Karen, my mother has worked at many weddings. She informs me (I have two sons) that the mother of the groom has two responsibilities: wear beige and keep her mouth shut. Unfortunately, I’m really bad at both of those!”
Yes, I have my own list of what I think the groom’s mom is supposed to do. Here it is in its entirety: 1.) wear a pretty dress 2.) smile a lot 3.) have no opinion whatsoever
For the record, I won’t be wearing beige. Its a dreadful color on me!
I’m always way behind on my reading here. Every time I do some catching up, I’m struck by how well-read and intelligent everybody is, and by how much love and grace I find here, but without sugarcoating. This blog is a God-send for so many reasons! Thanks, thatmom, for keeping it going.
I can’t wear beige, either. But I can learn to keep my mouth shut when necessary.
…I developed a much deeper understanding of this situation by reading Michael Babcock’s “Unchristian America: Living with Faith in a Nation that Never was Under God”. Babcock is a Liberty Univeristy professor and this is an excellent book regarding the history of the situation and also challenges Christians on how to approach the issue.
Savannah,
Thanks for the book recommendation. I’m always looking for new books.
Shadowspring posted, “It is not revisionist history to admit that the phrase “separation of church and state” os not in the Constitution.”
Yes, I realize that. I was referring to the concept in shorthand, not the actual words. Those specific words do not appear in the establishment clause, but are commonly referred to as a concept as such. That’s all I meant. Clearly they are not in the constitution itself, so it’s not a matter of admitting or not admitting anything.
They appear in Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, where he refers to the “wall of separation between church and state”.
Yeah, I got that you knew that. I was just trying to figure out “who” was calling for ending the establishment clause, if you were specifically posting about theonomists.
Because my understanding of theonomy, is that the Constitution is irrelevant. That to me is way scarier than Christians complaining about what preachers can and cannot preach from the pulpit about moral issues that also affect the political scene.
Another great book along the lines of Michael Babcock’s is Dr. Gregory Boyd’s “The Myth of A Christian Nation.” It is one of my all-time favorites. There’s a link to his website on my blog. He’s got some great stuff there!
I was shopping there tonight with my 10 year old son, and he saw the big sign “Love is… CANDY!” He smirked and said, “That is SO wrong! We’ll just have to TALK to those people!”
I couldn’t help but laugh remembering the earlier comments on this post.
“Annie, I just wanted to share with you that I think adoption is a wonderful thing. I was adopted. (here my the story if you haven’t heard it) http://www.thatmom.com/?p=123
Annie, I believe that God has no plan B, only a plan A and that adoption will be His good gift to you! I can’t wait to hear how your story unfolds!”
That’s wonderful! And I’m with you “no plan B” – were the ones with A,B,C’s.
Darcy posted, “Another great book along the lines of Michael Babcock’s is Dr. Gregory Boyd’s “The Myth of A Christian Nation.” It is one of my all-time favorites. There’s a link to his website on my blog. He’s got some great stuff there!”
Actually, that was the first book I had read dealing with this subject. I was pretty much a full-fledged “culture warrior” before that, at least in some ways. Greg Boyd’s book made me look at my life, and hard. It’s a shame that he’s painted with the dreaded “evil librul” brush, and because of that, many fundamentalist Christians don’t read his book, as his thesis is transformative.
Shadowspring posted, “Because my understanding of theonomy, is that the Constitution is irrelevant. That to me is way scarier than Christians complaining about what preachers can and cannot preach from the pulpit about moral issues that also affect the political scene.”
About your first point, I don’t really see a substantial difference between lying about or trying to distort what the constituion says or claiming that its irrelevant. To me, they’re are both kind of the same thing, and both are frightening.
On your second point, I was not referring to pastors being able to talk about, from the pulpit, issues of morality. They have always done so, and arguably, that is a big part of their job. I am talking about pastors who say, from the pulpit, “You must vote for Candidate X, and if you do vote for Candidate Y, you ARE NOT a Christian, and you’re on a fast toboggan to hell”.
Abby’s comments about the women’s suffrage/abolition movement and the vitriol that seems to come out against these women on the part of patriocentic women today sparked some good discussion in my house over the weekend, in part because we went to see The Blind Side. This was my second time to see it and I love the movie, on a number of levels.
Sandra Bullock’s portrayal of real life 21st century southern woman Leigh Anne Teughy, whose life was so drastically changed as she was challenged to put wheels on her faith as a Christian and as she was confronted by her “friends” for doing so, really pictures the contradictions we all have seen ourselves. While Teughy is the strong, outspoken, mover and shaker woman, her friends, in contrast, are stereotypical women who are more concerned about shopping and having lunch and “charity work” than they are about real relationships with real people. Somehow they reflect, I think, the two types of women who came out of the pre-Civil War south….the belles and the suffragettes, to paint broadly.
One of the appropriate word pictures often used to describe the white women who were mistresses of their plantations is the notion that they were to be “placed on a pedestal.” If you read commentary on life at that time, this phrase comes up often. The idea is that women (white upper crust women) were to be fragile and objects of beauty to be admired, like a lovely vase on a mantle, to be taken down by the man for his amusement at his whim. I believe that many of those who disdain the woman’s suffrage movement do so because they believe it was an assault on women’s lives, at least the “image” or “myth” of life for white women at that time.
Here is an interesting quote from Daniel Hundley in his book Social Relations in Our Southern states:
“A Southern matron is ever idolized and almost worshipped by her dependents, and beloved by her children, to whom no word ever sounds half so sweet as mother and for whom no place possesses one half the charms of home.”
Here is another interesting quote that talks about the myth of the southern woman from that era, this time from historian Anne Scott:
“If talking could make it so, antebellum southern women of the upper class would have been the most perfect example of womankind yet seen on earth. If praise could satisfy all of woman’s needs, they would have been the happiest. Literary journals sermons, novels, commencement addresses, wherever men spoke, there was praise of Woman and exhortation to further perfection.
This marvelous creation was described as a submissive wife whose reason for being was to love, honor, obey and occasionally amuse her husband, to bring up his children and manage his household. Physically weak and “formed for the less laborious occupations,” she depended upon male protection. To secure this protection she was to “create a magic spell” over any man in her vicinity.” She was timid and modest, beautiful and graceful, the most fascinating being in creation, the delight and charm of every circle she moves in.
Part of her charm lay in her innocence. The less a woman knew of life, the better she was supposed to be able to deal with it. Her mind was not logical, but in the absence of reasoning capacity her sensibility and intuition were highly developed. It was, indeed, to her advantage that the play of instincts and of the feelings is not cramped by the controlling influence of logic and reason. It was her nature to be self-denying and she was given to suffering in silence, a characteristic said to endear her to men.”
And these thoughts from a man only identified as “President of the oldest college in Virginia” to his newly married daughter and found in one of the early issues of the Southern Literary Messenger (again, Anne Scott):
“The wife’s conduct alone, he asserted, determined the happiness or misery of a marriage. She must resolve at the onset never to oppose her husband, never to show displeasure, no matter what he might do. A man had a right to expect his wife to place perfect confidence in his judgment and to believe that he always knew best. “A difference with your husband ought to be considered the greatest calamity” wrote the father, adding that a woman who permitted differences to occur could expect to lose her husband’s love and all hope of happiness.”
And of course, the archetypical Southern belle, Scarlett O’Hara, is a memorable character because although this is what is expected of her as a woman, and on a certain level she wishes she could be this kind of woman (like her mother), she *knows* that she is stronger and smarter than almost every man around her. (With the notable exception of Rhett Butler.)
And these thoughts from a man only identified as “President of the oldest college in Virginia” to his newly married daughter and found in one of the early issues of the Southern Literary Messenger (again, Anne Scott):
“The wife’s conduct alone, he asserted, determined the happiness or misery of a marriage. She must resolve at the onset never to oppose her husband, never to show displeasure, no matter what he might do. A man had a right to expect his wife to place perfect confidence in his judgment and to believe that he always knew best. “A difference with your husband ought to be considered the greatest calamity” wrote the father, adding that a woman who permitted differences to occur could expect to lose her husband’s love and all hope of happiness.”
Another commentator, John Daniel Wade, who researched the life of middle Georgia, pre-Civil War, assessed it this way, “Men found intelligence in women a quality that in general distressed more than it pleased. When they did not openly condemn they treated it with insulting condescension. The women proved themselves marvelously adaptable.” (This one hit too close to home. Sounds like some of my own family integrated church experiences!)
One of the leading characters in a Nathaniel Beverly Tucker novel once discussed the way he proposed to educate his daughter: She must be raised, he said, to take for granted her husband’s superiority, to rely on his wisdom, to take pride in his distinction. Even should her faculties be superior to his, he cannot raise her so high but that she will still feel herself a creature of his hands.”
Here is an interesting definition for hegemony I recently came across:
“A concept of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) which refers to the way that the political and social domination of the bourgeois class in capitalist society is pervasively expressed not only in ideologies but in all realms of culture and social organization. The comprehensive expression of the values of class divided society in social life lends this form of society an appearance of naturalness and inevitability that removes it from examination, criticism and challenge. While arising in the analysis of a class divided society the term is also used in discussion of a patriarchal society or a colonial society.”
Perhaps this is why any discussion of equality of any sort, whether it be among the sexes or classes, or whatever, is labeled “Marxism.”
Interesting to ponder, especially the notion that hegemony is free from criticism or challenge or examination by its very nature. This really opened my eyes to some of my own experiences with patriocentrists.
Here is another interesting quote. Before I share it, I certainly want to say that I do not desire to belittle or malign any Southern woman who reads here. I am also not assigning all these traits to all women. So if I offend any of my southern friends, please hear this in the spirit in which I share it.
I have long realized that many of the patriocentric ideals for women that are passed off as the “godly” or “biblical” way of doing things are really and truly just antebellum southern cultural ideals for women with a few passages of Scripture used as “support.” While obviously there are some praiseworthy ideals, as such because they are truly Biblical, many of them are not required for all women.
I think this quote from a research study on southern stereotypes by John Lynxwiler and Michele Wilson is so good so please hear me out:
“The term “Southern woman” conjures up a specific cultural image. Southern womanhood is essentially white and relatively well to do. From journalistic satire to scholarly writings, a consistent, dominant image of the Southern woman emerges. Southern by “the grace of God,” she is a lady in her innocence, including the absence of knowledge of vulgar topics and language. She is modest in her concerns, dress, and demeanor. Her timidity, never marred by assertiveness or anger, is complemented by her submissiveness to her parents, husband, spiritual counselor, and God. All of these protect her from the harsh realities of money, the world of work, and rapists…Immortalized in popular fiction and Hollywood cinema, the Southern belle, as a stereotype, dates back to the antebellum South. Her popular mystique is organized around youth, physical attractiveness, sensuality, and a command of social proprieties….As with other female stereotypes in our society, cultural images of Southern women generally are considered more childlike and of less value than their male counterparts.
Some critics have argued that female stereotypes have little grounding in reality, that the squealing, mindless girl and the lady with her chaste morality and groveling deference are merely parodies with little validity. However, cultural stereotypes do have an impact on our lives. They function as controls in the sense that individuals internalize them, monitor their own behavior, and restrict their presentations in a manner approaching the ideal. In turn, others react to us in ways that encourage mutual acceptance of the stereotype as a norm.
Along with their restrictive nature, stereotypes have other functions. They contribute to role expectations which serve as guides for behavior. As guides to appropriate behaviors, personalities, and attitudes, one can see the expectations positively and call the result role performance.”
One of aspects of the Lunxwiler/Wilson research focused on the code of the New Southern Belle (NSB). Here are some of the highlights of their research:
“Status consciousness permeates the life of the NSB. It directs her decisions about where to go, what to do, and with whom. It also dictates how she will interact with those of higher and lower status. In short, NSBs are masters of place in the social structure. This attention to status indicators is a form of boundary maintenance and includes, among other things, material goods, knowledge of social rituals, deference and demeanor ceremonies….
Reliance on traditional sex roles is one of the ways in which Southern women of most types differ from the women of other parts of the country. The NSB does this in a more obvious way than other women from her region. Not only are men to be adored, theya re to be deferred to in decision-making and conversation. The role-taking ability of the NSB is well hones. She, more than any other group of women, recognized that men have power, that they control the system of awards in society. Rather than opting for achievement on her own, she achieves through affiliations with men.
The ability to achieve is dependent on being male oriented. There is a quid pro quo, not just in deference but in ego building and face-saving for males….”
“She, more than any other group of women, recognized that men have power, that they control the system of awards in society.”
This is key. Percentage wise, men have more power socially than women. But that does not suggest that women should encourage men to take power from women, nor does it suggest that women shouldn’t have social power as well. And believe me, women are part of the problem when they let men take power from women. We’ve done that in the past. Now it is time to seek fair treatment.
“About your first point, I don’t really see a substantial difference between lying about or trying to distort what the constituion says or claiming that its irrelevant. To me, they’re are both kind of the same thing, and both are frightening.
On your second point, I was not referring to pastors being able to talk about, from the pulpit, issues of morality. They have always done so, and arguably, that is a big part of their job. I am talking about pastors who say, from the pulpit, “You must vote for Candidate X, and if you do vote for Candidate Y, you ARE NOT a Christian, and you’re on a fast toboggan to hell”.
Savannah, I am still trying to figure out WHO you are talking about? Who does this? Who is “lying about or trying to distort what the constituion says” and what pastor is telling people that if they don’t vote for a particular candidate they are going to hell?
That’s all I am trying to get you to indentify is who you are talking about. I have never experienced these things, so I am very confused.
I thought you were talking about theonomists but now it is clear you mean someone/some organization that is clearly “Two totally different things.” but you still have not identified who/what that is.
I am not trying to start a fight. I just want to understand who/what you are talking about. I am a staunch defender of freedom for both religious and non-religious Americans!
We just talked about using glue sticks a few days ago. Now this article appears and it sounds like the parents used a similar “rod.” This is just horrifying.
“One of the leading characters in a Nathaniel Beverly Tucker novel once discussed the way he proposed to educate his daughter: She must be raised, he said, to take for granted her husband’s superiority, to rely on his wisdom, to take pride in his distinction. Even should her faculties be superior to his, he cannot raise her so high but that she will still feel herself a creature of his hands.”
This author certainly does seem to have the hierarchial process of manipulation nailed down. It’s almost too much to read…
It seems to me that whichever child “discipline” guru they were following — Michael Pearl and “pastor” Ron Williams come to mind as possible culprits — ought to also get a prison sentence, for aiding and abetting child torture.
Just read the story about the Schatz family. That is so horrifying. I will definitely say something about this in my next Hope Chest e-magazine. It reminds me so much of the Forder family and the murder charges against them in the death of one of their adopted children. He wasn’t from Liberia, but they had adopted triplets from there after he died.
BTW, did anyone notice that today is Susan B. Anthony Day? It is her 190th birthday. Cheers for the right to vote — and SO MUCH MORE!
The Paradise couple accused of killing one of their children and severely injuring another might have been following advice from the internet.
The Butte County District Attorney’s Office is investigating a possible connection between Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz and a website that endorses corporal punishment using the same quarter-inch pipe the Schatz’s allegedly used to discipline Lydia and Zariah.
Prosecutors say Lydia was being disciplined for mispronouncing a word while reading during a home school lesson the day she died. Zariah is still in critical condition in a Sacramento hospital, but he is starting to recover.
Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz are due back in court February 25th.
“Part of her charm lay in her innocence. The less a woman knew of life, the better she was supposed to be able to deal with it. Her mind was not logical, but in the absence of reasoning capacity her sensibility and intuition were highly developed. It was, indeed, to her advantage that the play of instincts and of the feelings is not cramped by the controlling influence of logic and reason. It was her nature to be self-denying and she was given to suffering in silence, a characteristic said to endear her to men.”
LOL!
Great stuff!
God forbid that I should be cramped and controlled by logic and reason! LOL
I must be a defective female, born with defective female genes. And I see that much of patriocentric teachings concerning the “biblical woman” actually come from the Southern Belle playbook.
On another note, I read a great article in the St. Louis paper about women and how they handle anger and how that relates to the “mean girl/woman” syndrome. Since women aren’t allowed to be angry and their anger is trivialized by society they resort to passive/aggressive and mean behavior.
A woman who deals with issues in an assertive, forthright manner is considered to be a b*&%$ so women have had to adapt and become sneaky and underhanded in order to deal with anger.
It talks about how women also have a double standard when it comes to dealing with bad treatment. When bad treatment comes from a man, we tend to rationalize and make excuses for them and easily and quickly forget and forgive such behavior. But, when the same treatment or behavior comes from a woman we hold that woman to a much higher standard and we hold grudges against the woman.
I will get the quote from Andelin about going to a little girls’ store and observing the fashions. But, it is most certainly not about dressing in a feminine manner since Andelin reiterates her opinion in other parts of the book that men are aroused by a woman who behaves like a little girl. Dressing like one only goes to further the fantasy in the male mind.
Andelin’s point isn’t about acting “feminine” or dressing feminine but about manipulating and pouting and stomping and shaking our curls like a little girl. Basically, we are to act the part of a little girl because men allegedly like this quality in a woman.
Karen, I have to say that the Southern woman you describe in #447 bears no resemblance to the Southern women I grew up with. My great-grandmother and both my grandmothers were working women throughout their adult lives — some with, some without the benefit of higher education. They were smart, strong, humble, dedicated to their God and their families.
My mother went to college (as her mother did) and although she did not work outside the home, she encouraged her daughters to pursue higher education and has expressed only pride in our jobs.
“All of these protect her from the harsh realities of money, the world of work, and rapists…”
As if these somehow go together! No, thank goodness, my mother is/was always the treasurer in our home and kept detailed financial records — necessary for a minister’s unique financial issues. All of the women in my family were/are quite aware of the realities of money and were raised to be so. It would have been considered negligent not to be!
Shadowspring, I was not deliberately trying to obscure anything. I didn’t realize you were asking for specific names of organizations or people that were advocating that the establishment clause does not protect Americans from any religion imposed upon them by the government, i.e., a civil religion.
As far as pastors and pulpits and politics, one only need to look at the national organized effort by the Alliance Defense Fund’s “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” on September 28, 2008 that encouraged pastors to defy the IRS statutes and speak out against the democratic candidate and for the republican candidate for president. Not for/against issues, not about morality, but actually for/against specific candidates.
This was a big deal in my small town, as many far-right evangelicals wanted their churches to participate in this, but most churches would not, most notably our mega church. Some people drove more than an hour to to find a church that Sunday morning which supported this national effort put on by the ADF.
One of our friends drove to Dayton to one of these church, just to kind of investigate what was going on with this effort. This Christian man reported to us that that congregation had been told, from the pulpit, by the head pastor, that Christians could not support certain candidates, and if one voted for certain candidates, one could not possibly be a Christian.
Now I don’t know about everybody else, but where I come from, if somebody tells you that you can’t possibly be a Christian, that means that they believe you are bound for hell.
As far as the constitution, one only need google “no separation of church and state” to be presented with all stripes and colors of folks who believe that there is no separation of church and state in this country, and that Christianity, or at least their preferred form of it, should be the declared the “civil religion” of this country. Take your pick. Maybe you can start here: http://www.noseparationDOTorg/ (note use of DOT).
These people are short-sighted, refusing to see that the wall of separation which most Americans hold so dear protects ALL of us, Christians and non-Christians alike. If the government can force one religion down people’s throats, they can certainly change their minds later and force another.
Faith and relationship with God are something that we freely enter into, because God Himself has equipped us with free will, and does not seek to force us into relationship with Him. Why would we ever allow the government to do so?
Hey, friends… would you mind lifting my husband and me up in prayer tomorrow?
We are both getting medical tests done, for some pretty worrisome symptoms.
Thanks.
I think anyone who promotes the “NSB” should read The Age of Innocence. I think it gives a great perspective on what a man actually gets out of a naive “pure” wife.
Men are told that that’s what they want in a woman, but it truly doesn’t satisfy. I wonder how many turn to affairs or to controlling their wives because they assume the problem is with her, rather than questioning their beleifs.
I read about the Schatz little girls. How awful! It makes me sick that parents would do that to their children.
It also makes me sick that “ministries” that promote such methods of discipline would be left off the hook time and time again.
On the NGJ site (which I am almost sure is the internet site that promotes the use of plumbing supply to spank children with) there is an article where Michael Pearls says to “give the child 10 or 15 licks” ( I can’t find the article, but it’s there somewhere).
Here’s the advice for te mom of a 4 year-old little runaway.
When she screams or flees, calmly follow through by physically subduing her. Sit on her, if you have to, and slowly explain that you will not tolerate this resistance. Explain in a normal tone (She will eventually stop screaming and listen) that you are going to give her, say, five licks for the original offense and an additional two licks for the fit. Slowly apply the five licks, counting out loud. When I say slowly, I mean with a thirty second gap between each lick and a calm explanation to the screaming child that you are not the least impressed except that you are going to spank harder and she still gets the additional two licks plus one more for her ongoing screaming. When you have finally arrived at five well- anticipated and carefully counted licks, say, “OK, your spanking is over; that is the five licks you got for hitting your brother, but now I must give you two more for trying to run away.” Give her one lick and say, “Now, that is one of the licks for running away; you have one more coming.” Give the second lick, and then calmly and slowly explain that all her licks are over now, except for the one additional lick she incurred for continuing to scream during the spanking. After you have finished, tell her that you are going to let her up now, if she stops screaming, otherwise you are going to give her one additional lick. If she stops, or at least makes a great effort to, then you have won. You may never have to go through this horrible time again. But, if she is continuing to scream in defiance, you have the option of continuing to warn and spank, or of ceasing here with a parting warning: “Next time you better not run and throw a fit; for if you do, you will only get more licks and harder ones.”
Finally, if you are not going to be consistent, give up now; don’t trouble yourself or torment the child by spanking her nine times and then giving in on the tenth time. Children are amazing in the memory and ability to endure spankings, waiting for that one moment of weakness to show through again. If you occasionally allow their fits to win the prize, like a gambler they will play the game all night, even when they are losing, because they know winning is possible.
It’s worth it. After about three days of absolute consistency on your part, you can initially conform a child to your will. They just have to be convinced that you are not the old negotiator. You are Iron Woman; The Indomitable. It’s the loving thing to do.
So. When would they tell a parent to stop spanking a screaming child and maybe try letting the child calm down?
I think the book should go off the market and Christians should stand up against these people’s teachings.
If you don’t vote and if you don’t vote against ALL Republicans then you are voting and you are voting for this.
So clearly the ADF is not the only people damning the opposition.
I believe that tactic is called “guilty be association” and thinking people shouldn’t fall for it.
As a person who had those very scriptures pronounced over me by church leadership, I am incensed that this person would pretend to have compassion for those of us in that situation, when all his is really doing is further exploiting us victims in order to promote his own political agenda.
I am too angry for words right now.
I am sure this is not the response you thought you would stir up, Karen. But how dare this person pretend to care when all he is really doing is using our suffering to villify his political opponents?
That is every bit as bad as a preacher saying that you can’t be saved if you DON’T vote Republican! This guy is claiming you must be a child-abusing woman hating fundamentalist if you DO vote Repblublican and not only that, if you don’t vote at all you share the same label! Wth?
For the record, the same elders who pronounced the curse over my sister and me and “exiled us from the camp” also organized the church watch party for Jimmy Carter!
You all do remember that Jimmy Carter was/is a Democrat, right?
Ladies, I read this goofy stuff people are preaching and teaching today and all I can think of is “come quickly Lord Jesus”. Surely these are the last days, there seem to be so many deceivers out there leading not only the lost astray but believers as well. I feel these wolves in sheeps clothing are highjacking Christianity and stealing away the beauty of the Gospel, replacing it with a false gospel that brings darkness instead of light. I fear for my grown children and grandchildren for what they will be exposed to and wonder what being a Christian will cost them as the world begins to associate Christians with these kooks out there.
“When she screams or flees, calmly follow through by physically subduing her. Sit on her, if you have to, and slowly explain that you will not tolerate this resistance….”
I really am being to think that parents who abuse their children like this are raising the nest generation of atheists, for why would their children want to believe or follow a God who demanded parents treat their children in such a manner. It just makes me shudder to hear and read about parents who explain to their children that they are obeying God by disciplining so harshly.
“Ladies, I read this goofy stuff people are preaching and teaching today and all I can think of is “come quickly Lord Jesus”. Surely these are the last days, there seem to be so many deceivers out there leading not only the lost astray but believers as well.”
You may be right, but history tells us that things in the Middle Ages were even worse than today.
Google “Cathar beliefs” or “Munster rebellion” and you’ll see what I mean.
Karen–I looked at that site about the words of reconstructionists, and I was a little confused about the thing about patriotism that was written by Francis Schaeffer. It didn’t line up with the other stuff for me, because I happen to agree with him. I wonder who put this site together? Schaeffer wasn’t saying that we should Subdue the government, but that it is basically okay for Christians to have “civil disobedience” when it comes to serious issues regarding things like abortion or the rights of all human beings. This is exactly what Martin Luther King did. He’s not talking about majority rule, but the fact that the Kingdom of God supersedes (for the Christian) the kingdoms of man. Our main loyalty as Christians is to God, not to man, and we absolutely SHOULD fight for our Christian beliefs, particularly when justice clashes with the laws of the land. Justice for ALL is in the constitution, and in our pledge to the American flag. Not only that, but we serve a God who is concerned with Justice, which is far more important than any pledge we make as citizens of any given country. If I were a citizen of a country that were not concerned with justice, but still a Christian, it would always still be my duty to fight for justice there as well, because I belong to GOD’s Kingdom, not simply to man’s. And it’s not through domination and control, but through the message of the Gospel that we will change the world–change–not take over.
There’s a lot on that site I found disturbing, but this, I have to say, was something I agreed with Schaeffer on.
I agree, Abby. In fact, I have been reading Schaeffer this week in the process of writing about some of the embarrassing lack of consciousness or awareness of the culture, even coming out of the mouths of those who are purported “teachers” of worldview! Astounding. Schaeffer has to been on rotisserie in his grave!!!
Since I dumped Concerned Women for America back in ’88 I have given no time nor attention to political groups claiming to be advocating for God.
God is quite big enough to advocate for Himself, thank you very much.
I am a big advocate of standing up for what’s right in the political arena, every man according to his own conscience. When people bring God into their arguments, I turn a deaf ear and close the checkbook.
My repugnance at people claiming that their politics are God’s chosen point of view probably stems from having to sit at that watch party and then finding out what was really in the hearts of those “men of Gawd”. >:[
To all, my friend Geneal just called. The local health department is covering all her tests and her MRI is scheduled for the 24th. Thanks for the prayers!
Here’s a question for all you ladies: Why do you think that the churches are *not* speaking out against child abuse?
And I mean in general, including everything from not condemning the Pearls and the Ezzos to the Vatican refusing to cooperate with the child abuse inquiry in Dublin to the silence from the Christian leadership as a whole over the fairly large numbers of pastors and youth ministers who keep being convicted for abuse issues.
I often wondered that when I was dealing with a sexual abuse issue (not me, personally, but on behalf of a child) and why NO one want to address the problem and just wanted it (and the victims) to go away. To me, it was logical that we should just talk about this openly and make sure that this happened to no other child and that the perp got the help he so needed (obviously he was abused because a sheltered, homeschooled child would NEVER know to do the things and say the things he did to his victim).
A friend of mine, who was sexually abused as a child, told me that she thinks it is because much of the leadership (in any church) either was sexually abused themselves and never wanted to talk about it because then their abuse would become reality or that they “experimented” sexually with other males in their pre-teens and teens and that would mean they would have to, again, face reality. She was repeatedly raped by her own deacon father and when she went to the leadership of her church for help they told her that she was a liar, a gossip and that she should be ashamed for slandering such a good man (her father). Her own mother refused to believe her, too.
We all have so-called “skeletons” in our closets and if we haven’t dealt with the reality of those “skeletons” we will be defensive and react instead of address those issues.
As far as child abuse, I think that it is not addressed because either people think it is a non-issue or they think that by calling attention to it that their “right” to spank will be taken away from them.
It seems to really bother a lot of people when the issue of children’s rights come up and the topic goes immediately to spanking and how the government has no business regulating whether they can spank or not.
Also, when we talk about abuse or the techniques of spanking it always sounds worse to our own ears than when we are actually personally doing the action. In order to talk about abuse, we might actually have to admit that we have been or are currently guilty of exactly what we are condemning.
I will never forget when I was on a popular patriarchal wives list and the topic of slapping children in the face came up and how that was such a wonderful discipline tool. I was appalled and said so PUBLICLY. In fact, I was the only one, if I remember right. I got a lot of mail thanking me for doing so but everyone was to afraid to say something publicly. I couldn’t understand that either but I think corporal punishment and supreme authority over one’s children is so important in the patriarchal circles that these other women knew they would be outed as “not one of them” if they said something. I didn’t care since I was not one of them and I no longer wanted to pretend I was one of them in order to belong to their club.
I was written, privately, by the moderators and told that I shouldn’t “judge” these ladies and that slapping faces was just one of “many different tools” in our discipline toolbox. Well, I didn’t judge them. I told them that there was no excuse for slapping a child in the face.
The whole conversation started when a woman wrote in about her parents and how they reported her husband to the authorities for slapping their child across the face at a family gathering. The ladies wrote her back and told her that since she was a woman she didn’t know any better and that her husband knew better and that if she told her husband that it was unacceptable to slap her children across the face then she would be putting herself in a position where she thought she knew better than her husband.
Well, she DID know better than her husband in this particular instance and so did her family!
That devolved into posts that supported this husband’s choice of “discipline”.
What really made me mad was that NONE of the moderators, as so-called Titus 2 women and “leaders” and “authors”, rebuked these women and stated that slapping a child across the face is never okay
So, maybe that experience tells us one of the reasons why abuse is not addressed in the Church? Because there are many people who abuse their own children and to point a finger at abuse is to point a finger at their own selves.
Just think of the amount of church leaders who admit, in various studies, that they spend a lot of time looking at porn! And they are the ones who have admitted to the practice, what about the ones that haven’t? They are leading our churches.
I have found that many leaders use the pulpit to hide their own sins, too. They rail against porn, for instance, but they have a huge problem with it. Kind of like a stink bomb in order to throw people off the trail of their own secret dabblings.
“I think anyone who promotes the “NSB” should read The Age of Innocence. I think it gives a great perspective on what a man actually gets out of a naive “pure” wife.”
What is the “NSB”? And is the “Age of Innocence” a book? What is the author’s name?
Annie C. said “Here’s a question for all you ladies: Why do you think that the churches are *not* speaking out against child abuse?”
Because they’re commiting it?
I don’t know! I’m wondering. Where is the biblical justification for Baptist Boot Camps for girls with rebellious spirits?
Baptist Pastors are too reluctant to condemn the abusive Hephzibah House for girls. Are they afraid? Or do they believe in a biblical mandate for men to dominate by force, keep property by force, and hold slaves by force, and if necessary, abuse?
Annie–that’s a really good question. I wish I knew an answer, but I think the reality is that the church has been destabilized by the corruption from within. I don’t think that it’s going to tear the church apart for good, no, I just think that there is a lot of work to be done.
I have been reading a book of articles written by C.S. Lewis called Present Concerns, and one of the articles I just read deals with “tolerance” or at least the idea that we should just let everyone go on doing what they want and not bother with anyone else. I think we all agree that the consequences can be disastrous when we say “mind your own business” when it comes to things like abuse.
I believe, personally, that churches ought to take a hard and direct stand on abuse, any kind of abuse, and that any church group that opposes this stance will be left to themselves. This is kind of what Lewis said. He was talking about a man who wrote for tabloids, or that kind of “news” and how everyone says the man and his job are deplorable, yet continue to associate with him and pay to buy his news. He suggests a boycott, not because anyone is actually better than that man, but because his kind of “news” is destructive to the well-being of society as a whole. It boils down to: if you don’t like gossip, don’t be around a gossip, and don’t listen to gossip. If you don’t like child abuse, speak against child abuse and do not associate with anyone who doesn’t take a hard stance on child abuse. Of course, in our world, it’s not so simple, but it also doesn’t mean we have to seclude ourselves. It means that we don’t tolerate that kind of lawbreaking.
Sorry for the rambling! I do think that this explains why Jesus spent time with “sinners” rather than the religious people. They were honest about their sin, and they wanted to change, while the Pharisees were outwardly “perfect” but inwardly vile. Jesus only spent time with people who admitted their own weakness and wanted to change, not those who saw themselves as perfect, but were far less in reality. Some people are smug like the Pharisees, seeing themselves as “above” others or the law, and those people aren’t worth being around. Anyone who says that beating your child with a metal rod is acceptable doesn’t deserve to be listened to or associated with, no matter what “good things” they might say in other matters.
I have friends who’ve read Debbie Pearl’s book (Created to be His Helpmeet), and they have all said “well, there’s some good stuff” in spite of the bad advice. Well, here’s what I think: If you have to sift through the bad to get to the good, it’s not worth it, and the author certainly doesn’t deserve praise for any good things she might say. We all have some degree of sense, and I can bet that most of the “good” things in that book are things we all could have figured out on our own, or gotten from a book that had a better overall feeling. I will not ever pay to read a book like that.
Annie C posted, “Here’s a question for all you ladies: Why do you think that the churches are *not* speaking out against child abuse?”
I think it’s appalling. The church should be the first to speak up about injustice, not be too busy protecting their own and sweeping things under the rug to care about the innocent victims.
Some of the stuff I have read around the blogs over the last few days has been pretty disturbing. Despite these documented cases of abuse (and even deaths) related to people using the teachings of the Pearls and their ilk, many Christians are still reluctant to speak out against those practices. We should be the first ones speaking out.
Okay, so we all agree it’s appalling, and there are few who will speak out. So we really should be more vocal about it. Jesus was a trouble-maker, wasn’t he? He called out the religious leaders for their abuse of the people, so why shouldn’t we do the same? Paul called out the Judaizers for trying to get everyone to follow the Jewish customs, and opposed another Apostle to his face (Peter), why can’t we do the same?
It is interesting to me that the suffragettes suffered so publicly for OUR FREEDOM specifically as women, and yet we can sit back and just enjoy that freedom while there are others who are still under the same hands of abuse that were around 100 years ago. I know that making trouble makes a lot of enemies–but if these enemies are opposing justice for the abused, then they are essentially enemies of God. They are opposing his justice. We can do what is right, even if it means we make people more than just a little uncomfortable.
In my opinion (and that’s all it is), the church is somewhat silent on the abuse of children, especially non-sexual abuse, because of this verse and others like it in Proverbs: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” (Prov. 13:24) The Bible here seems to advocate the practice of hitting children to discipline them, and using a rod to do it. Once you can advocate for using a tool like a rod to hit children, it is difficult to speak out against those that take this practice too far, because they’ll throw this verse back at you. And, how far is too far? Who determines that, and how? What is too far for me might not seem too far for another person. I think what the Pearls are doing is “too far” from the get go, but they can always point to that verse and just move on past any objections that I might have.
So, ladies, how do you argue against the Proverbs Biblical defense for hitting children with a rod? How do we answer those who use it as a justification for abuse?
Virginia, I checked out your blog(s)–you are busy, girl! Am praying my dear family member will read your post on child discipline vs. abuse, as she is a subscriber and what you have there is so good. Think they have gotten the glue sticks out again recently.
The ‘rod’ in the Bible was NOT the rod like is used by these child abusing Morons that I will work to pass legislation to SEE THEM IN JAIL WHERE THEY BELONG…for child abuse AND accessory to Child Abuse.
The ‘rod’ was a staff, that was used by Sheep herders to slap the buttocks of sheep to keep them from Running off–not some big iron rod to Beat them till bloody or broken spirit.
These child abusers Are Idiots, COWARDS, nothing more than COWARDS who have not the Sense to know HOW to ‘admonish in the Lord’ children,
hell I wouldn’t trust them with Dog obedience, we don’t even train dogs that way.
Look, these types of people are
E.V.I.L.
forget trying to understand them, I don’t care HOW much Jesus they plaster on their lips,
workers of Satan. And I have no qualms in saying so—Zero Tolerance for abusing children
and those women who are aiding in the raping of kids [by the warped submission garbage]
Trust me, I will do ALL in my power, to see legislation passed, holding teachers, ministries, Accountable, to the FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW, that profit, encourage, lead and manipulate Environments that are Conducive to child abuse and child sexual abuse.
As for those men and women who have preached these Lies, what they have Really done is open the door to every child pervert/abuser and wife abuser out there, and made their Churches Refuges, for Criminals.
They make me sick–and WE, really need to Stop, feeling sorry for them, and stand Opposed to the Evil, the Iniquity that these False Prophets are peddling.
to this: So, ladies, how do you argue against the Proverbs Biblical defense for hitting children with a rod? How do we answer those who use it as a justification for abuse?
Easy, New Testament Pam, Jesus said, if you Hurt one of these little ones who believe in me better you had millstone around your neck and tossed into see, see NOT that you offend one of these little ones, their Angels are always before the face of God, etc.,
numerous scriptures in OT about NOT passing your children through the Fire [sexual abuse and would include other abuses as unto God the way the pagans did to their children to Moleck/Marduk, Dagon, etc],
NT, Father’s do NOT provoke your children to wrath
NT, do not cause one to Stumble or be Offended in Christ, that would include beating a child…
CHILD ABUSE IS A SIN. No ands, ifs, ors, buts about it. God hates it and if those who abuse children do NOT repent, they will go to hell, all there is to is.
WE, however Pam, as Christians, do have a RESPONSIBILITY to protect and advocate for the weak, oppressed, children, widows [hundreds of scriptures in OT do NOT oppress widows and fatherless/weak/immigrants/poor], not just a responsibility but A COMMAND. The reason the church today is Silent is because 95% of them are apostate as hell, more like the pulpit pimps of Babylon,
that is Why you don’t hear much–because like domestic violence they’d lose
ka ching, money money money…
CAN’T GET A LOT OF TITHES FROM POOR SINGLE MOTHER HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS
and not only that, oh my Gosh they’d lose that right wing fascist leaning white privilege Capitalist VOTE.
Common sense really–to Stand up against the mainstream makes you immediately a target to be hated, shunned, etc., well, Pam,
many just won’t [like many feminists who in their cultural relativism would rather save their white privilege asses than stand opposed to the horrors of abuses to women in Islam--far left is the Worst about this betrayal to women's rights]. Many Won’t stand Alone–if need be,
because Then they’d have a price to pay–and well, it ain’t pretty.
There are many who, in Christ though Pam who Do stand up and who pay a dear price but they keep standing and fighting, because that is what True Love does. Real Love will pay the Price, to reach down to save someone else Especially those, who have no voice, who have no power, who have no way to defend themselves against
MONSTERS
and Pearls and their like are nothing more than MONSTERS…who are faux religious. I won’t dignify labeling them with Christianity, not even as a Religion. They do sell iron type rods, even have [from what I read] discipline-abuse classes where they instruct parents to beat till the child can’t breathe…
just the Thought of them spouting Christ is downright Laughable–
no, more like Nero’s army–spirit of Saul–Sorcery,
I’m convinced, there are workers of Satan, in many Pulpits.
What angers me however, is that there are true Christians, who still will NOT separate from these false prophets–and wipe the dust off their feet. We are to love our enemy, Yes,
but we aren’t to love the evil, or be Partakers in it either. By deed or word or Silence.
There are many more of us Pam, than you think…just we don’t have the $$$$ BLOOD MONEY OFF CHILDREN’S BACKS AND WOMEN’S BACKS to pay for the mega books, tapes, c.d.s and media,
to get the message out.
That’s more of Herod’s style…the whole blood money from misery and sex/child abuse.
And well, many so called Churches today–are nothing more, than Herod’s lot.
” The Bible here seems to advocate the practice of hitting children to discipline them, and using a rod to do it. Once you can advocate for using a tool like a rod to hit children, it is difficult to speak out against those that take this practice too far, because they’ll throw this verse back at you. And, how far is too far? Who determines that, and how? What is too far for me might not seem too far for another person. I think what the Pearls are doing is “too far” from the get go, but they can always point to that verse and just move on past any objections that I might have.
So, ladies, how do you argue against the Proverbs Biblical defense for hitting children with a rod? How do we answer those who use it as a justification for abuse?”
Pam,
Excellent question. I am stumped. But, I will think about it because I think your questions need to be answered.
“It is interesting to me that the suffragettes suffered so publicly for OUR FREEDOM specifically as women, and yet we can sit back and just enjoy that freedom while there are others who are still under the same hands of abuse that were around 100 years ago. I know that making trouble makes a lot of enemies–but if these enemies are opposing justice for the abused, then they are essentially enemies of God. They are opposing his justice. We can do what is right, even if it means we make people more than just a little uncomfortable.
Okay, I’m done with my speech!
No, no! You go, sister!
In fact, the patriocentric women are taking advantage of the freedoms they have because of feminism and acting like those early feminists by staging march-ins to Walmart and Sams and other business where Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition is sold.
They are very detailed about their mission and they want a woman with a loud but “gracious” voice to speak to the manager. But they will be going in enmasse with children and all and they will be making a big scene on behalf of modesty.
I have to wonder why the MEN are not leading this movement? Is it the same reason why many won’t speak out against child abuse?
Corrie,
let me say for starters, this ISSUE HITS HOME, because I grew, knowing what REAL abuse is, ok…sexual, physical [including some forms of torture] and emotional/psychological–the latter lasting until adulthood when I finally cut ties] from a Parent–so did my brother,
Both of us, are Still, in our forties mind you, somewhat Screwed up, OK. I am also a believer in Christ–hate Religion to the Core, but I do believe in Christ, read the Bible, and I have had to Walk, through all well, so much, not just dealing with abuse from parents but from men because in my life [ran away from home at 16] the abuse, the internalizations, were deep and I still, Still, struggle with them,
my brother Never married–very successful man, was once in youth ministry but left the church–spiritual abuse and he’s not gotten back to the Faith–there is Too much, when one Knows what real abuse is, and not this oh yea I was abused and now I’m yippee fine crap come buy my book nonsense we see a lot today [and God I hate them, I really do],
but the Dynamics, especially dealing with God, ok, with the Father and the whole He’s love bit and the submission [huge triggers there, to the point where its hand me a Shotgun] and well, it’s a Miracle really Corrie that I’m not a full blown atheist or a Satanist.
I had to dig, a lot, in the Bible to find out, really where God stood on this–it helped a ‘little’ to know a bit about Judaism [Orthodoxy] and to know that how the Bible was translated, misses a lot about the Judaic law [how it's translated from Hebrew/Aramaic to English] and so what is described as the ‘rod’ then, and how it’s preached today, are two totally different things.
I was ‘spanked’ as a kid, alright, and I can tell you, there is a Huge difference between That and Abuse. If I know the difference, then there is a difference, there is a Difference between being spanked on the bottom for stealing and then having someone shut you in a room for days, with no food and water [before age six] and to know what Hunger is, where your Hair is falling out on top of your head…in the First grade from Malnutrition. You see, there is Difference,
between being spanked, on the bottom, with a hand, for smarting off, and then having someone grabbing your hair and shoving meat down your throat while you gag and they are calling you every name in the book [age 10],
there is a Difference, between being spanked on the bottom for kicking your brother and then having someone kick you in the ribs, beat you with a belt, while screaming and calling you ‘devil’ because you looked at them wrong. Because you were Born…
not Once, have the spankings ever triggered me…not Once Corrie,
but at 47 today, the beatings do, the memories of the beatings, the torture, the Words, any little thing, that reminds me of something [including rape] and I am ready to kill–there are Those times, I have That level of rage that I battle with, a darkness that many give into and are now in prison because of…I KNOW what that anger is.
Our abuser had [so they claimed] the right of God to do what they did–the support of the Church [and their silence AND support], both Catholic and Protestant. I lived in a children’s orphanage at 14, [for a year when our abuser decided it was just too much to raise me, easier to dump me off, by that time the damage was done and even the orphanage couldn't handle me--so I KNOW the juvenile system, though I didn't break any laws I ran with many who did by the time I was 15, I know how the foster system works, the other side of 'abusers, long story I won't go into but I detest that system as much] and I know the Streets, most of all, inner city, low income, including drugs, prostitution, you name it.
Am I hard, you betcha, it has been a slow, Long road, to get to where I am at today. Why I Don’t have a lot of respect or trust whatsoever of the majority of so called Christianity in this nation because well, hard to say really but maybe it has something to do with seeing evil from the bottom, from not having anyone to defend nor care and you just see people, through the bullsh*t if I may be blunt.
So, well anyway, so IS this an issue between me and God? Every Single Day, I still, day in and day out, cannot ‘believe’ in Love, like how many say what love is and so I’ve had to find ways to relate to that, such as focusing on Who Jesus was and What He did while on Earth, to see God for who God is.
Being a parent myself and one who did NOT practice spanking [I went the other extreme, due to triggers, bad triggers] I know that NO discipline is just as bad, it wouldn’t be until my youngest that I would see that sometimes, yes, spankings ARE necessary or you wind up with teens who are not afraid whatsoever of You, then you have some real problems on your hands. I also know that Each child is different and that no one formula works with kids, they are not cookie cutter humans, but unique individuals with different personalities, one daughter I hardly have problems with, my oldest, is hell on wheels and strong willed and it probably would Have been better IF she had of gotten a few spankings when younger. We have had to work through a lot with her, because of the liberal parenting She felt Entitled and guess what,
she became like my abusive parent…a bully to her younger siblings, a bully to other peers, violent towards me when she didn’t get ‘her way’, and it got to the point where I felt I was raising my abuser parent. What did I do wrong, I asked,
and see dysfunction works like that. I have spent a lifetime [adult] in and out of counselors, some good, some not worth a damn, and still working through because abuse from young age [and ours, was from toddler maybe infant, wouldn't surprise me] it does So much damage to self image, boundaries [I had none for years], fear, FEAR, that’s the worst, and distortions.
The Bible in no way, supports nor condones treating children in any of the ways I was treated NOR does the Bible anywhere support beating a child…Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child means,
spare discipline and that child will grow up to think they are entitled and the world centers around Them–maybe even become a sociopath. It doesn’t mean, to Beat a child, spoil the child.
And the best Example of the true meaning is looking at God’s treatment of His children when They sin…Old Testament, HOW many times did Israel offend? And time and time and time God still forgave and blessed them, intervened on their behalf, pleaded with them, instructed them to Choose Life. There are times that God, will and Did allow those who rebel against Him [and esp really for abusing/hurting others in His name] to be delivered over to affliction, but even Then, He says, He is always there, to save them and that He only wants Them to Stop being cruel, selfish, heartless, etc., to others AND to themselves.
It isn’t the Bible, Corrie that is the problem it’s the Lens of those who have hard hearts when Reading the Bible, who take it literally to support their own selfish, cruel, mean agendas, that are the problem. The Bible has murder in it too, does that mean we go out and murder?
The Bible has the story of the flood [though so many take That and forget what comes Prior, the Violence that is through out the Entire earth to the point the Earth even was corrupted and God cried, repenting of creating humans]…do we go out and drown others?
Or the Plagues on Egypt when freeing Israel, kind of harsh, right? But, we forget, over 400 Years of brutal slavery including sexual slavery and slavery of Children–God is also Justice, Egypt had Plenty of time to Repent, and did not. And even After Israel was delivered and in the wilderness, Pharaoh and his thugs went a chasing and God told Moses, I will now show Egypt, who is God…not Israel mind you but Egypt, Why? Because Egypt too was held in bondage to the despots, living in fear and thinking abuse and cruelty were the way to be…because that was how the ‘gods’ were then, they required abuse, fear, pyramid hierarchies, resources [some reading about the Nephalim, is interesting there...those giants, theory is half fallen angels and half humans, maybe???? I tend to think strong possibility, look at the statutes in Egypt of the so called 'gods' they worshiped]
There is a huge difference between discipline and abuse, and between ages of Accountability & Ignorance and flat out rebellion, when one Knows…and God does make that distinction Numerous times, He is slow and slow to anger, kind, patient, instructing,
not this bully of a God who just wipes out civilizations and abuses women/sets them up as property and all this other blaspheming crap spewed from many today. They don’t KNOW God because if one really reads the Bible, with a heart that is broken, they’ll see it,
God got angry at Abusers, power mongers, war dogs…those who Shed blood, innocent blood. The first Sin out of the Garden of Eden was Bloodshed, murder…the blood cries out from the Ground God said, the blood of Abel.
Humanity is the one with the abuse-discipline problem, not God. God deals with humans the way that Humans are–not the way God is. And when God sets us apart unto Him He then instructs us to be like Him, not like humanity,
the thing is, we All have a natural ‘law’ inside us, that right and wrong, we All know, it’s Wrong to abuse children, to beat them, don’t matter how much someone may say God thus saith, they know, deep down inside, that is total bunk. IF they don’t, their conscience is seared completely and I would go as far to say they are controlled/possessed by demons.
There are Enough scriptures in the Bible that counter with the ‘literal selfish interpretations of man/humans’, the Problem is, we don’t Hear them, the Problem is Corrie, and I’ll just say it,s though it’s not popular,
too many Don’t really read the Bible, outside of the same verses over and over because the Indoctrinations in churches, has taught people How to read through a certain type of lens, and they will completely gloss over thousands of scriptures and Only see those few ones over and over and over.
It’s like a nose on a face Corrie, if I look only at my nose it’s huge, and I can focus on that nose and focus and eventually I won’t see my face in it’s fullness because my lens is distorted, and I’ll think I’m ugly because I have a big nose. But if I look at my entire face, and keep looking and NOT focus just on my nose,
I have a whole new perspective.
The language of the Bible was written in B.C., another thing we have to take into consideration was that people then were yes, Barbaric [history studies show us this], human Nature…God, is the one, who reached down and instructed humanity, how to act towards one another, Within the context of the times then AND with the understanding that evolution takes time–Jesus said, Moses allowed some things because of the Hardness of their Hearts. They weren’t the only ones who were heartless to women, for example, the Entire world was…any study on patriarchy clearly shows this as fact. Though there are things that appear cruel, the one thing, to see how God was working is to look at other laws He set forth [the slavery laws are good here because they show a lot of 'loopholes' and so many miss it], then through out the Chronicles, Judges [when there was no rule and anarchy was the life and that was when the gang rape of the concubine occurred] then the Kings we see a dialectic at work–a slow Enlightenment, through out we see God telling us, Human Rights, about Love, about Justice, doing what is Right, towards one another and towards the weak, oppressed, poor, immigrant, etc.,
then the New Testament, Jesus. Prior to that, we see God deliver the prophets [false] the complacent rich and abusers over to Babylon–because He’s cruel? No, because that was the Only way to save a Remnant so that Humanity would and could be Saved, that is why….because Israel, [book of Isaiah] who had been rescued, delivered, shown How to love, How to act, became spoiled, selfish, cruel, Patriarchal [oh yea] and materialist and in bed with despotic nations who sacrificed and abused children and God said, fine, you want this, I’ll let you have it [that thing called Free Will],
but I’ll save a Remnant of those who have NOT BOWED to Babylon.
And He did…and He’ll do it again, in these last days [the times of the Gentiles Jesus said].
God is NOT a Child Abuser, Wife Beater, Rapist, Misogynist, nor does He ever, condone such…He hates it in fact. And those who take HIS Holy Word, His Holy Name, and do those things,
the abuse I had, as a child/teen/young adult, won’t be anything, near to the Fear they will have to deal with, in facing a Holy God, who is Love…Love does NOT abuse, Period. Love also is Justice…and there Will be Justice.
IF there is no Justice there is really no Love. Tolerance, is not the same as Forgiveness and Grace.
There is a way to discipline, and spanking should be Last resort and Appropriate to the offense–out of Love, to save a child from self harm or from harming others….but there are Other duties parents have, one is Leadership BY EXAMPLE, if no example forget it, one is Devotion, Time, Giving, Sacrifice, and Attention. Instruction, Patient Instruction, with Understanding, knowledge of where the child is at in Development…
even God does this with His children.
The Same Proverbs that says spare the rod also says do NOT shed innocent blood, do not be angry, do not provoke to wrath, do not scold and so forth–the Entire book, not just ONE scripture.
Proverbs, the book of Wisdom, is also referred to as SHE.
The mother part, of God…She,
instructing Her children, on how to be and live with wisdom…common sense, [in the good way],
not, abuse.
IF I can see it, then, there really is NO EXCUSE for others not to.
My abuser [child] chose to act on mental illness, selfishness, whatever reason, it was NOT of God, nor of the Bible, no matter how many Screwed up folks may claim so…Satan though, does lie, kill, steal, destroy, abuse. Satan hates women. Satan also hates children.
And Satan knows how to use the Word of God, he knows how to transform into angel of light to deceive and to get other’s to do his dirty work.
The problem is, there is lack of real discernment today, between good, evil, God and Satan. Because Too many, rely on Preachers and Peddlers of Quackery, religious that is, rather than get in the Word and seek themselves–prayer, find out Truth,
to find Truth, one must face the darkness in themselves and it IS there…that same Nature, that beast. It’s easier for many to hide behind the hedge of Religion, than face that, and come to the light, as they ARE, naked, in that nature…and let God see them [He does already anyway],
the good and honest heart, Jesus said, not the lying, religious, phony pretense say what you Think He wants you to say, but the honest heart…That heart, will bear fruit in time.
The being Real—that is why, Jesus hung with harlots and publicans, they were Real, the religious, were not. We all are rotten to the core, that nature,
not God. But does God abuse? No, He, instead, reconciled us, on the Cross…
that ain’t abuse, nor a rod.
That, is what Love is…and That, really, is the Gospel in a nutshell.
these folks who are preaching otherwise, need to go to the Cross and see who the Heavenly Father really is…the same Father who took back the Prodigal Son [and Daughter] when they came to their senses and returned, the Heavenly Father took them, With open, loving arms…
While you are at it, please explain Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Judges 5:30, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, and especially Zechariah 14:1-2..
And before you go saying “Oh, that’s OT, not NT”, please then explain Matthew 5:18, and how that applies to those verses in Deuteronomy, and vise versa. As well as how it applies to the Spare the Rod verse.
Let me say too Corrie, God has worked, so patiently with me, through So much anger and rage…I still struggle, I have days where it’s dark, I’ve had days where I feel frozen and want to jump off a bridge, literally, God has been there,
it has been Hell, coming into the rain so to speak to be cleansed through the internalizations, distortions, lies, to be healed,
but healing is not Denial nor a not getting Furious at abuse that is especially done with utter Impunity due to false and blatant heretical teachings in the church. For years I was told,
oh you Can’t be angry, etc., which only worked to get me More angry [esp when I stuffed] and it took finding who God really was to see that God gets Furious at abusers and at abuse.
When I said I hate them, those how sell for profit Lies and Myths about abuse, I don’t like Hate them but I hate the misery profiteers because there really ARE no quick fix Formulas, standing on the Word, forgive and forget and all will be Poof, like the Magic Dragon well on the whole Disney World Merry Go Round Christianity bunk peddled today,
and so Yea I am very vocal and I do get, really angry and I voice it, there are times I would love to just slam these child abusers up against the wall, I do have them.
IT’s only by the Grace of God and that is NO understatement that I am not in prison today or worse, dead,
it is NOT easy, no way, I have good days where I really see the Love of God and then I have days where I’m ready to join in with the revolutionary lot–and I did, for many years, was in that whole movement.
I also don’t come from a life of privilege or comfort so that might have a lot to do with how I see things, from that class lens but I do know, that God forgives, that Love holds no record of wrongs,
but that doesn’t mean we are to just be tolerant and this oh let sleeping dogs lie and not fight for the weak, or plead the cause of the poor, etc., Love acts, I don’t always act in the right ways, and God yes, does get on me about that,
but I do know, God understands too, and He knows, He knows, better than any of us, what it is to be abused, after loving and reaching out, to be spit upon, to be mocked, stripped naked, beat, whipped, nailed, stabbed, He knows,
and like a child, HE DID NO WRONG.
He knows…and He forgave, BUT, there is still a Judgment, there is Still a Duty to Repent, of evil. To stop Doing Evil, that includes being a partaker in, to be Silent in the face of…to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, [and there are various types of prisons] and to comfort the AFFLICTED.
We may not be able to change the world but we still have a Duty to speak up, to Defend when we are able…and in THIS nation, we have an Extra duty,
that is the duty of Government to NOT oppress, and people forget, in America, we are NOT under a Monarchy,
WE, THE PEOPLE, ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
Therefore, yes, WE, the People, have a God commanded Duty to Defend the weak, poor, and to do all in our power to End the Abuses and Oppression, that includes towards Children,
not, controlling lives of women and their sexuality and shoving a theocracy down people’s throats. Huge difference there,
and that is why the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel are important because they tell what God told, the prophets then, who were NOT doing, NOT defending, and NOT warning…they too, were in bed with politics.
We have a Duty, to stand against Child Abuse, against Domestic Violence, against slavery/sex slavery [what they term trafficking to sugar coat the reality of SLAVERY] and to stand opposed to the stratifications that oppress/AND CREATE poverty.
And we will be held Accountable, as Citizens, as WE THE PEOPLE for those things, foreign policy included [raping other lands/paying police terror in South America, so forth]
oh yes…
God isn’t the despot, misogynist, bigot, nationalist, no, the We the People, many of them are…
IF people don’t see God for who HE really is, it’s NOT because of the Bible, it’s because of US.
something to ponder on…but again, like I said before, unfortunately we don’t have the $$ blood money off of the backs of abused women, children, families to get the message out.
But we can do what we can, and live differently…and speak up when we can and Separate from those, who abuse God’s Word, the Herod lot. [a little leaven leavens the entire lump, leaven of Herod, leaven of Pharisees]
Annie–Just want you to know that I’m going to get to this, but I wanted to answer you about those Bible verses, I just can’t do it today (maybe tomorrow evening). If someone else gets there first, go for it, but I’d also like to share some insight, at least, my perspective.
I see on the NCFIC blog that recently, at the retreat on “Our Marriages and the Marriages of our Sons and Daughters,” one of the topics presented was (I kid you not), “Marriage Preparation for Two-Year-Olds.” I have to wonder, what if God’s plan for your child does not include marriage? What if they don’t marry until later in life? It just seems like setting everybody up for unrealistic expectations and the potential for some serious disappointment.
I have prayed for my sons for years that God would provide for each of them a godly wife — the right person, at the right time — if that was His plan for them. And that if marriage was not His plan for them, that both they and I would be content with that.
While you are at it, please explain Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Judges 5:30, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, and especially Zechariah 14:1-2..
And before you go saying “Oh, that’s OT, not NT”, please then explain Matthew 5:18, and how that applies to those verses in Deuteronomy, and vise versa. As well as how it applies to the Spare the Rod verse
[will try to make this brief, but I can try my best to Answer every Single one of these, and what Matthew 5:18 means as well--which, start from there, that means the OT being 'fulfilled' in the Dialectic sense..look at the whole OT to NT as a Dialectic, [you know, Hegel, Engels], an evolution of sorts with a ‘thread’ or ‘threads’ actually, going all the way back to Genesis–where it says, Let us make man in our image and Then it goes, to begin telling, they made man in their image, male and female they made them, etc etc etc…I can answer every single one–and they are NOT what you think, or what many claim–there is a lot of hidden meaning behind each case you give here, and that is Why it really is so necessary to really Read the Entire Bible and then re-read and re-read to Get what it IS saying, and not just the Bible, read Ancient Mesopotamia and the LAWS then that were FAR worse than Judaic OT, esp for women/slaves, and you might be surprised at how many of those ‘beliefs’ are Still going on today [spiritually esp, oh yea] and I would suggest, [though I know many debate it and not saying it's true or not true but I think it sheds some light, esp if you read entire OT] read the Book of Enoch, because there is a LOT in OT that sheds a lot of light, as well as Jude [NT] and, well, a lot of scientific findings, today, I do believe that this world, that there is another dimension/a third Heaven, that there are fallen angels [who claim to be 'gods' and 'goddesses'] a Warfare going on and so it might help to understand warfare and that yes, there was a time when the ‘sons of God’ like Bible says [in Hebrew that means angels] had relations with human women and giants were born, Moses referred to this, numerous times and well, lets just say, I’m not for Sure, nor will I say, thus saith the Lord here, but I do have theories, things I go, hmmm and the more I research the more I find that actually backs up the theories, and I do believe it ties into the whole purpose as to Why humanity was created, what the purpose for humanity is, and well, I think there is far more to it, I don’t have the ‘answers’ no, but I do think we should open our minds a bit and well, don’t exclude the possibilities.
lets start with Judges 21:10-24– again, one has to read Entire dialectic, what does it say at End of book: In those days there was no king in Israel: EVERY ‘MAN’ DID WHAT THAT WHICH IS ‘RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES’,
REPEAT, DID WHAT IS RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES, not God’s eyes…
so, that’s for Starters, Judges is about a period in time when Israel was taking things from God’s commands, what they wanted, not what God intended, and doing pretty much what they darn well pleased…[and GOD SAID THEY WOULD, EARLIER TO MOSES] IN those times, [in All of Mesopotamia, all Cultures] women were property, Lerner, Creation of Patriarchy good explanation of this era on women/property/patriarchy and slavery, same with studies by Levi], now we have to Remember, people then warred over land/food Resources for TRIBES, it was Tribal Patriarchy, the rule applied, those with the biggest and powerful tribes got the power [those with the biggest guns so to speak] and women, being the ones who birthed children were sad to say, yes, a commodity. However, lets not forget, in THAT era, ok., in WAR women with children would NOT have fared very well living in the Wild [and even the Bible talks about the beasts who devoured, lions were notorious then in population and in eating people, fact--why those societies killed them, not just for sport but for survival] with children…they couldn’t have hunted because the cries of children would have scared off prey, they could have farmed but their rates of survival were slim to none, with children especially, now this does in NO way Justify how women were treated, and that is NOT what I am saying here, [so don't anyone go oh but how dare you] but to Explain to look at THAT ERA, the barbarism [and you can do some reading of ancient Mesopotamia in that period] and the warfare that was going on between peoples…
Israel, was one huge tribal patriarchy, though not near as large or powerful as other tribal patriarchies, with several ‘sub tribes’ that were, not very well liked and were not that powerful, in weaponry, etc compared to other tribes/lands therefore, when the tribes of Israel-Judah went to war/and widows were left, those Widows would, factually, been taken By other tribes [and treated far worse if you know how slavery worked then] so peace treaties, sad to say, not pretty no, were signed by oath/in exchanging of daughters for wives. Do I like this, NO, of course not, but again, taking in the climate of THAT ERA, THAT time, it’s not like those women could go work at JC Penny, there was no Economic jobs for women OTHER THAN PROSTITUTION/CONCUBINAGE, and SLAVERY/SEX SLAVERY. At the ‘exchange’ of daughters in this section of the Bible, remember the ones who raped/and supported that rape [and I'm sure the ones who God allowed to die in battle probably weren't that kind to their own women] were gone,
those left, were the ones who then Feared the Lord, so to speak. To ‘heal’ the rift, within Israel and Judah so that Israel would not be taken over by other far worse and far more brutal tribal patriarchies they agreed to rebuild the tribe so to speak, the way they did then, by marriage-childbirth.
Women didn’t have a lot of Autonomy then, [there was a hierarchy among women as well/nobles, married, married based on birth of son/inheritance laws, concubines then slaves] they Did in Judaic law, as far as Consent–but men didn’t go By that, of course, just like we have laws on the books today against DV but men still abuse their wives. IF you look at Judges [and the OT and NT too due to Roman/Greek Empire] you must sometimes look at the evil of political necessity for Human Survival, the big picture, NOT THAT IT EXCUSES THE INJUSTICES but in looking at History, and the Bible is a record of History, one must do that, it does NOT mean that God was in FAVOR of this and that is why it says, again, end of chapter, Men did as they saw what was right in Their eyes, not in God’s eyes.
Numbers 31:7-18 about the Midianites, yea, looks pretty nasty doesn’t it. Again, one must look at that Era, how just that entire epoch and HOW other nations/tribes were doing the same and in fact Worse [and they were, there is enough documentation and artifacts to prove this] now IF you take this Literally no doubt, it would appear that God is a genocidal nationalist maniac–who commands the taking and raping of women/virgins, etc., slewing boys and so forth–and this, this is where it is really imperative to really know the entire OT and also those ancient tribal societies AND other ‘cultic’ religions of that day–now for the Midianites you need to go back a bit further into the book–to Numbers 25–go back and read from there, then you’ll see more into the story of the Midianites. You also need to do some reading about the norms/laws under Baalpeor, then you get a better glean a better understanding at why God allowed the taking of virgins/killing of the people of Midianites. Midian tribe that is [the tribes end with 'ites].
Also, you need to go back to early Genesis, again, about the Nephalim, it doesn’t say they were all wiped out, they are still around, read about the ‘giants’ that Moses/and tribe saw and what they said, what those ‘giant’ tribes DID to people, women and children especially, and by giants I’m not talking ‘tall folks’ but real giants [Numbers 13]–question is, WHO WERE THESE GIANTS? A lot of theories here, I have my own suspicions but don’t want to say, a.k.a. fact because I don’t know, wasn’t there, so would be presumptious for me but I do have my suspicions…anyway it has a LOT to do with why God said to slay the men and women/spare the virgins,
now, I do wrestle with this, many times I prayed, God this justifies genocide, any loon could take this to ‘demonize’ others and that is Exactly what they do in genocide–IF I stop there, that would be the Conclusion I would get–but one has to keep Going, to see the Entire picture…though yes, many Have taken those types of justifications, Hitler being one of them, his whole Eugenics ‘tree’ that well, yea, this is where it gets into I think spiritual Warfare, which if one doesn’t Believe in that realm they just won’t get it…I do believe in that realm, and I believe THIS realm is a mirror image of That one., ok, next–I will come back to this later if any want me to,
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 ok, to spare the women/children but kill the men, IF they do not want peace, ok, you have to know a bit about Who God is, and let me say, what shocked me when I started researching THESE SAME SCRIPTURES is that God is a protector of Women, I know that sounds like bat sh*t crazy here, OK, but when I studied the ancient tribes in that day [and looked into artifacts still in Iraq, for example] of the laws of those tribes over women, you sort of get an understanding of just how Deplorable it was for women in those other nations, many who were, taken as captives, from other tribes during WAR, war was like a daily thing then–to build tribal empire, for land and for food, for survival–it was bloody brutal, those MEN who refused Peace were Violent men and were Violent to their women–and God spared the women–and children. They would be taken yes, as slaves and concubines, now This is where one needs to go back and learn what the Judaic laws on Slavery were, it says, or God said, IF one hits a slave and knocks out a tooth then that slave is entitled to justice, do NOT forget your slavery in Egypt God said, IF you maim a slave you Must set that slave free, they are called Eved laws, and they are a bit complex, but if you Know those laws, while slavery [for women esp] was no Picnic, hardly, compared to Slavery/and their status in Other tribes it was by far better…even liberating [in that context of THAT ERA then], that is Why many ‘slaves’ would nail their ear [earings] to the door, to NOT leave once the Year of Jubilee arrived because they preferred to live in Israel-Judah tribes than back where they came–though again, life was no picnic, in the Judaic laws they had more human rights, compared to the The Code of Hammurabi and other laws of that day.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29, about Rape, again, look at it in the Context of THAT era, rape was rampant in all tribes, even Protected and Sanctioned for the ‘gods’ in other tribes, and women had no protections from. If they were not virgins [in other tribes as well] they were cast off into prostitution, esp in temple shrines…the ‘monies’ paid in Judaic law were not a payment for a bride, but a payment against slander–for her ‘worth’ and yes, it sure looks like women were property and in many ways they were, but they were also protected in the Context/Climate of That era, under Judaic law, no woman wants to marry her rapist, but Economically if she was NOT married she had NO choice but to prostitute and that is why it also says he can never divorce her. Economically if a man raped a woman he was responsible for her care until her death. It wasn’t a good situ for women in Any case, but IF there wasn’t economic provision, even if the man was killed, that woman would be prostituted [and it was horrid then] or enslaved or starve to death. We look at that as horrid, then, it was in a horrid way, a means of protecting a woman’s life. Rape without that, was a Death sentence. Because rape carried a high degree of shame [much like in some societies today and many women in those societies commit suicide because of and many in parts of Africa, are forced to prostitute and it's not Glamorous like the pro-sex lot likes to paint in the West].
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 OK, again, the adultery -rape and how that was handled, one thing too that most don’t get, the whole ‘in against the brother’ bit, if you Take it that way, literally, it comes across as women are men’s property and so if you touch her, she goes, he goes, but no, that isn’t what God is saying…if you go back, to woman is one flesh with man, and then the Ten Commandments, where it says, thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife [not property], but one flesh joining, etc., IF men could just rape and take women from ‘brothers’ at will, that Would make women nothing but sex commodities, and That was what God was against…now, remember, hardness of Hearts here, what Jesus said about laws of Moses and those Laws were After the Hammorubi Code that went further back AND what they knew then–were a step Above those laws, for women, so anyway That is why that part is put in there, about the ‘betrothed’, it was to show that women will eventually become joined with another man and men, hard hearted as they were, didn’t Care about women, but they cared about the brothers, so to Protect women, a little God worked through reaching men about men..does that make sense? We have to remember God was working to reach men on the level that Men thought–and believed and knew according to Their free will AND their Dominion, and the enemy’s dominion [Satan] on earth–so to Us, those laws look hideous and barbaric, but in that Era, they were the way to pave for a LATER evolution to more understanding and more rights/restoration to women, ending of slavery, etc., IF you look at the entire Dialectic of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelations,
Zechariah 14:1-2 OK, now that is about the End Days, and Again, this is where you need to read all of Daniel, Revelations, and all of Zech, go further and read verse 12–what God does to the Enemy of Israel [talk about something out of an 2012 Alien flick--something to Think about],
anyway, this is in regards to judgment, the rising up [and it's happening Today] of a people, one mind, who will destroy Babylon and go against those who have profaned/mislead/lead many astray] as the Judgment–against complacency, greed, selfishness, not caring about Other women who were ravished/genocide in wars, etc and even Benefiting from that [read book of Amos if you're going to take that one out of Zech] and then you’ll see,
God uses the Destroyer, for judgment/justice, in our lives, [see also Job], to do several things,
1. to get us to pay attention and to Repent so our Souls will be saved in Eternity [far more than 70 years]
2. to repay wrongs we’ve done to others/nations included and yes innocent people do pay, sadly–because while God is Mercy God is also Justice–Retribution, and this, you need to go back to early OT again,
what does it say in Genesis, when Blood is shed in land that land will do vomit it out eventually [there is an Environmental retribution too] and there will be Retribution IN that land for the blood it sheds, like,
here in America, we’ve benefited from numerous nations being plundered/police terror, their Cries to God ARE HEARD—eventually retribution will be due, all there is too it.
Because that is how the blood shed works–whether we Like it or not, it’s how it works and THAT Is why God says to the Nation of Israel do NOT do these things, do NOT mix with those tribes that do, etc. Choose life, not death–go back and read how the dialectics of those curses work–God is very patient, He gives Years for Us to repay wealth unjustly taken, to avenge the wrong–if we do not, God then, will.
IF HE didn’t HE would NOT be a Just God nor a God of Love, because we are ALL HIS CHILDREN…
this is Also why God commands Mercy, If we are Merciful HE will be Merciful–if not, we get justice…
there is just a lot more to it than OT God says this, that, this and well literally then God is a monster,
no, you have to take the Entire book, understand it from a Spiritual point, see the whole picture, AND face that truth that we are All of that sinful nature, hard to grasp unless God shows you [and you are willing to see] and then, you kind of get the understanding,
and we really have NOT ‘evolved today’ as humanity, really? I mean, look at Rwanda, the Congo, do you think those children there will grow up to be functional adults without intervention?, Yugoslavia, we might be illuminated but we still are Savages. And lets not forget the minerals, resources, and consumption of Blood products, that yes, we buy here AND in Israel and other developed nations, so who is the real Evil here?
God?
No, and WE chose it–back in the Garden, not just Adam and Eve we All chose it, good, evil, what side are we on, oh we aren’t as bad as Them but we are good, but oh how can God do this, Why Why Why? But What did Jesus [the Word made Flesh] DO when He was here?
He healed, He turned water into wine [to give joy], He healed women, He rescued a woman from being stoned for adultery, He rose up the dead [Lazarus], He drove out the greed from the Temples, He rebuked the ‘religious’ and Forgave the sinners, and then,
He died for us.
To say, you don’t Have to die in that tree of good and evil–their is Something more, there is LIFE, eternal LIFE, choose That, btw, it’s really about Love,
something you humans never grasped because you were all wrapped up in judgment, good, evil, being ‘gods’ [serpent told Eve you'll be like the 'gods', not God, think about that one] and refusing Forgiveness…
we choose, Grace or Judgment. It’s really about that–Mercy, or Judgment.
Law or Grace–OT is Law [eye for an eye] and judgment and when Jesus said the Fulfilling of the Law HE was referring to the sins against God and that judgment would be and that would be the Cross and then we choose, Life and the Cross [Mercy] or to go on with our own righteousness and Judgment,
which is it?
and then one day the Books [not Tree, think about the dialectic of That one--if one is Eco not to hard to figure out], the Book of LIFE
and the BOOKS [plural] of all man’s Knowledge of good/evil–
OH, something too about Midianites and the dialectic [and a few other examples], those were Gentiles,
when God said He would drive out those lands/people of and the ‘gods’ they worshiped, those ‘giants’, btw, IF not for the Sparing of women, of Gentile race [go back and read Three sons of Noah and where they dispersed],
we would NOT be here today. Because of how the ‘gods’ Consumed humanity, the land, the animals even…Sodom and Gomorrah,
everyone thinks it was destroyed because of gays, no,
look Again, at that–they came to take the angels to ‘know’ them–now IF you look at the size of Angels [go back and read about the donkey, Balaam I think, and the Size of that Angel with the Sword] and well,
uh, kind of some tough brutes to be threatening to rape Angels [who then came in the form of Man] and then, it says, YOUNG, YOUNG now AND OLD, came to ‘gang rape them’,
YOU KNOW, that Level of Violence, that is Community based, now also go back and read What else it says,
the Cries of them rose UP to the Lord–cries of Who?
Maybe women, children were were brutally gang raped/tortured, Lord knows what else, rose up to the Heavens and then God said, ENOUGH.
Lot was Vexed, that means tormented, tormented with sin, he offered his daughters, now go back and read about the history of Lot and what HE knew–about God, He feared God and He knew the price if he let those angels be raped–he chose the lesser of two evils in His eyes, out of FEAR–being ‘vexed’ and I’m sure maybe some other things–go back and read Why Lot chose the land, where Abraham did not, gives you sort of a clue there,
anyhooo God literally wiped out that entire region, with hail fire from the Heavens [meteorites??? or something else???]
In Every single Case in OT where there was God saying, ENOUGH, there was a history of brutal Violence without Any remorse going on–prior to, bloodshed, with NO mercy, NO Mercy to Women, no Mercy to Children, No mercy to Infants,
none.
It wasn’t like these nice little peaceful communities just minding their own business and mean ole Israel and their mean ole God just coming in and wiping out–unless one takes scripture out of Context and Makes it appear that way,
and it’s easy to do, but IF one really wants to KNOW who God is, look hard, and Ask Him, Show me, Who are You? Are you a genocidal maniac? Are you a Misogynist?
and keep asking, read and He will show you–if you Really want to know Truth…want to know who He is. He will show you, anyone, in the Book of Job, Job questions God. He is answered, Elihu [little clue there too, Who Is El ihu? Funny many don't discuss this] Anyway, he tells Job why there is affliction,
good explanation then God answers Job, the Lord God.
So, going back to Midianites, IF all those tribes had been all wiped out, women, there would be no Gentile race nor Salvation, for the Gentiles,
that is where that ‘thread’ runs through, look at the Bible like a Quilt. Pieces, but with the same threads running through, to get the finished product. He does the same with our lives…
but we have choice, to meet Him half way, or to not–that is up to us. He has done His part, in reconciliation, in Jesus, on the Cross,
the rest is up to us. AS for humanity, if you really look at it, it’s not God who does the horrors, it’s humanity,
we alone, have done Enough to kill-wipe out humanity through Sowing death, murder, genocide, greed, indifference, apathy, pillaging the earth, water, land, filling her with blood, killing animals, more will die as a result of our pillaging the earth for things, idols, things we make with our hands,
and more people will die–so what for?
so WE can be ‘gods’ and ‘goddesses’, good, evil…
and in that, judge God as being the ‘bad guy’,
in all our Knowledge and Wisdom, hell, we can’t even progress without Polluting Space, look at the Satellites and Space Junk and the lead poisoning and the babies dying of that? By God’s hand,
NO, by OURs. Every cell phone we buy we pay for minerals mined, in the Congo, where women/girls are brutally raped–do many care?
NO.
So, who is the real Misogynist? Those OT barbaric folks who had no knowledge like we do today?
OR us, with all our technology and knowledge and morals?
Something, to think about…and many reject Jesus, who said,
[if those answers go through, sorry know they are long--one, I'm not a theologian nor want to be, two, these are answers I have found in reading the Bible/my own research, they may NOT be accurate in all points NOR am I an expert on God or History and I could be Wrong on many points--not here to say Thus Saith the Lord here, I have questioned these same points many times and this is what I've concluded thus far--I still have unanswered questions, I still struggle with sin in my own life, many times I don't think I'm saved--I don't always Do the right thing--hardly,
I am not religious, per se, I am seeking, like many, and feel lost half the time myself, that seeing through a glass darkly, so to speak. I do struggle with these questions--have 'theories' but I have in every case, seen explanations or an understanding in the Bible and in just observing life, myself probably more than anything and my own struggle with MY sins [and they are numerous] and dark nature I battle with, in seeking Truth, seeking Who is God, Is there a God, I went through that, is Jesus/God just some man made invention and there are times I do wonder–because of my years in Marxist study,
it sure can Appear that way, that’s for sure, but I keep going back to some things and things happened in my life that there ARE no scientific explanations for [logic] and well–
this is what I’ve concluded in my search thus far. I don’t believe God is a thug or an abuser or a patriarchal asshole despot–I believe God deals harshly at times for reasons that aren’t always clear to me–
but something I have thought about, a lot lately, we are made in His image–we have emotions, we get angry,
why can’t God?
Well, anyway, I suggest any who may have questions ask Him, don’t rely on what I said, get your Own answers, pray, read the Bible, and ask Him, and just be real with Him.
Wrote enough on here today–why I don’t know, dealing with some things in my life running kind of along these lines–so,
maybe, well, yea, got some answers I needed, just in writing this all today.
#494 — “The Age of Innocence” is a novel by Edith Wharton. (There’s also a very good Martin Scorcese film based on it.) I recommend it highly, although I would say the situation in it is a little more complex than just “this is what happens with a naive, pure wife.” It’s the husband’s own choices that put him where he is, and his wife, I think, actually has more depth than he gives her credit for. They’re just not suited to each other. But again, it’s a great book and you should give it a try!
Annie, and others who may not believe Bible accuracy…
the belief about faith is that it isn’t Logic, that it’s based merely on superstition, writings of MEN, etc. Let me offer a suggestion–prior to my search in Bible, I searched for years for philosophical and political theory, not so much to understand God but to understand Why things are the way they are–I studied/read every thing I could get hands on, from political theory [all of it, right, left, radical, ancient] to Marxist dialectics and varieties of fascism [Weber, 13 kinds, so many Miss that] to science theory/physics [some] to mythology/goddess beliefs and history and historical determinism…just a wide range, foreign lit, you name it…had this addiction to reading/knowledge–books were my Escape as a child, starting with fairy tales [in depth, not just Mother Goose] and by the age 12 I was reading books on Gulags in Soviet–yea, weird kid,
Anyhow, for years I didn’t believe in a lot about God, as far as Him being good, it wasn’t until I came to somewhat of a flustered disgust with the political [and seeing the blatant betrayals to women there in gender studies/working in a poli/party and with some hard core theorists/to the far left], and having spoken Personally with women from the former Communist bloc countries/Middle East, Iran, and seeing more from their lens–more and more, also I had read a lot of Eastern writings including Christian [Watchman Nee, eg] I came to doubt more–Everything. So I went back to the Bible–
and not with a belief but more with all the Knowledge coming up, Questioning–what I didn’t know though was how a lot of prior knowledge from both opposite poles [because I would question Everything, look into indexes and never could accept answers as Absolutes--which I believe was really God's Grace now, His using my rebellion to kind of guide me through darkness] would come up–and I started doubted my faith, see I wasn’t living the walk but I never did not believe, that was just something I couldn’t do–but now, I started to have serious issues about my Faith even…ok is Marx right, is the whole religious basis just an invention to justify the pyramid hierarchy? Are the revised [many ARE revised] beliefs on paganism/goddesses accurate? Was this patriarchal ‘god’ monotheism simply an invention of the time of Empire? Even Euro-centric, was Protestant just the invention of the guilds and the gold–quest for and the genocides of Native Indians?
And ALL OF THEM HAD VALID ARGUMENTS….they cannot be Denied or Dismissed with cliche answers.
What I didn’t suspect though is the reading on science, geography/environment, because I love nature and study a lot there, how that would tie in too–
and so it’s like this puzzle–with all these pieces and fragments, my question was, What IF, you could prove God by Logic alone? I know Hegel attempted–as did a few others, I also know the arguments [that have valid points] against their reasons but I wasn’t ‘content’ with those either–I kept turning over rocks [and still am],
and yea, it became an obsession. Though, spiritually, and if one doesn’t understand this, it was here that I saw, on a level something darker–won’t get into here but well, yea, why I do believe, without any doubt, there IS a God…one thing that I thought of again, last night,
of All the things I could bring up to Question the validity of God, of the Bible included–I would find Other questions, like, was religion invented to calm Fear and Guilt? Of wrong? Then if that be the case, why do we know Wrong? IF it’s relative, then why do we feel Guilt? And fear with that guilt? Can’t reason that one away so easily–why are they There? Why can’t we just rationalize it away and if so–and many do, then look at what happens? Materialists say this is result of an exchange between humans [ethics] but is that really? Because one’s ethics are not another then you get into power again, dynamics–why is it that Animals, don’t have the same power dynamics Within tribes all the same? There is too much–diversity, to sum it up as evolutionary ethics–to many ‘gaps’ that have not been proven [theory/science is hypothesis, that do Change--not FACT, though many claim they are FACT--oddly FACT that is not Agreed upon within the science], so if you look at it that way, then Everything, is based on some level of ‘faith’, to some degree. IF there is question, like within science, there is that backlash–group think–well, LOL, kind of like religion now isn’t it?
So, what if, you tie them all together–see what you come up with, what if, it’s not as illogical as we think? So I did just that–I went back and picked up Marx and read while searching Bible–Marx, in his thesis/anti-thesis on religion, on “The Jewish Question” wrote an analysis that is, yes True–but BUT, he didn’t go far back enough, he zeroed in on Judaism, so then I went to studies on Patriarchy–o.k. they are a bit more past the class/race and many interesting findings there But, oddly, they zero in on OT and NT [after Paul] Middle Ages, not a lot on Jesus, why is that?
There seems to be some gaps there and I would find this a lot–
then, I had to question, what is faith. Bible says, Faith is the substance of things hoped for…
I thought of that in a Religious sense–that Christian sense. But, uh Ha, faith–substance, of what? Things Hoped for…
faith, is what we Hope for–if we Hope for no God we will get no God, if we Hope for God we will get God–it’s what is in US–that decides, so then take that further…
Bible says, a lot about ‘light’ and ‘darkness’, from Genesis, let there be light and then He separated light and darkness, NT, Light came into the world–but they did not come to the light lest their evil deeds be manifest–preferred to hide, Jesus talks about the eye being our lamp, if it’s dark how great is that darkness–the age of EnLIGHTenment, Dark Ages–so, yea, kind of odd there, or Is it?
End days or the Knowledge Age? Coincidence? Maybe it’s right in Front of us and whether we see it or not depends on whether we want too–or whether God shows us, undecided on that one, scriptures can go either way here.
So now, take it to this level, it gets more interesting, knowledge fruit of good/evil, that tree–once Both ate, they immediately realized they were naked [naked in Rev refers to shame with no cover] and they hid–God said, Who told you? You were naked? Funny thing to ask, don’t you think? Then, Eve blamed the serpent, not, I wanted to be ‘like the gods’ etc., Adam blamed her, not I saw her she didn’t die immediately and I wanted to be ? we don’t know, it does not say, so then, we have two things,
blame and lie to cover up the I wanted to.
Nobody wants to say to God, because I just flat out wanted to do it. Oooh, yea we don’t like to Hear that one.
[and it gets Really interesting if you think on this, if there was no sin, in them [like in James, lust then sin comes] then, why did they Want, was the sin After they ate or prior too? the LORD God told Adam, IF you take the fruit of that tree you will Die. Eve said God said…not to eat nor touch, notice, through Genesis, there is God and Lord God. Why not just God and leave it at that?
The death–immediate, what happens, they realize they were naked, they are afraid, they hide, they blame, they lie–Guilt, Fear. [where does Guilt/Fear come from, Knowledge, Knowledge of What and from Who?]
More interesting, after the fact, God says, they know Good and Evil like US–lest they take of the Tree of Life, etc., and of course He puts the guards there [my para] and throws them out of Garden [funny thing too about the trees in the Midst of, another dimension??? Native Indians believe so],
get into some of the other ancient beliefs, from Worlds apart, from Native Indian to Mayans, many similarities, Coincidence? OR, maybe, go back to Noah’s sons, the dispersing, one’s lineage were in shipping/fishing and went off–Somewhere…hmmmmm, another master of armory, went off somewhere, and another, comes the lineage of Hebrews, etc., that thread–funny thing is, History/Science backs that up, to a huge degree,
funny thing is too, the similarities between the Incas and Mayans to the ancient Mesopotamia beliefs and practices, Coincidence? How about Easter Island, more Giants? [stones, etc., Coincidence?]
hmmmm–see, not so easy then to just dismiss it all as mere fantasy, kind of hard to explain evolution from Monkeys on that one. Even big bang–the evolution from the organisms, maybe that could be, but then, that’s LIFE now isn’t it? Funny thing, when you look at some Biblical things there, fire, wind, water…
so, Bible doesn’t refute any of the other ‘theories’ in their entirety, but expands on them more so–IF one sees, there are hints, of bits/fragments, all over the place, so the Bible is written by MEN, ok, so what if it is? IF Life, Tree of Life, God’s Breathe, is in all of us, well then that wouldn’t be too hard to grasp–funny thing is, how the threads, all run, through times and times even with gaps, from men, long dead and gone–that confirm,
but here is where it gets a bit stranger, beliefs that are not from Bible, from antiquity, run along similar threads. They don’t Disprove the Bible–
and neither does materialism–going back to Marx/knowledge-man’s, the hierarchies, pyramids, the all seeing Eye [on that dollar bill] and in Genesis, funny how that all seeing Eye, from Egypt to now, still is there–Coincidence?
This is not even the ‘gist’ of the threads, connectors I have seen, NOT by reading Bible, but by reading everything that Disputes the accuracy of Bible–of Faith, that ‘substance’ of things Hoped for–what does our Heart hope for? The light, or darkness, to hide, from Guilt and Fear.
Bible says, Love casts out all Fear–to know God is to know Love, because God is love.
Those who worship God must do so in Spirit and in Truth–what is truth, funny Pilate asked Jesus [or maybe Herod, don't have Bible here] that same question, Jesus didn’t answer, Why?
Because truth is subjective, faith what one hopes for, truth based on knowledge, good/evil?
OR, absolute?
Is there an absolute outside of US? That is the question that is more than is the Bible real, if there is, an absolute outside of US, do we WANT it? Faith, substance of things hoped for, we Hope for what we Want, Desire.
Just, some things to ponder on–I find taking Bible literally, not only boring but leaves out so much to be desired, really, that the Bible is more than just a literal book, and funny, how it was letters, scrolls, bits here, bits there, from men yes, from different ages–who knew not one another, but of all the books, not a one, I know, speaks of a God that is more than judgment, but a God that says, this is Truth, you can’t obey it due to your nature, so here, I’ll pay the price in your place–you can choose, to take my gift or not, according to your faith…faith, substance.
Maybe the question is what do we really want? What do we prefer? The question, we avoid, Why? [the one we hide from]
Why hide? Ironic, coincidence? Of course, the easiest way to feel comfort from hiding is to rationalize it all away–but can we, really rationalize it all away? If we can, then why in 2010 are we no better in dealing with conflicts? Globally? Between Gender? In Power dynamics? We may have evolved technically, but ethically and morally, we De-evolved, or we are still stuck–no absolutes that will never change, we’ve Proven this, by far–the wheel keeps a going a round and a round and a round.
[funny thing about the wheel and Ezekiel] Coincidence?
With all the philosophy it’s amazing we haven’t found a ‘cure’ for humanity, even With humanism, so—does logic Prove there is no God, or does logic Prove, there is or maybe?
Maybe, the answer, lies in, what we really, hope for–
———
While you are at it, please explain Judges 21:10-24,
———
The Israelites were MERCIFUL in sparing the lives of the virgin girls rather than killing everyone the way that their neighbours would’ve done.
The reason for killing everybody is to prevent an uprising on the part of the conquered people, because they remain loyal to their original leaders long after they’ve been conquered. Men remain loyal to their rulers. Women remain loyal to their husbands, etc.
Even young boys remain loyal to their fathers, and, when they grow up, they will seek to avenge their parents by killing the children of their conquerors.
However, the same rule does not apply to young girls. Girls and boys in the ancient near east had very different upbringings, and very different personalities.
Unlike boys, girls spent their entire unmarried lives shacked away from the world, in their households, and their every move was scrutinized in order to protect their maidenhood so that Daddy could fetch a high bride-price for his daughter’s virginity. The girls had no authority, power, or influence in their households; they were totally passive and obedient to their superiors.
What harm, then, could these girls do to the Israelites? Nothing, because they were totally helpless! They only knew how to obey, and had no will of their own.
If these girls posed no threat to the Israelites, then where is the justification for killing them?
———
Numbers 31:7-18,
———
See above.
———
Judges 5:30,
———
This is what Sisera’s mother wanted for her son. Deborah is mocking her here; she wants evil to come to the Israelites, but she does not know that her tyrant of a son is dead, and killed by a woman too!
———
Deuteronomy 20:10-14,
———
If the city surrenders, everybody will live and will put to work for the Israelites. If it decides to put up a fight instead, it engages in warfare with the Israelites. The consequence of war is that, if the city loses, every man will have to die because the Israelites will not allow the chance of an uprising.
———
Deuteronomy 22:28-29,
———
If a virgin is raped, she loses her virginity. If she is no longer a virgin, no one will want to marry her. Besides being considered unmarriageable, her dignity has been violated. He owes her a compensation for that violation, and there is nothing that will make up for his raping her except marriage without the possibility for him to divorce her. She, as a rape victim, is entitled to lifelong support from him.
———
Deuteronomy 22:23-24,
———
Death is the penalty for adultery. If, a woman does not scream for help when a man who is not her husband or fiance tries to ravish her, she has given her consent to be ravished. Since she has given her consent, she has committed adultery.
———
and especially Zechariah 14:1-2..
———
Yes, this passage describes a tribulation that the Israelites will suffer. The LORD will deliver them from this hardship.
———
And before you go saying “Oh, that’s OT, not NT”, please then explain Matthew 5:18, and how that applies to those verses in Deuteronomy, and vise versa.
———
Let’s place this passage in context:
“17″Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5: 17-20)
This passage says that no letter will disappear from the law until “everything is accomplished.” Who will accomplish this “everything?” Jesus Christ – that’s who! And Jesus Christ did accomplish everything on the cross. That is why he cried out, “It is finished!”
———
As well as how it applies to the Spare the Rod verse
———
First of all, the “spare the rod” verse is a PROVERB. Proverbs are a genre of literature. A proverb is a hyperbolic statement of wisdom, not a literal truth.
For example, the statement, “I’m bored to death,” is an example of a proverb. Am I really dead? No, of course not! I’m only emphasizing the severity of my boredom.
Since the “spare the child” verse was never even a command of the OT law in the first place, why should NT Christians have to obey it?
Jane said “The problem is, there is lack of real discernment today, between good, evil, God and Satan. Because Too many, rely on Preachers and Peddlers of Quackery, religious that is, rather than get in the Word and seek themselves–prayer, find out Truth…”
that’s right. the Bible says strong meat belongeth to those who have had their senses exercised to discern good and evil.(Heb 5:14) That doesn’t happen when the preacher processes all your meat your entire spiritual life.
God never once authorized genocide or gendercide (a form of genocide) in the Bible. The Israelites were not aiming to destroy the people who lived in Canaan; they were trying to drive them out, because there was no way that they would tolerate the Israelites – who were native to Canaan – living among them. Today, we call this kind of stuff ethnic cleansing. Back then, it was survival. Two enemy people groups cannot live in the same country and be at peace with each other.
Of course, as history has shown, time after time, genocide and gendercide almost never succeed, and ethnic cleansing is bound to fail because the cleansed people will sooner or later return to their homeland to avenge its ancestors.
As the Bible shows, the children from the tribes that Israel drove away from Canaan returned later to avenge their parents, and this was the will of the LORD, as punishment for Israel’s sins. God is not partial to any people group, and Israel was judged as severely as any of its neighbours.
I guess that makes God an anti-Semitic genocidal monster?
“funny thing is too, the Books that were taken out, defined by MEN not to be inspired, were several books, about Women, addressing rape, female Empowerment, etc., Ironically the books left in, o.k. by the Protestants were those books that showed women ONLY in passive, sexually passive roles, which I do find interesting. For those who may not read the Bible, I am NOT referring here to the Gnostic texts, I have read many of those,”
What? (Like the moniker, by the way)–
I thought what you said about God being impartial was really interesting. If we took the stuff in the Old Testament, and just took the history out of the religious context, I think we would find that everything that happened there was, as it says in Ecclesiastes “nothing new under the sun.” Would “God’s people” (Israel) really have had it better if they had obeyed the Law, or was this also a little bit of hyperbole? We do not know this, but as someone who does believe in God, I have to think that in the case where he had set his standards out for this specific people, that it’s quite likely that he would also give them special blessing in accordance with their obedience. Of course, they never really did that.
And, I think that’s kind of the real key. We don’t live in that culture, so it’s kind of hard for us to get the right perspective, but a lot of the laws set out that we think are misogynist/patriarchal/elitist are actually favorable to women/children/aliens/poor. If God were really to favor anyone, he favors the weak. And by weak I mean those who have no means to change their own situation, whose lives are dictated by circumstances out of their control, and who are oppressed by those of better means.
Annie, I didn’t want to hash out every text like above, because I think there’s an overarching message, and the reality of some of those texts is that God required obedience by his people, and would have required it of anyone who chose to believe in him. I recently read Joshua and Judges through, and was appalled by the difference between the behaviors in the two books. Yes, Joshua is marked by war and conquest, but Judges is marked by people going their own way, and destroying anything their fathers might have built up for the Israelites. It was clear that the “chosen people” were just like everyone else–there is NOTHING special about being an Israelite, honestly. They were not guaranteed salvation any more than the people around them. They were the ones GIVEN the covenant, but they were also the ones whose inaction convicted them that much more, because they were disobedient to that which they KNEW, unlike the “ignorant” nations around them who did not have a covenant with Yahweh.
—
For example, the statement, “I’m bored to death,” is an example of a proverb. Am I really dead? No, of course not! I’m only emphasizing the severity of my boredom.
—
Okay, this was a bad example, because “I’m bored to death” is merely a hyperbole, not a proverb.
Better examples of proverbs are, “Practice makes perfect,” or, “Honesty is the best policy,” because these are actually advisory.
Abby,
God would have indeed blessed the Israelites if they’d followed His laws – perfectly, as they should have. The Law of the OT is not burdensome or overencumbering; many commentators have remarked on how incredibly short, glib, and lacking in detail it is!
The law is both just and holy – just, because it honours the rights of every sinful person, and holy because it honours God, the only one who is holy. If Israel had been just and holy, God would’ve blessed them. They were neither just nor holy, so God cursed them.
And, yes, it is true that the laws that seem to be unjust to modern sensibilities are actually very beneficial to the people whom they concern.
For example, in Biblical law, both adulterous wives AND their male lovers are to brought before a court to be judged, not just wives. The court, then, would do everything in their power to to reconcile the guilty parties (the lovers) to the wronged party (the husband) WITHOUT violence. If neither the husband nor the other man had initiated violence, the solution to the problem would be divorce. If, on the other hand, the either the husband or the other man had turned violent, the woman and her lover would be stoned before the WHOLE COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO STOP THE VIOLENCE.
By contrast, other cultures allowed cuckolded men to kill their wives and their lovers ON THE SPOT, WITHOUT TRIAL, and WITHOUT opportunity to be pardoned. Or, they killed only wives and not the lovers of married women. Either way, the OT law was far preferable to the alternatives.
Ethnic cleansing is NOT the same as genocide. Ethnic cleansing is the REMOVAL of a people group from an area. Genocide is the DESTRUCTION of a people group.
When Hitler first took power, he wanted to get rid of the Jews via ETHNIC CLEANSING. The Jews were pressured and encouraged to leave, and the lucky ones did. Hitler only instituted GENOCIDE in the later years of World War II, when he was desperate because it was obvious that the Germans were going to lose the war. (In truth, it was the war that caused the Holocaust, and the Allied powers are responsible for the Holocaust, no matter what your high school textbook might say.)
Ethnic cleansing in the ancient near east was not the same as ethnic cleansing in modern Europe. Back then, it was a matter of SURVIVAL for EVERYBODY involved. Two hostile people groups cannot live together in the same land, and be at peace. If they are not at peace, they are at war, at least in their hearts. If they are at war in their hearts, then they will very soon be at war – LITERALLY.
What commonalities did the Israelites and Canaanites have? They worshipped different gods, had different cultures and values, and belonged to different people groups. There was no overarching nation-state to which they both owed allegiance, the way that white Americans and black Americans belong to the same country. There was no hope for peace between the two. The only ethical thing to do was to separate them.
“Enoch, book of, says these half-humans half fallen angels would enslave the humans, eat up all the land, have sex with the animals, consume all animals, demand worship [gods-goddesses] and well, people lived in FEAR, terror actually–”
There is no evidence that the Book of Enoch which Jane is quoting is the same as the one from which Jesus quoted, AND the Book of Enoch that you are quoting is NOT part of Holy Canon:
Titus 1:13 “This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.”
The Law, given to Moses, was impossible to follow. It was a tutor to lead others to Christ. The Law would was not to bring righteousness to the one who followed it. The Law was death. The Law was added because of transgressions.
Abraham was saved by faith BEFORE the Law. His faith/belief was credited to him as righteousness. That is how every single person from the beginning of time has been made righteous-through faith.
Righteousness and justification do not come through the Law. Yes, God promised blessing for perfect obedience to the Law but the Law was impossible to keep, God knew it and that is why Jesus had to come to this earth in order to keep the Law perfectly in our place.
We receive the Spirit of God through faith that comes by hearing and not by keeping the Law. The Law is not of faith and the just shall live by faith. Everyone who is under the Law is under a curse.
The Law was added because of transgressions UNTIL Christ should come. The Law brings death and not life.
“But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”
The Law was our tutor but after faith has come we are no longer under a tutor. The covenant from Mt. Sinai gave birth to bondage.
The Law is a yoke of bondage and we are commanded to stand fast in our liberty.
The Law was unable to cleanse a guilty conscience. The sacrifice of the blood of bulls and goats were ineffective. It was impossible for those sacrifices to take away sins. In fact, the Bible tells us that sacrifice and burnt offerings God did not require or desire nor did they bring Him pleasure.
So, I would say that the Law of the OT (the Law given to Moses) IS burdensome (the Bible tells us it is a curse, it is bondage, it is death, etc), it was very cumbersome and it was futile to bring about personal righteousness and/or justification in God’s sight.
That law, added because of transgressions, did not nullify the promise made to Abraham and his seed- that believing God is credited to the person as righteousness.
” There is no Good News to be found there, just legalism, punishment – salvation by “the rod”. Listen to the powers Michael Pearl ascribes to the rod – powers I’ve only heard elsewhere ascribed to Christ and His Cross:
“When a child is bound in self-blame and low self-esteem, parents are not helpless. God has given them the gift of the rod. The rod can bring repentance, but it goes much deeper than that. The rod in the hands of a righteous authority will supply the child’s soul with that moment of judgment that he feels he so deserves. Properly applied, with instruction, it will absolve the child of guilt, cleanse his soul, and give him a fresh start through a confidence that all indebtedness is paid.” (Emphasis mine)”
and
“*** The soul of your child needs to be punished. “He feels the need to suffer for his misdeeds. What I am telling you is well understood by the most reprobate of modern psychiatrists and psychologists. They call it a “guilt complex.” Children and adults in this state of mind often do harm to themselves. Their anger is turned inward because they hate the bad person they know themselves to be. Their soul is crying out for justice to be done to the self. They don’t know what is happening, and they will not voluntarily seek punishment, but their soul needs judgment. When your child is in the first throes of this debilitating condition, be kind enough to punish him. Care enough and love enough to pay the emotional sacrifice to give him ten to fifteen licks that will satisfy his need to experience payback.
If you do not see the wisdom in what I have said, and you reject these concepts, you are not fit to be a parent. I pity your children. They will never experience the freedom of soul and conscience that mine do.” (emphasis mine; quoted from the Pearl’s website)”
And these are perfect illustrations of the difference of the Law vs Faith.
Also, the second quote from Michael Pearl is what I have read time and time again in the wife-spanking/discipline literature.
10 to 15 “licks”? What the HECK is wrong with people?
Very informative and eye-opening. Michael Pearl’s (and many other patriocentrist leaders) line is total and immediate and cheerful obedience and nothing less. That is why these parents continue to beat their children until they die. There are many children, especially those who are suffering PTSD and attachment related issues, that will EVER submit cheerfully as a matter of basic survival and protection instincts.
It is time for these authors and leaders to start owning their words and the consequences of people following their teachings.
On a smaller scale, we have heard patriocentrist leaders/authors blame the person who reads their book for following their own teachings and refuses to accept any responsibility. It makes me SICK.
Or we or are we NOT supposed to take their teachings seriously? And if we are not to take them seriously then why the heck are we buying their books and going to their stupid “teas” and conferences and flocking after them when they have speaking engagements?
Jane, I’m sorry to say, but your posts are largely incoherent. I will read just about anything, but I’m finding it very difficult to get through your page long posts, especially because they do not always seem to have any cohesiveness.
What I have gotten through, though, I’ve really felt like your theology is very unusual, and that your conclusions about the Bible are mostly based on self-study, not on a general consensus from commentaries throughout the years. Personally, I’ve found that the Holy Spirit’s leading, along with a healthy dose of reading what other people say about a particular scripture generally helps me better to understand. No one person’s statement on this verse or that can be certain, but when lots of people are in agreement, and the Holy Spirit also reveals the same if the occasion happens, I am more confident in the meaning of a verse.
As far as non-canonical texts, I have been out of college for a while now, but I’m fairly certain that the “MEN” who chose the scriptures for the canon of the Bible did so with the full interest of God in mind. I feel strongly that they felt convicted in their hearts and minds that these writings were God-inspired, and these were not. They are certainly still fallible people, but when many agree on something, and all of them are also experts on that (Scripture, in this instance), then the likelihood of getting it wrong is much lower, especially when they are being led by God.
Your assertion that the Bible is filled with examples of (my word) “wimpy” women is downright shocking to me–have you READ the Bible? There are dozens of examples of strong, “unusual” women–and many of these are lauded as the example for us to follow (by most of the Christian world) as women. Sarah, Zipporah, Pharaoh’s daughter, Miriam, Deborah, Abigail, Ruth, Naomi, Esther, etc… Need I go on? Mary (all of them), Martha, Lydia (from the Bible), Tabitha, Priscilla. If the Bible were chosen by men who had *men’s* best interest in mind, the stories of Ruth and Esther would not be in the Bible at all.
Jane, you’ve touched a nerve with me. I don’t know exactly where you are coming from theologically, but I can say it is definitely not “orthodox.”
I don’t know Jane to be cruel or disgusting. Her posts are gone now, so I can’t see what you are speaking up against.
Did she wish rape on someone??
I can understand asking her to tone it down, or to shorten her posts, but to kick her out is not on, IMO. Her life and experiences are not mine to share, but from what she has shared elsewhere, she knows pain that most of us can’t even imagine.
Is there no way we can take discussions that are getting too heated off of the board, instead of instantly assuming someone is vile and kicking them off?
Here are a couple good links that I came across yesterday. I was really happy to see such a fair article in a secular publication and such great analysis about Christian homeschoolers and the reasons they might be attracted to teachings like the Pearls’.
The second link discusses the Pearls’
“sinless perfection” theology that I believe is driving their teachings. It is amazing how many people either can’t see it or don’t care, even after the death of this little one.
Just a note to let you all know that I “unapproved” Jane’s comments until I have a chance to go over them more thoroughly. I received notes from longtime readers here who were truly troubled by them and that I had allowed them to be posted. In all honestly, I have been so busy the past few days that I haven’t read them all as well as I should. Hopefully I will have a chance to do that today.
Jane shoots from the hip and calls a spade a spade.
She pulls no punches when discribing the ugliness of the world around us that not all of us can see. For those of us who have not had first hand experience with them, they can be overwhelming.
But her voice and voices like hers need to be heard.
She’s been to hell and back, much of it due to patriarchy. Sorry if some of the hell still clinging to her as she continues to get free from it offends you.
I look upon her as one of those who have been snatched from the fire with her clothes still smelling like smoke.
She’s actually a very sensitive and artistic soul. And for this reason what she has gone through has affected her deeply.
So if you don’t understand my friend Jane, please just pray for her. And know Madame and I have seen the beautiful side of her and can attest that it does exist.
And what she proclaims against patriarchy and male privilege needs to be said.
God knows whether or not it needs to be toned down. It’s not my judgement to make.
I only know that I owe no man (or woman) anything except to love them. So that’s what I owe you and her.
Also, I haven’t seen the posts here. But I am familiar with her style and know she says some very strong things.
Godly advice or the language of a Sadist and Masochist?
I am APPALLED at the various things I am reading by “leaders” on child discipline. And where are all the patriocentrist leaders speaking out about these things? (Crickets) It might be hard for them to speak out against things since they promote these ideas and they are all about the control of women and children.
Pastor Kevin Swanson:
:40-5:20
“The world does not consider the rod a blessing. It’s ironic that we’re sitting in a public building talking about this. It just seems strange because it’s not really part of the culture we live in is it?”
15:50-17:00
“There are some children that need to be disciplined, and I’ve heard this from Godly parents, 20-30 times a day. Some children 20-30 times a day, 3,4,5,6 years in a row. It is just overwhelming for some parents.”
19:30-22:45
“God limits the severity and civil magistrate has some very clearly defined pervue in cases of child abuse in the Scripture. This is a very, very important fact because you know the state is clueless on this issue, utterly clueless, in fact, I have a hard time finding a magistrate or legislator who knows what their role is in the family and is very plainly laid out in Leviticus 24:19 ‘If a man cause a blemish to his neighbor as he hath done so shall it be done to him…the use of the rod is very clear, no lasting harm aloud, period…now this should relieve the conscience of every Christian parent here who from time to time leaves a bruise on a child, it’s legitimate, it’s not lasting harm, it’s not lasting harm. You understand some children bruise just like that, some children don’t, but children are very different in this way, but I’m bringing the word of God to bear on your consciences today, the state should not be an issue here when it comes to obeying the word of God. Now granted we do everything we can to agree with our adversary while we’re in the way with him. We don’t want to make a spectacle out of ourselves…” He goes on to say do it in private.
Pastor Nathan Thrice (OPC)
Sermon 2:
3:58-5:22
“Parents spare the rod by beginning to spank too late in a child’s life. Brother’s and Sister’s you are to begin the use of the rod as early as sin is clearly manifested in your children. And how early is that? It’s from infancy…”
7:30-10:30 This section he goes on and on about why you should spank them before their old enough to understand, especially before the age of 2. He goes on to reiterate numerous times it should be done in infancy.
33:50-34:35 “Brothers and sisters you need to recognize that when you spank you are to be bringing that child, DOUG WILSON (emphasis mine) puts it this way, especially for a young child, ‘You need to be bringing that child to a place where at least for the moment in that little child’d mind he firmly believes the world is coming to an end…’” He goes on to repeat this statement for emphasis.
53:00-54:30 This section he says basically not to worry about social services, but to do the “right” thing.
Pastor Harold Chase
21:55- 22:07
“We are to use as many stripes as necessary to bring about the end result of discipline.”
20:30-39:20 “How many whacks is irrelevant. You may only need a word, you may need 100 stripes. A hundred? That’s what the Bible speaks about. A word enters more into the heart of a wise man than a 100 stripes into a fool. And so who knows how many. How much according to the actual number of strokes in any given case is not the issue. However, having stated that, whatever is given should be non-abusive. Whether it is 10 stripes, or 20 stripes, or anything well beyond that. There is to never be in any danger of physical abuse to that child. Ok, no physical abuse to the child. There is all sorts of varying views on what is physical abuse. Let me give you a biblical answer: They should never have their life or limb in danger, ever. They should never be put in danger as to their life, they might think, you might think, remember the Bible says you shall beat him with a rod, dad, he shall not die, you shall not kill him. However, if you use the rod enough to actually endanger his life, then that’s too much, or his limb, by limb that usually means appendages, what I mean by that is physical body must not be actually brought to be abused. Now if you took an inch dowel, a cane, solid oak inch dowel or an half –inch and had that within your wingspan you could hurt, you would hurt your child physically, and had that child bend over you could hurt, you would hurt your child, you could do serious damage. Yet if you took an instrument that was flat sprawled out, if you will, and a thick enough to not particularly break, but if it had a little give to it, you would get the job done…. What you use on your infant I trust you’re not using on your 15-year-old… You would be a great encouragement to your child if you kept all of your rods through the years and the ones that have been well soiled by tears and inflicted by flesh and broken at times and hand them off when he’s an adult and say I want you to know I love you…” He goes on to say when the child gets older he needs something used on him that’s a quarter to a half inch thick. “The blueness of the wound cleanses away evil…but there’s a major difference between a blackened behind and the skin breaking on a child. If you are disciplining your child regularly you will approach the breaking of skin and it will happen perhaps, and you have gone too far.”
These quotes and MORE are found on the following website (referenced by Karen on Thatmom):
Let the little children come? Is the following what Jesus meant when he said those words? Was He really saying that we teach our children about the Gospel/Bible by hitting them when they are only two weeks old?
Pastor Roger Voegtlin
“The best years of your child’s life is when their young. A pastor was teaching a seminar on child rearing to a group of parents and, and ah, a mother raised her hand and said, ‘How old does a child need to be before you teach them a Bible verse?’ And with a straight face he said, ‘I think about two weeks old.’ And he just kept on going and she blurted out, ‘How can you teach a Bible verse when their two weeks old?’ And he went on to give some swats on his hand to the meter, Proverbs 13:5 ‘the way of the transgressor is hard.’ He said ‘they may not get the words, but they’ll get the spirit.’ [Roger is slapping his hand to a beat as he says the last few sentences] And don’t let them turn on the tears and get you to stop. In fact, you ought not let them scream and cry, they ought to get more and I know that’s frustrating. More. Listen, what their trying to do is convince their parent to stop before justice is done…One preacher said his mother used to stand next to his father as he was whippin’ him as a child and say, ‘Dad, he needs some more he’s not sweet yet. Dad give him some more he’s not sweet yet!’ [raised voice] That’s the job of the mother…”
32:50-33:10
“Seat belts save lives so belt them in the seat.”
33:20-33:55
“My teenagers all received whippings right on up until their senior year when it was needed. They respected us for whippings and later wrote us and told us they appreciated us that we brought them up with discipline. There’s a psychological idea that once a child’s 10 he no longer needs a whippin’. It’s bologna is what it is.”
37:20-38:35
“When you’re getting up to 13, 14, and 15 you’re running out of years, man. You better get a swinging as quick as you can. Deutoronomy talks about whipping an older son. It says if a man has a wicked and rebellious son and will not heed the voice of his mother… it says they whipped him and they did good to whip him and then they stone him with stones. Under church rule today you don’t do that, but God has never abolished the chastening of your teenage boy or girl. That’s never been abolished…”
39:00-39:30
“[speaking of beating you son]…I’m not saying to lose your mind, but I’m saying you ought to take care of his [sons] business…”
45:00-45:45
“Son now don’t you ever, ever, talk to me, your father, in such a way to act like you’re smarter than me. Now I’m gonna bust your behind right now. And then I’m gonna give you a hug and don’t you ever do that again, do you understand that? ‘yes, sir, daddy’ Now you didn’t say ‘yes sir’ quick enough. Now I’m gonna bust your behind again, yes sir? ‘yes sir, daddy.’ Now I love you. It’s over. No more smart mouth. No more eye rolling….”
47:00-49:00
“I’ll tell you this, if by the time a child is a year old and you can’t say ‘no’ and he stops and you can’t say don’t touch that and make it stick…it’s possible at a year old to make a child mind… if you did it like my daddy did you might get better results. Listen, my daddy whipped you until you cried, then whipped you again until you stopped crying and I firmly believe in that… A woman came up to Bob Jones Sr. and said Dr. Bob will you pray for my 14 year old boy who is already drinking and cussing? Dr. Bob says, ‘No maam, I will not… Why should I waste my time praying for a thing you could fix in 10 or 15 minutes with a stitch if you really meant business.’…”
These quotes are all from the freedomfromabuse website.
Corrie,
What can we do to stop this type of abuse in the name of “Biblical chastisement or discipline”? It is so entrenced in the Christian community. Where does grace based parenting come in and how do we get through to people that they need not be harsh when dealing with their children? How do we combat the message of Proverbs quoting pasters who seem to think the rod is the answer for everything? And how do we get throught to parents that 2 week olds don’t yet have sin issues that need a swat?
Karen,
I read the Cephas library link from comment 435.
I’m glad to see a person who may be listened to by parents who subscribe to the Pearl’s ways point out some of their dangerous teachings. But I’m disappointed that he considers their teaching on marriage and child discipline to be “Godly”.
I didn’t get through all of Jane’s posts as they were kind of hard to read, but they reminded me of the basic premise of one of Madeleine L’Engle’s books. I can’t remember what it was called, but it was about the time before the Flood. There are a lot of interesting things in that whole theory to think about, but it gets confusing and depressing for me when I try to think about it too much…. There might be some overlooked things/truths but I don’t think we can just toss out thousands of years of theology that has been hammered out by millions of people led by God. I think Jane is still healing and growing and learning and it sounds like she’s been through a terrible amount of suffering, so we don’t need to be really harsh with her. She did say a couple of inflammatory/cruel sounding things but I don’t personally feel like she was wishing that on people. I hope she continues to heal and feel safe.
“33:50-34:35 “Brothers and sisters you need to recognize that when you spank you are to be bringing that child, DOUG WILSON (emphasis mine) puts it this way, especially for a young child, ‘You need to be bringing that child to a place where at least for the moment in that little child’d mind he firmly believes the world is coming to an end…’” He goes on to repeat this statement for emphasis.”
First, all of those quotes are so DISGUSTING. Second, that emphasized statement was interesting to me, because so many of these people are also hyperanxious about politics and constantly think this or that person is the Antichrist and the Last Days are starting, like, tomorrow. I have often been very worried over the state of the world myself, but it just struck me that someone should tell these people that if they really believe punishing involves the punishee being convinced their world is ending, then hmm… Maybe GOD IS PUNISHING THEM and they are not paying attention!
I grew up believing spanking was an “almost necessity,” to be used carefully and mainly in the toddler years, but the more of these quotes I read the more I want to see how well I can raise a child without needing to spank at all. Not going to put it completely off limits, but reading these stories makes me really want to avoid spanking.
This child discipline “garbage” makes feel sick. I’ll say again – you can’t legislate a change heart and you certainly can’t beat a change of heart into anyone.
I don’t even begin to understand how a person reconciles beating a child to change them with “For God so loved the world, that He gave…” Jesus didn’t pick up His cross and beat us with it…He loved us through it.
O.K., I have to stop there…praying for open doors and opportunities to get the word out about grace based parenting. I had no idea how the Pearls and their ilk had multiplied since we finished homeschooling.
Corrie, your quotes broke my heart too. I can’t read them they turn my stomach,
As I skimmed through them (not because of casual disregard but because they are so horrendous) I caught preacher Joey Faust bragging about spanking his teen sons.
XP
That speaks volumes about how INEFFECTIVE spanking is as a tool in training for godliness. If indeed his children are so rotten as to need spanked as teenagers, then all those years of “discipline” were useless.
My teen son and I get along swell, and he hasn’t been spanked since he was (not exactly sure, it happened so rarely) 6? I spanked him the day he pounded on the neighbor girl in exasperation after she had pushed his buttons all day. He also had to apologize and take her flowers. And we talked about how it’s okay to tell mom if playtime is not going so well, and it’s okay to send people home until another day. We even came up with a code to use if he was at someone else’s house and wanted to come home. (Great move because it turned out he needed that code one day.)
I didn’t spank my son after that, not even when I found him looking at porn, because I was able to reason with him.
Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”
He is the delight of my heart. I don’t need to spank him.
In fact, he was disrespectful to me today (which was an anomaly!) and I was able to TALK to him about it and see a complete change of heart in him. He was able to TALK to me about the frustrating distraction he was dealing with when he answered me disrespectfully. We were TOGETHER able to come up with a mutually satisfying resolution which included his honoring his mother and my honoring his ability to reason.
I absolutely cannot imagine the indignity to a teen who is being “spanked”. It’s just child abuse with a religious veneer, and it needs to stop.
I will ashamedly admit that when I spanked my son for hitting the neighbor girl, it was to assuage my anger at violence toward a girl. Just seeing how upset I was would have been more than enough to get the gravity of the situation across. I did not need to spank him that day.
The rest of the discipline was the important part: expressing that violence against women is totally unacceptable, listening to why he did it, giving him empathy for all he put up with, coming up with a plan to keep his frustration from escalating in the future, insisting he apologize for his wrong, and taking flowers to show her parents he would treat their daughter gently in the future.
Shadow, that is TRUE discipline. What a great mom you are! These abusive parents seem to forget that discipling – which is how you deal with your son – is the root of discipline.
Light, I agree that Shadowspring’s approach is the correct one. Oh my, how many homes would see immediate healing if moms and dads experienced the same sort of desire to repent of wrongs against their children! This is a crucial aspect of “relationship homeschooling!”
I wanted to let everyone know that I decided not to repost the comments left by Jane. (Not the same Jane, btw, who was posting here a few months ago.) I found, as Abby did, that they were not always coherent and the more we tried to understand what she was saying, it became apparent to me that there was no possibility for real discussion. I am sure some of you will be offended for her and I understand that. But I also know that some of you who are always willing and able to refute wrong teachings barely knew where to begin given the sheer volume of thoughts she was writing. If, perhaps, she decides to submit one thought at a time to discuss, I will post it.
Corrie,
What can we do to stop this type of abuse in the name of “Biblical chastisement or discipline”? It is so entrenced in the Christian community. Where does grace based parenting come in and how do we get through to people that they need not be harsh when dealing with their children? How do we combat the message of Proverbs quoting pasters who seem to think the rod is the answer for everything? And how do we get throught to parents that 2 week olds don’t yet have sin issues that need a swat?”
I know this was for Corrie and I look forward to what she has to say, but this is my response to this.
We need to start by making an appeal to those who are in leadership in churches and homeschooling groups, letting them know that these teachings DO constitute abuse. And even if they do not believe it is abusive according to Scripture, at the very least they need to know that the state says it is abuse. This is what I found as far as the law is where I live in Illinois:
“Assault is defined as an act that makes another person have reasonable apprehension of battery. Battery means intentionally or knowingly and without legal justification causing bodily harm to another person, or making an insulting or provoking physical contact with a person.”
And then, there is the “witnessing” aspect of it:
Illinois Circumstances That Constitute Witnessing Comp. Stat. Ch. 720 § 5/12-3.2[In criminal law] For purposes of this Section: • ‘’Child’’ means a person under 18 years of age who is the defendant’s or victim’s child or stepchild or who is a minor child residing within or visiting the household of the defendant or victim. • ‘’In the presence of a child’’ means in the physical presence of a child or knowing or having reason to know that a child is present and may see or hear an act constituting one of the offenses listed in the section below. Consequences Comp. Stat. Ch. 720 § 5/12-3.2In addition to any other sentencing alternatives, a defendant who commits, in the presence of a child, a felony domestic battery, aggravated domestic battery, aggravated battery, unlawful restraint, or aggravated unlawful restraint against a family or household member shall be: • Required to serve a mandatory minimum imprisonment of 10 days or perform 300 hours of community service, or both • Liable for the cost of any counseling required for the child at the discretion of the court.”
More and more adult children are now sharing the stories of seeing the siblings or other children receiving the Pearl treatment (Or being “Pearled” as I am now calling it) and have told how traumatized they were.
That is one thing.
Also, I think there needs to be a new battalion of older women who represent grace based mothering who are mentoring in our churches and homeschooling groups. We need to set the example. There are some great books to recommend. Give those as shower gifts….this is my latest thing, to include some cute little outfit or onesies in a bag along with one of the following books:
Grace Based Parenting by Tim Kimmel
Heartfelt Discipline by Clay Clarkson
Families Where Grace is in Place by Jeff VanVonderan
Just like in the patriocentric movement, why should all the voices be those of men and women who don’t embrace grace based relationships in marriages and families? Oh, the top down authoritarians won’t like it. In fact, they may try to shut us up with name calling, threatened lawsuits, or by sending trouble makers to us to divert the true message, but we can withstand it. We already have!!!
“Oh, the top down authoritarians won’t like it. In fact, they may try to shut us up with name calling, threatened lawsuits, or by sending trouble makers to us to divert the true message, but we can withstand it. We already have!!!”
Just like in the patriocentric movement, why should all the voices be those of men and women who don’t embrace grace based relationships in marriages and families? Oh, the top down authoritarians won’t like it. In fact, they may try to shut us up with name calling, threatened lawsuits, or by sending trouble makers to us to divert the true message, but we can withstand it. We already have!!!
Where I live, in Germany, spanking is illegal. I don’t think we would get in trouble for giving our children the occasional smack, with the hand, to get their attention when nothing else is working, but we are required by law to report people who abuse their children, and that includes hitting them.
Our former pastor, a proponent of Dobson’s methods, challenged me to use Biblical discipline (spanking) and defy the authorities. If it got me into jail, I’d be witnessing! Yay!
Does anyone think about children’s right to not have to hide what their life is really like?
As laws tighten, there are going to be more and more children bearing the burden of secrecy. That isn’t good for a child. IMO, it constitutes abuse in itself.
“Grace Based Parenting by Tim Kimmel
Heartfelt Discipline by Clay Clarkson
Families Where Grace is in Place by Jeff VanVonderan”
I’ve read and shared copies of “Families Where Grace is in Place,”
but I’m not familiar with the other two authors. Do they advocate any spanking at all? Or say “hand swatting” of toddlers?
Grace Based Parenting by Tim Kimmel if I remember correctly advocated some spanking but in moderation. Nothing that comes close to abuse. It was more of a gentle approach to discipline.
Heartfelt Discipline by Clay Clarkson was also a gentle approach to discipline. Clay Clarkson at one time advocated spanking but not with the harshness of the Pearls or others. I believe Heartfelt Discipline was written after he changed his views on spanking. I remember being impressed with the book and felt it stressed grace and instruction rather than spanking.
I would start with Heartfelt Discipline by Clarkson…lots of ideas for families with little ones. He also explains why he decided not to spank any longer. Much grace, very warm approach.
I don’t remember Kimmel talking about spanking but if he did, it didn’t even hit my radar. He is all about relationships, too, and really stretches your thinking.
And just so you all know, I do plan to get back to the discussion about rape in the bible, and to finish my blog series but I’m in the middle of helping a good friend move one state north AND helping my Mother move one state south, at the same time. I’ll need a few days to catch up.
Debi Pearl has a new book coming out, targeting young women. After Created To Be His Help Meet, I shudder to think what this new book is going to contain. Release date set for April 15.
Great post about spanking, Shadowspring. I’m right there with you.
Like many, we bought the Dobson books when our first babies arrived. (We have a funny photo of my husband reading “The Strong-Willed Child” with our toddler looking crazed in the foreground.)
Soon, we discovered that our spankings were less effective than talking, just as Shadowspring said. We eventually abandoned spankings entirely, adopting talk-discipline instead.
This involved pulling the kid aside and having a serious discussion. Why was their behaviour wrong? How had it hurt the other person? How did this play into their spiritual and moral life? How could they do better next time? Did they need to apologize to someone?
Usually this (directed) soul-searching resulted in a few tears, a humbled spirit, changed future behaviour, and restored relationships.
We never got any of that from spanking– except maybe the tears.
Once one of our sons had blown it and got notice of an impending “talk.”
“NO, not the TALK!” he cried. “Ground me, spank me, ANYTHING but the talk!”
Debbie, like you, I realized with my oldest child that the more I spanked, the less it worked. Despite criticism from Ezzo-followers (who gently rebuked me for “not spanking enough” and told me “you can’t reason with a toddler”), I found that my logical-thinking, strong-willed older child was perfectly willing to obey — as long as he understood why it was important. “Because I said so” cut no ice with him, and he would resist me all day long. But if I explained to him why it was important for him to stop when I said “stop” — I remember watching him — you could almost see the wheels turning in his head — and then he said, “okay!” Not a problem after that.
Now my younger one of course was different — I had to be careful of my attitude and tone of voice, because he would just wilt at a harsh word. But that meant that just giving him “the look” was much more effective with him than with his brother!
One of the things I had to learn as a parent is that I knew my child better than anyone else and I had to take them as they were. I never found a book or “method” that understood my children like I did, and I learned to trust my own instincts on how to deal with them. I think that some folks just don’t trust themselves and want an expert to rely on, and while I understand that, I think that “expert” needs to be the Holy Spirit working with parents to help them guide their children.
I’m reminded of Samson’s parents in Judges 13:8 –
Then Manoah prayed to the LORD : “O LORD, I beg you, let the man of God you sent to us come again to teach us how to bring up the boy who is to be born.”
emr, I totally agree with you about the childcare books and “experts.”
I’m a big lover of books, but we learned early on that it was much better for us to rely on our natural instincts, the healthy parenting models around us, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit within us.
I guess you could say we wrote our own childcare books–one for each kid, as you said. They may not be on any best-seller list, but we’re so blessed over our own young-adult editions today.
Granted PZ is not what you might call polite about his beliefs about Christians. But you all might find it interesting to learn about both Shepherd Hill Farm, and what the “other side” thinks of it.
With truckloads of respect to you emr, people who grew up in extremely disfunctional families shouldn’t trust their own intstincts to “know” what’s right. I think that’s why so many of them hold on to violence and authoritarianism. It “feels” right to them.
However to the part the “expert needs to be the Holy Spirit” YES YES YES!
I once heard a (female) preacher, I know I will err in life, and when those moments come, I hope to err on the side of love.
Her words have stuck with me, and I have tried to practice them as a life rule- to mostly good results and a few disasters. But the great things about serving a God who loves, heals, and restores, is that the disasters aren’t permanent. Yet the love is one of the things that will endure. <3
Shadowspring, I completely understand what you’re saying. I am blessed to have been raised in a Christian home where I was loved. Although my parents weren’t perfect and I have not modeled every single detail of my parenting after theirs, I was loved and appreciated and valued for my individual gifts and attributes.
I can’t imagine how it would stunt your spiritual and emotional growth to (1) be subjected to the kind of discipline that some of these children are, or to (2) believe that this is necessary to be a Godly parent.
Shadowspring, I had been thinking for the past few days, “If I’m going to err in disciplining my children, I’d rather err in favor of love.” Then I saw your quote, and it was such a confirmation. Tonight I was at a party, and a friend was saying how much she appreciated hearing Tedd Tripp speak at a recent conference about child training, saying essentially the same thing. Err on the side of mercy, not judgment. We had a situation in our family recently where we could have flipped out but I’m so proud of my husband for staying calm and speaking grace to the child who was having some trouble. His goal was not at all to come against him with punishment, but to come alongside him to see him succeed.
Virginia, I had been thinking about the Pearl’s suggestion that you wear the “implement of chastisement” around your neck all the time as a warning to the child. And then I read this verse: “Do not let mercy and truth leave you. Fasten them around your neck. Write them on the tablet of your heart.”
Prov. 3:3
Now, perhaps opening another can of worms, but…I would really like some feed back on Tripp’s Shepherding a Child’s Heart. I know there are moms who think it is worse than To Train Up a Child because, they say,it also teaches that you spank to repentance, but does so in a more subtle way. I haven’t read the whole book so I would like to hear from those who have. Any thoughts?
Shadowspring, I haven’t read Shepherding a Child’s Heart in many years, and I know they have come out with a new edition since then, so I’m not sure what he says about that in the book. I’ll have to check my old copy if I can find it. My friend did note the complete contrast in what she had been taught for years (spank, spank, spank some more) and what she heard at that conference. He does advocate spanking, but I don’t know to what extent. I am not opposed to spanking, but I think its use should be very limited as far as what you spank for and how often/long/hard you do it, etc.
emr, you bring up again the idea that people think that children are really just stupid! Saying you can’t reason with a toddler without ever actually trying to reason with a toddler is really just a blind adherence to an idea that has no basis in fact. Knowing how easy it is to reason with my own children, and they are young, I laugh at the idea. You can’t reason with an infant, of course, but it seems like there are people who think that even though you can’t reason with this child, that they are still capable of being willfully disobedient! You can’t have it both ways! Yes, toddlers can be willfully disobedient, but then, they can also be reasoned with–they are NOT reasonable, of course, but you can talk to them and they can understand that you don’t like what they’ve done! Just yesterday I was having a full blown conversation with my 22 month old about his sister’s being upset over not getting her way. He understood what was going on, and even though he couldn’t communicate it well, he could certainly understand, and even had a sense of compassion and empathy for her frustration.
We learned early on that the best, and really the only, way to stop our daughter from acting out was to take her aside into a quiet, private room and talk with her calmly. This does more wonder for a child’s behavior than beating them every time they do something wrong. We’ve gone back and forth with spanking, and I know that the times we’ve been calm and rational ourselves, she has shown the kind of change we hoped to see, but when we were angry and spanked out of frustration, she showed her own temper just as easily.
Not that the Pearls and their ilk don’t need to be thoroughly discredited, but I would prefer to see more blogs and websites (free, of course) dedicated to loving discipline. I know there are some good ones, but they need to be quadrupled to counteract the horrid effects of “No Greater Joy” and others like it.
In reality, spanking is completely irrational, particularly when it is used in situations where children have to be punished for hitting someone else. It tells children that adults can hit because they are adults, but children cannot hit because they are not. This ultimately leads to a horrible view of childhood, and the idea that the bigger you are, the more control you get to have over other people.
From comment 530
*** The soul of your child needs to be punished. “He feels the need to suffer for his misdeeds. What I am telling you is well understood by the most reprobate of modern psychiatrists and psychologists. They call it a “guilt complex.” Children and adults in this state of mind often do harm to themselves. Their anger is turned inward because they hate the bad person they know themselves to be. Their soul is crying out for justice to be done to the self. They don’t know what is happening, and they will not voluntarily seek punishment, but their soul needs judgment. When your child is in the first throes of this debilitating condition, be kind enough to punish him. Care enough and love enough to pay the emotional sacrifice to give him ten to fifteen licks that will satisfy his need to experience payback.
If you do not see the wisdom in what I have said, and you reject these concepts, you are not fit to be a parent. I pity your children. They will never experience the freedom of soul and conscience that mine do.” (emphasis mine; quoted from the Pearl’s website)”
_____________
I was thinking about this quote this morning while I was doing laundry, and I couldn’t help but think of the monks hundreds of years ago that would beat themselves with bundles of sticks to make penance to God. If I remember correctly, Martin Luther also beat himself trying to punish himself so he would feel better about his sin. It was all useless! No matter how much you beat yourself, cut yourself, and hate yourself, you will never be able to make yourself feel better, take away your “guilt complex”. Only JESUS and the HOLY SPIRIT can do that, with GRACE, not with beatings.
What is wrong with these people, thinking they can ease the consciences of their children by BEATING them? It’s absolutely sickening to me. Those children will grow up having no idea of the grace and mercy of God.
The closest thing I could find to a “guilt complex” in the literature is actually called the Polycrates complex.
From Wikipedia:
It is used by psychoanalyst criminologists to explain crime. During the ages 4-6, (the phallic stage), a male child undergoes what Freud calles the “Oedipus complex”, meaning the desire to kill one’s father and commit incest with one’s mother. This desire is the cause of subconscious guilt which makes the child wish to be punished, thus reaching catharsis.
Of course no one pays much attention to Freud anymore. When the Anthropologist Bronisław Malinowski was working with the Trobriand Islands people he noted that the children were actually raised by the mother’s eldest brother, and not their biological father or their mother’s current partner. As the children reached the 4-6 age range they directed their fear, anger and acting out behavior, in essence the Oedipal Complex, toward the uncles, not the fathers, leading him to conclude that the behavior had nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with power. From his work came the idea that somewhere between the ages of 4 and 6 children realize that they have little to no power over their own lives or within the family structure, and *that’s* what causes the acting out.
If you follow that train of thought then the Polycrates complex, this so-called “guilt complex” would be a child feeling guilty for acting out and taking power for himself from the father. Beating the child for it would then reinforce the idea that taking power for themselves really is bad and something to feel guilty about. Especially i the beatings are continued into adolescence, a time when they really ought to be developing their own power, and deciding the course for their lives.
Of course if you’re a Patriarch the last thing you want your children doing is making their own decisions. You want them dependent and controlled for as long as possible. So I suppose that if that’s the case, then beating them is actually a good idea, it would encourage the brainwashing process.
All of a sudden this is starting to make a twisted, evil kind of sense.
I’m wondering if anyone here has read or had experience with the book “Lies Woman Believe” by Nancy Leigh DeMoss. I stumbled across it a few years ago, looked over the Table of Contents, and cast it aside for no particular reason.
(I am familiar with her website and radio ministry~she was not an unknown author to me.)
Recently my mom told me that her Bible Study is reading through the book and completing a study guide. So the last time I was at her home she handed the book to me and said “What do you think?”
I skimmed it and read paragraphs hear and there. We began discussing it and both quickly realized that we had strong opinions on this book, but our opinions were opposite! My mother, whom I am very close to, and I decided to just drop it because our discussion was getting a little uncomfortable.
So I thought I’d bring it before this intelligent, thoughtful, and spiritually strong group ~ what are your thoughts on this book, pro and con?
Heather,
If I recall correctly, I thumbed through DeMoss’ book once and did not purchase it after reading her advice to women in abusive marriages – wives leave only if they have to, but never, under any circumstances, consider divorce. If a separation must take place,she says, then during the separation, an abused wife must maintain an attitude of reverence towards her abusive husband’s God-given position of authority over her—which is not abrogated by the abuse she suffers from her husband.
It sounded like other things I’ve heard from her – just sugar-coated patriachy.
I read through “Lies Women Believe” and did the Bible study. I couldn’t relate to it; as a woman it was foreign to me. Also, I disagreed with quite a few of her assertions. She has a chapter on birth control and how it is wrong to use methods of family planning.
I didn’t like this book but I liked some of her other Bible studies that directly addressed our relationship to God and developing a spiritual life.
” you follow that train of thought then the Polycrates complex, this so-called “guilt complex” would be a child feeling guilty for acting out and taking power for himself from the father. Beating the child for it would then reinforce the idea that taking power for themselves really is bad and something to feel guilty about. Especially i the beatings are continued into adolescence, a time when they really ought to be developing their own power, and deciding the course for their lives.”
Annie C,
Interesting.
I wonder how this “guilty” feeling translates to marriage where a woman has no rights or power nor is she to have any aspiration, desires, dreams, goals of her own. A woman feels guilty for having her own dreams and desires and goals and she feels guilty because she desires to be treated as an equal and not a child by the person she is most intimate with. Could this stripping a woman of all these things cause her to act out? Could patriocentrism actually have the opposite effect on a woman than they actually teach?
“I was thinking about this quote this morning while I was doing laundry, and I couldn’t help but think of the monks hundreds of years ago that would beat themselves with bundles of sticks to make penance to God. If I remember correctly, Martin Luther also beat himself trying to punish himself so he would feel better about his sin. It was all useless! No matter how much you beat yourself, cut yourself, and hate yourself, you will never be able to make yourself feel better, take away your “guilt complex”. Only JESUS and the HOLY SPIRIT can do that, with GRACE, not with beatings.”
EXCELLENT point! Yes, it is all USELESS and VANITY to think that we can bring about with the flesh what only God can bring about with the Spirit!
We are exasperating our children when we think this way. We are causing them to be brought under bondage to the flesh and we are not teaching them the freedom that the Spirit brings.
“What is wrong with these people, thinking they can ease the consciences of their children by BEATING them? It’s absolutely sickening to me. Those children will grow up having no idea of the grace and mercy of God.”
I don’t know. I really don’t know. It is sickening and also very sad. I think about these people who are deluded by the traditions of men and how they are also under bondage.
I would think it would. Especially if they found out that other women were deeply enjoying their lives. Which explains the isolationism, and the anger toward those of us who set a different example, the last thing they would want their wives and daughters to realize is that the grass really is that much greener.
Perhaps I ought to clarify, I don’t think the Patriarchs get up in the morning and decide to brainwash and terrorize their women and children today. I think it’s more complicated than that.
I read a series of papers around one of the recent election cycles which I will try to find that discussed human development and how it can relate to how one deals with society. It made a point that at a certain point, about high school age I believe, people start understanding their sense of self only in relation to how they relate to others. I am a husband, I am a son, I am a student, I am a Christian, and so on, and each of those definitions and relationships has to be very rigid and set, or else their sense of self simply cannot hold. It’s another step up in maturity to be able to hold your sense of self regardless of how others relate to you. This stage has an actual name, I just forget what it’s called and now of course I can’t find the link.
I don’t think that these men have matured past that stage.
Which explains a lot of their actions. If they define themselves as a “father” based on how their child relates to them then any change in that relationship is going to affect their own sense of self and being. Starting with the child growing and challenging their authority. Fear causes them to lash out, which then reinforces the child’s guilt and sense of shame over hurting Daddy by taking his power away.
Same thing with wives. Any change in the way they relate causes retaliation as the man’s sense of self is threatened. They fight back. Rinse, repeat.
When you realize that any change in any relationship in the community can start a domino effect you start seeing the Patriarchy movement. If Bob’s wife controls the checkbook in his house, that means that my wife could control the checkbook in mine, and so my power is threatened. I’d better go after Bob and get him to fix that. If Mary’s husband does the cooking in his house then my husband could do the cooking in mine, and my power as the chief nurturer would be threatened. I’d better convince Mary that she needs to keep that job for herself.
Take it one step further and you can see the hatred toward feminists (If that woman can live without the authority of a man, then the women in my life can live without the authority of a man…) homosexuals (If those two men can happily relate to each other like that then someone could expect me to relate to a man like that…) and atheists (If they can live happily without an authority structure than the people around me can live without an authority structure then people can live happily without structure…).
So I think I’m saying that the whole thing comes down to a lack of maturity on their part.
I’ve been following the child-training discussion with great interest. And here is where I admit how lost I am regarding this subject. :^) I truly could use some help here.
I grew up getting spanked as a younger child for deliberate wrong-doing. It never damaged me and I’ve never felt resentment towards my parents. They always sat down, told us exactly why they were spanking us, spanked us, then gave us “snuggle time” to ensure us that they loved us very much. I never felt unloved, then or now. Sometimes being sent to our rooms in anticipation of a spanking was worse than the actual spanking. And we always, always knew we deserved it (we were all rather misceivous and strong-willed…don’t know how my mom kept her sanity with 5 of us).
Mom read the Pearl’s books, gleaned some good tips and discarded the rest. I read them before becoming a parent and tried the methods (though without the extreme harshness…I never swatted an infant or kept spanking a crying child) but soon discovered that spanking was not the “end-all” and their methods of training weren’t working. Their promises of perfect 2-yr-olds seemed laughable to me after just a few weeks of having a 2-yr-old. I threw out the books and just started floundering through discipline, training, and parenting.
My oldest is almost 4, very strong-willed and smart, and probably has ADHD. If I had employed the Pearl’s method of demanding instant obedience she wouldn’t be the sunny, happy girl she is now. Some children get easily disctracted and honestly can’t remember what you told them to do half a second ago. I’m glad I knew enough when she was littler to understand brain development and learning disorders in children. Usually talking things out, taking away privileges, or being sent to bed for extreme crankiness works for her.
My 2nd daughter is 2 and more of a handful than I can take somedays. She has developmental delays, cannot communicate even some basic needs (though we’re working on it and seeing some improvement) and has major behavioral issues (autism has been ruled out; they think she’s just frustrated about not being able to communicate with others in her world. We’re just starting different tests to see how we can help her. Her hearing is fine, and we’ll be getting a speech eval. in a couple weeks so I’m relaly hopeful we can unlock her brain and help her function normally). She often inflicts pain on herself when frustrated or angry and has to be restrained on mine or my hubby’s lap to keep from hurting herself. This, with soothing words spoken, usually works to calm her down til she either forgets why she was upset or calms down enough to communicate her desire (she does pretty good with sign language). But it’s exhasting and we are usually at a loss knowing the right way to handle situations. I don’t like restraining her but don’t know what else to do. Spanking absolutely doesn’t work with her, never has. Taking away privileges doesn’t work because she doesn’t seem to understand that. Putting her in her bed when she throws a fit seems to work as long as she isn’t hurting herself, just screaming. I am constantly wondering if I’m doing anything right.
It’s all fine and dandy to say things like “we need grace in our parenting” but I need practical tips and advice. How do I get my toddlers to listen to me? How do I keep them from throwing fits? How can I punish an act of outright disobedience gracefully while still communicating to a 3-yr-old that they were wrong? I’m tired of floundering and tired of being so stressed out. It’s frustrating to hear people bashing spanking without offering REAL alternatives that actually work. I don’t expect perfection from a 2-yr-old but it would be nice to see some improvement in behavior. Yes, I want them to learn to make good decisions from their heart and am not into behavior modification. But I also could use a little obedience now again whether they understand “why” or not. When I ask older ladies these things all I get is “Spank ‘em into submission” or “just love ‘em”, neither of which is very helpful. Maybe I’m just too worn out and spread thin to be creative in this area (I have 3 kids 3 and under). But I sure could use some practical help here.
And I’m not the only one. I know so many young mothers in my shoes who are all wondering the same things.
ladies, could you please pray for my family? We are all battling sickness of one kind or another, and I feel like I’m going to lose my mind from it (plus plumbing issues–see my blog). I just want everyone healthy!
Darcy–also do a search for Danny Silk and Loving our Kids on Purpose. There is a website called The God Journey, I think, that has a couple pod-cast interviews with the Silks–the first is directed toward parents of younger children, and I’ve already found it helpful. Also, observe your children. What makes them tick? I’ve found it particularly helpful recently to stare down my daughter after making a request and tell her to look at me. Works so far to get her to stop being stubborn. She knows I’m serious and I’m going to follow through till it’s done, and she goes straight to it.
Not only the topic in general, but I have to point out the quote on that page from the Sacramento Bee on 3/26/95
Police say Michael William Wetton told the girl during her 75-minute ordeal on Feb. 24 that he wanted her to understand corporal punishment, which is used to discipline students at the school… After Wetton’s arrest, some parents directed anger at the police… “The Bible says to use the rod,” [school board member Rosemary] Rice said, adding that the arrest “is an assault on Christian beliefs.”…
January 18, 2010 at 6:19 pm
For the record, I do not recall any posting of anyone here who advised Michael’s wife to divorce him. Some expressed that they were not surprised that she had left him, based on his statements both on his website and this site, but no one advised that she should divorce him.
Michael’s wife had left him and started divorce proceedings long before we became aware of situation, anyway. I doubt very seriously, if she is in her right mind, that she would put much weight on what posters on the internet have to say, anyway.
I personally believe that if the two people involved in the marriage are truly willing to open their hearts and minds to God and the wise counsel of other Believers, and put aside pride and hurt, that God can work a very good work in their marriage. I’ve stated as much, as have others.
Would I advise a woman to physically separate from her husband? In certain situations, yes. Those situations would have to involve physical, emotional, or sexual abuse of either her or the children. A mother (as does a father if the situation is reversed) has a primary duty to protect her children. Another situation that would qualify is serial infidelity, where little remorse or repentance is demonstrated.
Supporting a person in protecting themselves and their children by separating from an abuser is not the same as advocating for divorce, however.
January 18, 2010 at 8:07 pm
“Would I advise a woman to physically separate from her husband? In certain situations, yes. Those situations would have to involve physical, emotional, or sexual abuse of either her or the children. A mother (as does a father if the situation is reversed) has a primary duty to protect her children. Another situation that would qualify is serial infidelity, where little remorse or repentance is demonstrated.
Supporting a person in protecting themselves and their children by separating from an abuser is not the same as advocating for divorce, however.”
Agree!
January 18, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Millenniumwoman.
I loved your comment on thread 8, #838.
Thanks
January 19, 2010 at 10:02 am
From Part Three of William Einwechter’s series (just added) on how the creation order applies to all of life:
In conclusion, we assert, on the basis of the Genesis account of creation of the man and woman and on the teaching of other Scriptures, that the creation order establishes a full complementarian view of the relationship between men and women. In summarizing our study and drawing out its implications for the debate over the roles of men and women today, we offer the following affirmations:
1. The creation order reflects the plan of God and establishes the lawful arrangement of all things in the creation. The creation order is universal in terms of time, place, and culture.
2. Male headship is part of the creation order, and thus it applies to all of man’s life and to all spheres of government—family, church, state, and society. Male headship is a creation ordinance, and it continues in the post-fall world being affirmed in the Old Testament and specifically affirmed in the New Testament as part of the order of Christ’s mediatorial kingdom.
3. Egalitarianism is false and stands in direct contradiction to the specific revelation of the creation order in Scripture and to the many individual texts that affirm, apply, and uphold the creation order in family, church, and state.
4. Semi-complementarianism (or “two-point complementarianism”) is correct in applying the creation order to family and church, but is wrong in denying the application of the creation order to civil government and society. Semi-complementarianism is really, to coin a phrase, semi-creation orderism because it denies that the creation order applies to all spheres of life. It also introduces conflict between the various spheres.
5. Full complementarianism is the biblical model for all mankind. It is only when men and women live in harmony with this model that they will experience fullness, wholeness, and success — physically, materially, psychologically, and spiritually.[5]
6. The successful integration of family, church, state, and society is based on the faithful application of the creation order to all of these spheres. When the creation order for men and women is ignored, confusion and conflicts between these spheres will be introduced.
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/men_and_women_and_the_creation.aspx
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/men_and_women_and_the_creation_1.aspx
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/men_and_women_and_the_creation_2.aspx
January 19, 2010 at 10:13 am
For only $49.00 you, too, can hear Geoffrey Botkin, LIVE every Saturday morning!
http://www.westernconservatory.com/smm
May I ask why there is always a price tag for these things?
January 19, 2010 at 10:39 am
Oh yay! I wonder whether my husband would like me to purchase them for him. After all, our 7th wedding anniversary is coming up next week… it would make a nifty anniversary gift, don’t you think? He’s coming up on 30. Maybe it’s time for him to to find out “What every man needs to know before he dies”.
Like you, I wonder, why the price tag?
At least the price may put some people off buying that stuff… (and will probably add a burden where it’s least necessary, but, what can you do?)
January 19, 2010 at 10:48 am
I wouldn’t listen to him if someone paid *me* $49 to do so!
January 19, 2010 at 10:50 am
BTW, I have been reading through the visionary Daughters thread #1 and am being reminded of so many things I had forgotten that started this whole conversation in the first place. It is a great overview of the issues and there are lots of quotes and links.
January 19, 2010 at 10:52 am
If the creation order is that important and clearly reveals who ought to rule over whom, then why is it that humans were created last?
And why did God give dominion over the animals to the male AND female together?
I think God meant that humankind has dominion over the animals, and are meant to work together.
The article would have annoyed me a year or so ago. Now I just find it amusing how they can fail to see, over and over and over again, that it’s not Christ like to seek to rule over others. They keep missing it.
January 19, 2010 at 10:53 am
Lol at comment #7, Savannah!
I *might* listen (although I’m the wrong gender!) if he paid me for doing so, and if he gave me (and all my friends over here) time on his show to refute him!
January 19, 2010 at 12:02 pm
(I didn’t realize we had started a new page, so I’m moving this comment I just made on Thread Nine over here.)
“But you ladies, and the church have told my wife to abandon her vows, file for a divorce, and to make sure that I am made a slave in the process.”
A woman may divorce her husband and still remain true to her vows, Michael — and (as Savannah just pointed out) no one here on this board has told your wife to do anything at all — we’ve been talking to you, not her.
And, this is what I personally would advise your wife to do — to separate from you for a time, and remain true to her vows until such time as the two of you reunite; and if you never do reunite, BOTH of you should remain single.
On the purely legal side of things, though, she SHOULD divorce you in a court of law, so as to insure that you will continue to do your duty as a Christian husband, and continue to support her and your children until such time as you do reunite.
Divorce, for a Christian, doesn’t mean that either party goes out looking for another spouse.
It does mean economic protection under the law for the wife and children, should the husband decide he’s not going to do his duty and support his wife and kids while the he and his wife sort things out.
Judging by your comments, where you compare supporting your family to “being made a slave”, your wife is very wise to seek such protection NOW by entering into a legal divorce, instead of merely “separating for a time” and waking up one morning to find that YOU have decided to stop supporting her, and have justified that in your mind by deciding that she has deserted you!
January 19, 2010 at 12:15 pm
“For only $49.00 you, too, can hear Geoffrey Botkin, LIVE every Saturday morning!
http://www.westernconservatory.com/smm
May I ask why there is always a price tag for these things?”
Because that’s how these folks make their money.
Beware any religious paradigm that comes with a price tag:
Tts 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.”
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
…For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
January 19, 2010 at 1:13 pm
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2004/08/820.aspx
This is from Doug Phillip’s blog where he talks about his brother, Samuel, going up against Virginia Military Inst. (“feminized institution”) and how Samuel memorized and recited this poem in response to their inquiries on his feelings about his views of women in the military academies.
“Deny my God! yes, I could do it well;
Yet if I did, what of my race, my name?
How they would spit on me, these dogs of hell!
Spurn me, and put on me the brand of shame.
A white man’s honour! what of that, I say?
Shall these black curs cry “Coward” in my face?
They who would perish for their gods of clay —
Shall I defile my country and my race? ”
““Best” triumphs over “Beast”, — and so I think
Humanity itself is glorified. . . .”
These are a couple of lines from this “pointed” poem. Doug tells his readers to “enjoy the poem”.
Maybe I am missing something but isn’t this poem rather racist in nature?
January 19, 2010 at 1:32 pm
“May I ask why there is always a price tag for these things?”
Because that’s how these folks make their money.”
The rest of this post is directed at the whole industry of patriocentricity and not at just one patriocentric retailer.
And that is why some will go to great measures to shut up those they view as the opposition (ie., lie about the opposition, ascribe evil motives to the opposition, legal measures, etc) lest their followers should come out of their betwitched state, their state of captivity (Col. 2), because of the vain philosophies and traditions of man peddled to them by these vendors, wake up and stop paying $49 for the things that led them into bondage in the first place.
Those at the top of the patriocentric heap live very comfortable lifestyles and they bind heavy burdens on the backs of their followers and refuse to lift a finger to help those they have burdened. Many of these patriocentric families have hardly anything and live around the poverty line but are told that they must buy these teachings in order to have a successful, godly and happy family.
I now have MUCH more money in my wallet that can go directly to the care and keeping of my family and helping those in need rather than filling their wallets for poisonous teachings we don’t need.
If they made them free, as they should be, because, after all, they call themselves a “ministry” (are they really? are they 501c3 or do they solicit donations under the guise of being a “ministry” but are doing this as a career? Make sure you ask these ministries if they are 501c3 before clicking the “donation” button or you may just be funding their legal expenses or comfortable lifestyles) but I don’t see much “ministering” going on.
That is why gaining new converts is so important and preying on those young in their faith is so advantageous. It is like the Arby’s commercial but replace the Arby’s hat with a dollar sign.
Another book. Another cd. Another dvd. Another speaking venue. They must continually come up with avenues and new products in order to keep their families living at the level that they are accustomed to living all the while being free from the constraints their teachings have placed on others. (Therein lies the gross hypocrisy we see among the leaders in the patriocentric movement- their teachings, many times, do not line up with their lifestyles.)
January 19, 2010 at 1:40 pm
It would be helpful to know the historical setting of the poem in order to answer that question.
The poem references spears several times, and so this could be referring to an incident in some colonial war in a place where they use spears- Africa? Pacific islands?
Whatever the history, the “other” in this poem, the enemy, is clearly being demonized by the soldier and it is equally clear that they use spears and are called “black curs” – though black in this instance could be a synonym for evil (a common usage at one time: ex- it was a black day when he darkened my door).
The use of the poem makes clear that the person quoting it believes accepting women in the military is the same as denying God.
So heartening to know VMI checks these things out and doesn’t give out scholarships to misogynists!
January 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm
I did a double take on #4 because until the other day, I had never heard of William Einwechter. While researching I came across his article “Stoning Disobedient Children?”
Here is a quote:
The case law in discussion does not apply to young children during the formative years, but applies, instead, to a grown son (and by extension to a daughter as well) who, for whatever reason, has rebelled against the authority of his parents and will not profit from any of their discipline nor obey their voice in any thing. It is a case of habitual contempt of parental authority characterized by a young adult living a life without moral restraint who lashes out verbally and/or physically against his mother and father. It is a case where the evil character of the son is apparently set, and there is no reasonable hope of him ever changing.
The kind of rebellion against parental authority described in this case law is called “evil” (v. 21). It is evil because it holds both God and His law (i.e., the command to honor parents) in derision. It is evil because it threatens the very existence of the family, and therefore, of society itself. It is evil because it signals the rejection of all God-ordained authority and leads to civil and ecclesiastical disorder. God considers it such a dangerous evil that it must be extinguished by death at the hands of the civil magistrate.4
Inescapable Death
Those who consider death as a horrible punishment here must realize that in such a case as described in Deut. 21:18-21 death is inescapable. Contempt of parental authority, if left unchecked, is the death of the family, law, and order. The question then is: Who or what should die? The rebel, or family and society?
Furthermore, the life of a rebel inevitably leads to the grave (sheol; cf. Prov. 30:17); he will die an early death, and probably take others with him.
Finally, God Himself declares that even if such a rebel against parental authority escapes the judgment of man, His curse is upon that man and he shall be cut off (Deut. 27:16; Prov. 30:17). Therefore, the execution of the rebel in view is just, merciful, and preventive. Just, in that the transgressor deserves to die; merciful, in that his quick death prevents the destruction of the family, society, and others; preventive, in that it strikes fear in the heart of other would be rebels and restrains them from taking a similar ruinous course.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/william-einwechter-stoning-disobedient-children-33845/
January 19, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Re: #13
Robert Service was a product of his generation in thought, word and deed.
This particular poem of his is a good example of those times.
Doug Phillips does make an excuse for the poem by saying “the theology isn’t perfect.”
Had Samuel Phillips realized this he may not have quoted it.
And how is it feminism gets the blame for Phillip’s rejection by the academy after he quoted this to them?
There are so many, many layers here to dissect.
January 19, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Thanks for the kind words, ladies. I’ve missed the conversation here, too. I have been everywhere on the internet lately, but for some reason I haven’t spent much time with blogs in a couple of months.
I think when I was commenting on the Pat Robertson stuff, I was not thinking totally clearly in order to say what I believed vs. what I thought he was saying, and didn’t make very clear at first that I didn’t agree with his statements. I think it’s easy to jump to conclusions based on what the news tells us, but after watching him say what he said, I saw it a little differently than what the news outlets were interpreting, even though, in the end, what was said here is very true, that he can’t know the mind of God and I really don’t believe that Haiti (or any victims of disaster) are being punished by God. It’s disappointing that so many vocal Christians are so quick to judge things in this way, all the while bringing shame on the rest of us who don’t actually think those things, but are still also called Christians.
I haven’t followed this Michael thing from the beginning, but I wanted to throw in my two cents about my own husband! In any marriage, there is give and take, and in a healthy one, there should always be more giving than taking on both ends (in general). There have been times that my husband and I have not gotten along very well, but often those are followed with times where we dig in and work on our relationship heavily. But most of the time, we really “delight” in one another. I hope this continues to be the case for us. We are celebrating 9 years of marriage this summer, and it is really hard to believe that this much time has gone by. I’ve been frustrated by a lot of friends’ marriages failing, especially college friends, and how flippant some can be about marriage. I’m really blessed to have a husband who treats me as his equal in Christ, not because he thinks he should, but because he loves me and respects me, and because we are equal. It saddens me to see a husband destroy his wife’s life/reputation/self-worth all because he still struggles to control her even though she has left him and he no longer has any power over her, when he never should have had that power to begin with.
January 19, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Shadowspring, I’d say that the source of the poem is unimportant — it speaks of “a WHITE MAN’S honor” and juxtaposes that with mention of “black curs”.
It’s racist, pure and simple, regardless of the source or the theology, and while the original author may be excused somewhat on the basis of the culture in which he lives, Doug and Samuel Phillips can claim no such excuse.
The fact that Samuel Phillips quoted this particular poem should be announced from the rooftops, as crystal clear evidence of the White Supremacist paradigm that the Phillips family in particular and Patriocentricity in general are guilty of promoting.
January 19, 2010 at 4:01 pm
It was Samuel’s stubborn insubordination, quoting poetry when asked if he could obey a woman officer or if he could put following orders above his religious prefernces unlike Judge Roy Moore, that cost him his scholarship.
Any answer other than “yes sir, or yes maam” makes a cadet unfit for service.
January 19, 2010 at 5:55 pm
“The creation order reflects the plan of God and establishes the lawful arrangement of all things in the creation. The creation order is universal in terms of time, place, and culture.”
So this means that fish & birds have authority over all the other animals, who then have authority over men and women since God created them in that order, and we all know that the creation order establishes the chain of command and “lawful arrangement of all things in the creation.”
January 19, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Or, if the hierarchy moves up in reverse order of creation, then women should rule men.
January 19, 2010 at 11:53 pm
“I’d say that the source of the poem is unimportant — it speaks of “a WHITE MAN’S honor” and juxtaposes that with mention of “black curs”.
It’s racist, pure and simple, regardless of the source or the theology, and while the original author may be excused somewhat on the basis of the culture in which he lives, Doug and Samuel Phillips can claim no such excuse.”
Cynthia,
I totally agree.
January 20, 2010 at 10:48 am
Ah, I missed the phrase “white man’s honor”. I was (like the good literary critic I have pretensions of being =) trying to place it historical context BUT (being the lazy literary critic that I actually am) didn’t read it all that carefully OR do any further research.
(hangs head in shame) I didn’t even look up a bio of the author.
Yes, if it is honor that belongs to white and cur that belongs with black, it is blatantly and unmistakeably racist.
And again, thanking God that VMI looked deep enough to see the truth about Samuel and give him the boot.
January 20, 2010 at 5:50 pm
“And again, thanking God that VMI looked deep enough to see the truth about Samuel and give him the boot.”
And now, the onus is on everybody to keep right on publicizing the racist nature of Patriocentricity in general and the Phillips clan in particular — from Howard Phillips, the family patriarch and founder of the Pro-Patrio Constitution Party, to Doug Phillips, the Party Director of Religious Affairs and Chief Koolaid Dispenser, right down to Samuel, who obviously learned this crock of racist hooey at his father’s and brother’s knee.
January 21, 2010 at 12:04 am
The poem incident clearly demonstrates the surreal bubble Vision Forum people live in. I have a real hard time getting my mind around how anyone who calls themselves “Christian” would think it normal or Christ-like or Godly to believe something like that as admirable.
In Canada, Samuel and Doug Phillips would have a whole lot more to deal with than a lost scholarship.
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/issues/racism
It would be enough to keep Phillips out of the country.
Thank you, Corrie for finding it.
January 21, 2010 at 9:37 am
Check out the review for this book, What’s With Paul and Women?
http://whole-heartedlife.blogspot.com/2010/01/coming-soon-cant-wait.html
I found the link on Wade Burleson’s blog.
The part that brought a leap of joy to my heart and sent me racing to post the link here is this part:
This piece on women is really outstanding, the best I have seen. This sentence particularly caught my eye for comment: “… Just as Adam fell into a deep sleep when his wife came forth from his side, so Christ descended into the sleep of death and when his side was pierced the bride was birthed.” Jesus had said, “Truly, truly, I say unto you, Unless a corn of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone: but if it dies, it brings forth much fruit.” I had not seen this aspect of the piercing of His side before you put it the way you did. Once again, you have been instrumental in giving me a treasure from the Lord!
–Jay Ferris, Bostic, NC; Author with Lisa Weger of Not Left Behind: Going Back for the Offended.
The bold is mine, of course. Just had to share!
January 21, 2010 at 9:42 am
Our Lord and Savior Jesus himself pierced on our behalf!
First of all, my heart is overcome with praise for the Lord who loves us so deeply, completely, without reservation, and knowing every reality of our hearts in his choice to love us! Thank you Jesus! Words will never be enough to show how grateful the redeemed truly are! We love you Lord!
Second of all, if there was any shame in ever being “pierced” Jesus shared in it on the cross. Hahahahaha! That whole ridiculous article about piercing being a shameful connotation is refuted at the cross!
I just love that the Holy Spirit inspired a believer to use that particular word in announcing the depth of our Savior’s love for us! His piercing brought forth the church. Beautiful.
January 21, 2010 at 11:59 am
That article, and book, look very interesting. I’ll have to spend a little more time checking it out!
I’ve been contemplating for a while reviewing the Old Testament treatment of women, and discussing what the text really says/means, in light of the culture, and how I’ve come to realize that the Old Testament law was actually kinder to women than the culture was. I’ve heard a lot of arguments about how there are some really horrible things in the OT, and while that’s true, the point that I think people often miss is that those horrible things are often a blatant violation of Levitical law. The best example of this is the tragedy in the last few chapters of Judges, where the whole country seems to have gone astray, but the worst crime is the return to the ways of Sodom and Gomorrah and what happens to the poor woman who was stuck in the middle.
Anyway, in light of the laws handed down by Moses, what happens in those chapters is one of the most horrendous things the people of God did that is put down in writing.
I’ve really come to learn that God has a lot more respect and love for women/children than any culture has had ever.
January 21, 2010 at 12:34 pm
reposted from Patriocentricity Thread Nine
“Aw. I see how it is. If the couple is a Christian, and the wife should decided that she wants to not live with her husband, she should divorce him under civil law so that she can extract money from him. However, she has no duty at all to ever returned to him as his wife.
And, by your view, both parties are forbidden to marry. Hmm. That is a strained reading of the scripture for me. After all, Paul states, if an unbeliever decide to leave the believer, the believer is not bound.”
No, Michael, you’re misunderstanding me and the Bible on several points.
First of all, it is true that the scriptures say that a Christian woman should not leave her husband. Certainly couples shouldn’t separate for any but the most serious reasons, but the Church has always recognized that sometimes this is necessary, such as when a wife or (especially) her children are being abused, or if a husband refuses to support his family.
Paul writes,
“1Cr 7:10 And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband: and let not the husband put away [his] wife.
The wife in such cases is under no direct command to return to her husband, but she is commanded to remain single, and the husband is forbidden to divorce her.
Second, it is not “by my view” that a separated couple is forbidden to remarry, it is by JESUS’S “view”.
To begin with, true divorce (as opposed to separation or civil divorce) is spiritually impossible for the Christian.
Jesus said,
Mark 10:8 “And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
AND
Mar 10:11 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Third, as Paul teaches, a person is under no obligation to remain single if his or her spouse is not a Christian and wants to end the marriage.
This is because they never had a Christian marriage in the first place — a nonChristian is dead in sin and cannot properly understand or enter into a Christian covenant or Sacrament.
In YOUR case, though, this does not apply. Your wife IS a believer, and in the case of two Christians, even if one or both are back-slidden, true divorce is impossible — even if they should leave one another, they are still married.
Fourth, because a Christian couple cannot truly divorce and is still MARRIED in the eyes of God even if they separate, the husband is still obliged to support his family if his wife leaves him. Even if she leaves him wrongfully, this is still the case — sin on HER part does not justify sin on HIS part.
Fifth, a man is always obligated to support his children, whether they live with him or not. This is true even in cases in which a wife who is not a believer has separated from her husband, taking the children with her. One’s children are one’s children, and NOTHING can ever change that fact, and a man who does not support his dependent children and relatives has denied the faith altogether:
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
And lastly, this thread has MOVED. It has grown far too long to load properly, and so is continuing here .
I will also post this comment on the new thread, and I invite you to join me there, should you wish to continue our discussion.
January 21, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Abby wrote:
I’ve really come to learn that God has a lot more respect and love for women/children than any culture has had ever.
I see that too, Abby. The Lord loves us. Jesus associated with women, healed women, answered their prayers, forgave their sins, rescued them and honored them in front of men, gave them a calling and sent them out to testify of him- all during his short time walking the earth as a man. We love you, Jesus!
I do not understand how any home school mom doing her due diligence as a teacher can fall for the patriarchal line. Even a cursory study of world history and world culture will show that male rule is a constant manifestation of sin running through human culture.
There is nothing unique about it. How people can swallow that it is “Biblical” or a return to some lost way (“the ancient paths”) can only be a result of no research at all.
In our own country/era, gangsters of all races and backgrounds, pimps, bikers and organized crime all practice man-rule. How is that righteous or some restoration of forgotten ways of righteousness?
Communist USSR was one of the worst places on earth to be a woman- slave to society at work all day and slave to her husband when she got home. I don’t know if Communist China is any better, but Confucian China was totally man-rule. They actually bound girl’s feet so that they would be too crippled to ever run away from abuse!
All of the tribal cultures are patriarchal, probably because at its very core, patriarchy exists because men can beat the c*** out of women/children anytime they want to do so.
How on earth can anyone praise patriarchy as being “Christian”? They must either have a personal agenda, been letting others do their thinking for them (something a friend confessed recently with no shame at all! *gasp*), or have their access to information closely controlled by patriarchal sources.
It doesn’t take a whole lot of work to see that there is nothing righteous or godly about patriarchy.
January 21, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Cynthia,
According to some (divorced as Christians and remarried as Christians) patriocentrists, you would be a “legalist” for your interpretation on the verses concerning divorce and remarriage.
Not saying you are a legalist just saying that is what has been discussed recently on other patrio blogs.
Funny, because they are discussing legalism and how wrong it is to call others “legalists” and then using those who hold to your interpretation on divorce/remarriage as “legalism”.
I wonder if they would consider themselves legalistic about their interpretation of infant baptism or the regulative principle of worship, too?
January 21, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Shadowpring: “All of the tribal cultures are patriarchal, probably because at its very core, patriarchy exists because men can beat the c*** out of women/children anytime they want to do so.”
Yep.
Their golden rules are not Bible based. They are worldly based. “Whoever has the gold (power) makes the rules.” And the other “Do unto others before they do unto you.”
That’s why the words of Jesus are so incredible.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It’s so much a part of our culture we lose sight of how profound they really are.
Those in power… The man who can beat the crap out of the women and children around him, thereby establishing and holding onto his power doesn’t need to know what empathy is. He just needs to know how to maintain control.
Jesus says that we are not to be like this.
Totally turning the wisdom of this world on its head.
Patriarchy is the wisdom of this world.
Men who promote it are promoting a worldly system. And some stamp the false stamp “Biblical” on it and use it to do what men have always done. Maintain control.
But in Christ, we are set free. It was for Freedom that Christ set us free. Why are we so easily entangled in the yoke of bondage again? (Gal 5:1)
Some even say, “Women, in your submitting, you will find freedom” which would be true if men would lay down their lives like Jesus instructed them. But many men want the women to submit while the men dismiss their own part. Then there is no freedom for the woman, only bondage as men use the submission doctrine against them to do what they’ve always done from the fall to this day.
Check out…
http://submissiontyranny.blogspot.com/
…for a balanced view of Paul’s words to men and women in Ephesians 5
Might does not make right.
January 21, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Sorry. It was Paul that instructed men to lay down their lives for their wives, not Jesus. But Paul’s instruction is and extention, supernatural progression, and application of what Jesus said to all.
January 21, 2010 at 4:13 pm
I was told in church, though I’m not entirely certain of this, that in ancient Israel, a woman was permitted to divorce her husband legally if he refused to work to support the family.
Imagine if more women today put this into power. I would think there would be a lot more husbands working hard to make a living. There’s a difference, of course, between losing a job due to the economy and actively looking for work, and say, sitting at home refusing to work while your wife works her tailbone off to support his “Laziness.”
This is just another example of permissible divorce (kind of what was mentioned above), but I find it interesting that this was actually an available option for women at that time.
January 21, 2010 at 5:33 pm
“Not saying you are a legalist just saying that is what has been discussed recently on other patrio blogs.”
LOL… actually, when it comes to adhereing to the things that Jesus very plainly stated, I suppose I AM a legalist — it’s not like that’s a BAD thing, after all.
January 21, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Abbey,
Have you read any of Carolyn Custis James’ books? I think you might really enjoy her “Lost Women of the Bible” and “The Gospel of Ruth.” She’s done a lot of research to bring out the real stories within the stories of women in the Bible.
January 22, 2010 at 11:36 am
I’d like to share a link on Haiti.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/faith_values/stories/2010/01/22/fv_nathan.ART_ART_01-22-10_B4_H1GCGLB.html?sid=101
This is my pastor, he’s really great about stuff like this.
January 22, 2010 at 12:06 pm
From my other blog this am:
mini history of the pro-life movement on the 37th anniversary of roe v wade
http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3711
January 22, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Abby,
Nice article by your pastor. I really appreciated that he pointed out the irony of Christ’s crucifiction.
My comment (#37) was for you – pardon my misspelling of your name.
January 22, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Okay, it took we all morning but I gave a thorough listen to Karen’s podcast from the Free Elsie link on facebook.
Ayiyiyi! For many years my brother-in-law kept name dropping about his good friend Phil Lancaster. This went completely over my head. My husband had no idea who the guy was either, but we got the hint we were supposed to be impressed for some reason.
If only we had known, we would have stopped supporting his ministry financially long before we did! It just makes me sick how much of our money has gone to promote “another gospel”.
I feel that way about every penny I ever gave to HSLDA, since every email I get from them now has a prominent advertisement for Vision Forum.
I was just so ignorant. Not that it is always a bad thing-LOL! I was able to take the straw from the sticks and carry on in blissful ignorance about where all the stick were coming from.
But now that I know, I am saddened. Maybe I could have done more to help my nieces if I had been aware of how much danger they were in. On the other hand, maybe not. They were Brethren their whole life.
But when they were young, the girls played soccer, went hiking, camping, kayaking, snow boarding, etc. right along with the guys. They wore jeans and went to public school. They listened to Christian rock and played in the school band. All that was weird about them was their church services.
They didn’t start home schooling until that name started popping up in their Dad’s conversations…
January 22, 2010 at 3:50 pm
“I was told in church, though I’m not entirely certain of this, that in ancient Israel, a woman was permitted to divorce her husband legally if he refused to work to support the family.”
Abby, I heard this too, although my pastor said it was permissible for failure to provide any of the following:
#1- physical/financial provision
#2 – emotional availability
or
#3 – sexual/conjugal rights
If these basic needs were not met she was free to divorce him and take the dowry and any personal earnings she had earned while married.
I was shocked when I heard this. I don’t remember if he sited Scripture or if it was ancient Hebrew tradition, but regardless, the esteem and respect given women in that culture was far greater than they receive in modern day, evangelical America!
January 22, 2010 at 5:19 pm
I hope you mean modern day patriarchal circles.
In many modern day evangelical (egalitarian, complementarian in the old definition) homes woman ARE given respect and esteem.
I will agree that respect seems to be eroding quickly due to the CBMW. But there are other ministries speaking out just as loudly about mutual submission and respect in marriage.
And of course every American woman has the right to divorce her husband in our country, for all of the above reasons or “irreconcilable differences”.
January 22, 2010 at 5:57 pm
More on divorce in Israel (B.C.)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_05269.html
Lots of stuff here, but I think it is worth reading!
January 23, 2010 at 10:01 am
“Divorce, for a Christian, doesn’t mean that either party goes out looking for another spouse.
It does mean economic protection under the law for the wife and children, should the husband decide he’s not going to do his duty and support his wife and kids while the he and his wife sort things out.”
This statement has no basis in scripture. Nor in the historic Christian tradition.
This is a prime example on how people add to the word of God. Not unlike with the pharisees did.
January 23, 2010 at 10:06 am
“I was told in church, though I’m not entirely certain of this, that in ancient Israel, a woman was permitted to divorce her husband legally if he refused to work to support the family.”
That a lie.
In ancient Israel, women did not even have the capability to divorce their husband. Remember, it was the husband who had to issue the certificate of divorce.
I’m amazed how little people have read the OT.
Sounds like that pastor is looking to give women excuses to divorce their husbands.
January 23, 2010 at 10:24 am
”
Abby, I heard this too, although my pastor said it was permissible for failure to provide any of the following:
#1- physical/financial provision
#2 – emotional availability
or
#3 – sexual/conjugal rights
If these basic needs were not met she was free to divorce him and take the dowry and any personal earnings she had earned while married. ”
Sound like yet another pastor supporting divorce.
So by this pastor’s definition, if a man come into hard times, and can not support his family to their liking, she can divorce him. Also, reason number 2 is flaky, since it is subjective. Christ only gave one fast rule where it was permissible, and that was in the case of adultery.
And Paul stated if an unbeliever want to part, then the believer is not bound.
Meaning, the word of God only gives two reason how a believer can divorce and not be considered in sin. The first being their spouse committed adultery, or the unbelieving spouse deserting the marriage.
I believe the authors of the Westminster Confession Go it right when they stated adultery or willful desertion that the church or the state can not remedy. These exceptions to the rule are purely objection and are easily determined. Whereas all other exceptions are not so easily to judge rightly 100%. People are emotional creature. A wife can nag a husband to death, thus creating an emotional reaction, when seen by itself may seem like abuse. Not that it is justified by the wife’s nagging, but the fact is that she had a part in his sin.
Anyhow, here what the PCA’s confession says that I agreed with prior to all this mess, and still do:
WCF 24.6 Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.
Ladies, note, the authors of the WCF state is because man is corrupt, that man is apt to study arguments for divorce, other than what is explicitly stated in scripture. Those pastor that state a wife can leave her husbands apart from the two exception spoke of in scripture indicate to me that they are not representing God on these matters, and that they show that they are not free to do the will of God, but are instead still in bondage to Satan. Why else would they contradict the direct teaching of Christ. These pastors that do this are wolves in sheep’s clothing, and they are indeed an antichrist.
January 23, 2010 at 10:55 am
“Supporting a person in protecting themselves and their children by separating from an abuser is not the same as advocating for divorce, however.”
I would agree to this to some a certain point.
If there is suspected abuse, then a separation is warranted. But continued separation is only warranted if the allegation of abuse is proven to be factual, and the abuse is to the extent as to place the woman or child in harms way.
However, if the allegation of abuse remains just an allegation, then the separation is in fact desertion.
Additionally, with todays climate, some women seeing that they can claim abuse can garner much support from others and the courts to the point where a mob client exist and the man is not judged fairly or in a objective matter.
People are naturally outraged, when they see a women being abused, or a child being abused. However, they are not equally outraged when the alleged abuse is claimed to be false. Even though the alleged abuser has been destroyed financially, relationally with his children, and emotionally. As it would seem, only those who have been accused falsely can really empathize with such a person.
Also, in the case that I have seen, the courts do not seem interested to find out if an abuse actually occurred. They would rather act on the assumption that it has occurred, without any find of fact that it indeed has or has not. This is like sending a man to the electric chair before he is given a trial to see if he is guilty. The courts might in due find even find the man wasn’t guilty of any wrong doing, however by the time event occurs, he has already been gutted.
-Michael A. McNeil
http://www.spepchurch.com
January 23, 2010 at 11:32 am
Kay–I haven’t had a chance to read any of her books. It’s hard for me to buy books, so I usually get them at the library if I can, but some books are not available locally, since they do not get a very wide audience.
I just read a great book that dealt with women’s issues, in a fictional way, but still, it was really good and makes you think! The book was Till We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis. It is based on mythology, but the principles learned in the book are for all times. Great story.
I’ll be honest, sometimes I think that patriarchalists have a point in all their madness, specifically, they want to see the culture shift back toward Christ, and they want to see happy homes, good marriages and well-behaved children, but they’ve put the cart before the horse, because they don’t understand that the grace of God comes first, not the rules and submission.
If we spent all of our time “trying” to be good Christians, we would be wasting it. I’ve found that the times that I feel like I’m the worst person are the times when I grow the most in Christ, because I have to depend on his grace to change me, not my own will.
And the works over grace thing isn’t new to Christianity, it’s not even exclusive to patriarchy. There are branches of the church that spend all their time teaching the ‘regulations’ that Christians have to be under, but miss the boat when it comes to salvation. I have some Orthodox friends, and since my husband comes from a culture where the Orthodox church is the prevalent church (about 10% of people in Egypt are “Christian”, 90% of Christians are Orthodox), I have been asking him a lot of questions about it, and been researching orthodoxy a lot. I’ve found in discussions with him and with his mom that it is similar to the majority of Catholicism, in that most devout orthodox stick to the fasts and customs, but really don’t know much about the grace of the cross. I see patriarchy the same way. They stick to the books that tell them how to raise their kids in a “godly” way and courting, and homeschooling, etc., but they have a superficial faith, because they don’t understand what it means to depend on God.
January 23, 2010 at 11:35 am
Well, in all honesty, I did mean modern day, evangelical America.
I know it is different everywhere, but in my experience, about 80% of the church in America (disclaimer: that I have encountered!) is under the influence of CBMW and their views towards women and their roles, specifically how they should be “second in command” and completely submissive in their marriages. Of the remaining amount I’ve encountered, about 17% would consider themselves comp but by the grace of God conduct themselves as egals (my present local body would fall here), while the remaining 3% silently believed and lived as intellectual and practical egalitarians.
I absolutely recognize that this is my personal experience talking here, but I do believe complementarianism with it’s patriarchal inferences has permeated and infested the majority of the American church… whater percentage you want to put on it.
January 23, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Michael, I know you are feeling defensive right now, but please do not attack what I said just because you don’t want to hear it. I don’t know anything about your situation or whether it had anything to do with the things I mentioned, nor do I particularly care at this point. The discussion here morphed into one about divorce in the church in general, and I was adding what I have learned. And in fact, if you would have spent a little more time reading and less time thinking up clever responses, you would have seen the link I posted in #44 that hashes out the very things I said as TRUTH. Whether something is “in the Bible” or not was not as important to the ancient Israelites and Jews as whether it had a place in the oral traditions. The Talmud and the Pentateuch have equal standing in the eyes of a Jew. Both are considered “law.”
And to clarify whether or not my “church” source had authority on the things he said, he is from an Orthodox Jewish background, having grow up going to Hebrew school and learning the Talmud and the Law. And has a college degree in Religion and a J.D. So I think he knows what he’s saying, and would never put something like this out there (in church) that he did not have evidentiary proof of. So thank you for your comments, but you are wrong.
January 23, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Alisa,
I think that it really does depend on where you live, too. I agree that in some states/areas of the country, there are much tougher views on women divorcing their husbands, but in others, both have equal footing.
It’s stranger to me now than it was then, but I grew up in a very egalitarian church! I never knew that it was such a big deal, but we had woman elders, many women “ran” the church, so to speak–teaching classes, singing, playing piano, leading choirs, etc., and we even had a woman pastor for a while. And in general most of the men were awesome, too, and very faithful husbands who also did a lot of service in the church. Looking back, it was really an ideal situation to grow up in, because women really had an equal footing there. Now, I know some people disagree with some of the things I mentioned, even people here, but it had a great influence on me, in that I never really thought that as a woman, I couldn’t do anything that men also do within the church. I always recognized genetic differences between men and women, and never once have I thought that my “feminism” would lead to a “matriarchal” view or that I would find homosexual lifestyles acceptable. To me, there was always a line. Equality, not sameness.
But I’ve come to learn, and it has never ceased to surprise me, that it is just not this way in most places. I have a friend who cannot conceive of the church being someplace that equal or non-misogynist. She grew up in the very churches you are speaking of, and is now an atheist, most likely because of her feminist pride. Funny how feminism can lead you to extremes, though, because I think I’m a stronger Christian because of the feminist leanings I grew up with, because I never saw the church as a place were men rule and women are subservient. I pray that one day all churches would be like that in spirit, yet still continue to hold to the truth of the gospel.
January 23, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Also, Michael, I find it insulting that you would attack a pastor you do not know based on what they said in one snippet from a sermon you have not heard, but only heard a paraphrase from.
I don’t know about Alisa, but my church has a growing Marriage ministry that seeks to prevent divorce and reconcile marriages. We have a program for couples who are on the verge that has saved dozens of marriages that were failing. My senior pastor (who spoke on divorce) has made it very clear in many sermons that divorce is not the only way, but that reconciliation is possible if BOTH parties are willing to get the assistance they need.
Frankly, your wording makes it seem to me like you are angry at your wife for taking the initiative to get a divorce, when you would have her continue to be under your authority. In a country like ours, women have equal footing in court, and the idea that the church should step in over and above the laws of the land and try to stop her from getting the legal protection she needs disturbs me greatly.
Women can and should have the right to divorce their husbands for certain reasons, even within the church. Perhaps your wife’s reasons are not biblical, I don’t know her side of the story. But even in that case, she has a legal right, if not a moral one, in America, to seek a divorce, unfortunately. If there was a chance that there could be reconciliation between you, then that can also be sought while you are living separately, and often this is for the good of the marriage. Spouses ARE permitted to forgo sexual relationships when there is a need to do so for the spiritual good of both partners.
I know another man whose wife left him a year ago, and who is still hurting and brokenhearted over her decision, but if I compare the reactions between you, they are like night and day. I am saddened by the fact that you are hurting, but I do not believe that your actions are going to help you get over this divorce. I hope you can find healing and peace one day.
January 23, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Michael, Scripture says that if a man and woman “divorce” they are STILL ONE FLESH — they are STILL MARRIED in the eyes of GOD — and Scripture says that any man who does not support his dependents is an infidel. Thus, even a man who is separated from his partner must still support his family, if they were both Christians going into the marriage, since in GOD’S eyes, they are STILL ONE FLESH.
But as it relates to your case, maybe you have a point – if a Christian and an unbeliever are married, and the unbeliever chooses to leave, the believing spouse is no longer bound to the marriage.
Your words are those of an infidel – you obviously don’t want to support your family – so perhaps your wife, being a Christian, had best write you off and move on.
January 23, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Michael,
If there is suspected abuse, then a separation is warranted. But continued separation is only warranted if the allegation of abuse is proven to be factual, and the abuse is to the extent as to place the woman or child in harms way.
It’s not always that easy to prove that abuse indeed has happened. Abusers can seem like the most loving and caring people to outsiders and many may never know what happens behind closed doors.
Abuse is abuse. Whether you consider it “bad enough” or not, it’s the abused who know how it feels.
You may decide that demanding sex from a woman who feels hurt and unloved is not abusive, but any woman who hears about that would cringe, knowing how physically painful and emotionally destroying that is. To you, that is not a big deal, after all, it’s her “duty”, and he is “making love” to her after all.
To you, yelling at a child or sending that child to sit out in the cold may not be abuse, but ask the child how that feels.
(these are examples of things that may not register on some people’s abuse radar)
However, if the allegation of abuse remains just an allegation, then the separation is in fact desertion.
It’s not desertion. It’s still a separation. Just because there are no facts to prove that abuse has happened, it doesn’t mean it didn’t take place.
Additionally, with todays climate, some women seeing that they can claim abuse can garner much support from others and the courts to the point where a mob client exist and the man is not judged fairly or in a objective matter.
I don’t know what climate you are talking about. Do you mean that women and children are actually listened to and believed?
People are naturally outraged, when they see a women being abused, or a child being abused. However, they are not equally outraged when the alleged abuse is claimed to be false. Even though the alleged abuser has been destroyed financially, relationally with his children, and emotionally. As it would seem, only those who have been accused falsely can really empathize with such a person.
Michael, people are outraged when alleged abuse turns out to be false. Not when there is no proof. No proof doesn’t indicate lack of abuse.
Also, in the case that I have seen, the courts do not seem interested to find out if an abuse actually occurred. They would rather act on the assumption that it has occurred, without any find of fact that it indeed has or has not.
As I stated before, most abuse happens with no witnesses, or with no witnesses willing to speak up about it and call it abuse. I’m glad that courts will go on the word of the abused. It probably has something to do with their knowledge that abusers are usually very good at twisting situations to make them look like they are innocent or even the victim. An abuser who cries out “find facts”! is actually confirming that he has abused the person who made the claim.
Michael,
It doesn’t look good at all when a man who has been accused of abuse keeps crying out for proof, how unjust the system is and how sinful everyone else is. If he would show some empathy towards those who claim to have been abused by him, if he would ask how he can make restitution, be a better father/husband, etc… I think things would look a little different. Demanding his rights and the upper hand in the home is not going to get him anywhere any time soon.
January 23, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Abby,
On #49 – I agree that the motives behind most patriarchists are not bad, but misguided by human ideas of carts before horses. Changes of heart simply cannot be legislated.
Will your library borrow books from other libraries for you? When I lived in or near small towns, their libraries have been willing to do that.
January 23, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Why would someone want to force their spouse to stay married to them?
January 23, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Here’s an interesting article from Christianity Today : The myth of the Perfect Parent.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/january/12.22.html?start=4
January 23, 2010 at 9:14 pm
From the article above:
If God’s success as a parent is to be judged by his children, what can we conclude? That God himself does not pass our parenting test?
January 23, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Shadowspring, re post #43
Would you mind defining “complementarian in the old definition” for those of us who have never heard “complementarian” mentioned outside of a patrio reference?
/de-lurk
January 24, 2010 at 12:56 am
Sure! I used to characterize myself as complementarian. I had never heard any of the teachings on the original Greek or Hebrew meaning of words like “help (meet)” or “head”. I just took it pretty much at face value as the crown-appointed scholars of the 1600s translated those words for us.
I had no problem agreeing with the shibboleth that if we came to an impasse, I would defer to my husband on a decision. It was easy for me to agree because I did not have an overbearing, demanding husband. In fact, he married a competent woman so that he wouldn’t have to make all these life decision on his own. So I could agree with that, no problem.
I believe I could also agree because I was taught that “to submit as unto the Lord” meant to submit as long as your husband was acting like Jesus. This was submission I could ascribe to. =)
The teaching of complementary roles was a good thing: men are generally logical, women are generally more tender-hearted. Both genders bring to the table something different that blesses the other and makes the relationship as a whole stronger.
And how often did I even hear this preached about? Once or twice a year, at most. No big deal.
Then along comes the CBMW, and how things have changed! Complementarian has gone from meaning male and female have complementary roles in their relationships to meaning that men rule over women. Very, very different definition than what I grew up with in the Lord!
And so I no longer call myself complementarian. Not at all!
In fact, I will go on to say that those endless teachings about husbands=leaders did nothing for me but breed dissatisfaction with my husband. I definitely am a go-getter, he is laid back. Teachings that focused on men leading made laid back look like a bad thing (it’s not).
So as I would pray about that, I would just go back to focusing on the truth that he is first and foremost my brother in Christ, and to accept him as Christ accepted me. My love for him would quickly return.
Once I told him how I listened to a woman teach that if I would just hold back, stop getting things done, and not pray or read the Word anymore then he would step up.
But when I asked the Lord about it, the Holy Spirit reminded me that we are to run the race of faith to win! I told my man I wasn’t holding back for anyone. And he laughed and said he wouldn’t have me any other way.
Recently we have learned a lot about the word “ezer” and the meaning of head as “source” and it has revolutionized our marriage in a very positive way! My husband was never attracted to lording it over anyone. He had an overt aversion to it actually.
But being taught that he is the source of spiritual life for his family has changed his perspective entirely. He is following after the Lord now with a passion I have never seen before.
God is good. Good Bible interpretation is wonderful thing.
Bad Bible interpretation is really harmful.
January 24, 2010 at 2:08 am
A shorter way of saying it: for many years I was taught that the men love/woman submit to that loving man was the way to live in a Christian marriage, with the understanding that if a man failed to love the woman was likewise released from any call to submit.
The responsibility was on the man to make the complementarian ideal work. If he wasn’t serving in love there was no obligation on the Christian wife to submit to ungodliness. Of ANY kind!
Current teaching is backwards- with the woman responsible to submit no matter what, unless the man is repeatedly physically violent!! It is even taught that submission to an unloving man will somehow magically bring him to repentance. All responsibility is on the one partner- the weaker vessel if you prefer- to carry the whole relationship.
That is the state of complementarianism today. I cannot and will not align with such teaching.
January 24, 2010 at 10:05 am
Kay–
“Changes of heart simply cannot be legislated.”
Wow. What a great statement. This is exactly what I meant, really.
I am usually careful about questioning the salvation of other people, but in patriarchy, I have to wonder sometimes, if there’s no grace, is there no salvation? If changes of behavior are all that is required, then there is absolutely no salvation.
I have really struggled with the idea that my children are not “grandchildren” of God, mostly because I want to be the best witness and I think I would be disappointed if they didn’t follow Christ, but I am slowly coming to realize that I cannot control their hearts. I can (but I don’t) manipulate their behaviors, but this does nothing to turn their hearts toward me, or toward Jesus. Does that make sense?
I think it is why I have also been so disturbed by many patriarch’s wives writing blogs about how they are raising their children. While their children may turn out to be fine copies of themselves, does that make them Christians? Every decision to be a part of the body of Christ, his family, is personal.
Realistically, I can only hope and pray for the best with my children, and I can raise them with grace and love, accepting them even with all of their faults (whatever those might end up being), but my faith is not their faith.
January 24, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Here’s a very disturbing post from the parenting forum on Gabriel and Rebekah Anast’s forum 7xsunday.net
Take out DOT and substitute with a period.
http://wwwDOT7xsunday.net/forum/index.php/topic,25610.0.html
Even Gabriel Anast recommends that some posts be taken down after the original poster gets an answer. He must know that the “discipline” this woman describes is no longer discipline but abuse. I’m sickened.
This is how a a reluctant 3 year-old’s haircut goes…
My (then) 3 year old son has always hated haircuts. From haircut number 1 he has cried through them, screamed a bit, and has made them very hard to do. Infact, the last haircut I gave him, a couple of months ago, I had to literally sit on him to get it done. We have tried disciplining him, but it seems like he’d rather be over my knee, than getting his hair cut. When questioned why he hates getting it done, he says it hurts. Ok, so that’s fine…if it hurts, we’ll make sure we do it gently, but he has to learn to “be brave, like a good soldier”.
So, a couple of days ago, my husband (the best Daddy in the whole world!) sat him down, explained that he was going to cut his hair, and if he didn’t cry then Daddy was going to take everyone out for icecream. So son sat down, and Daddy got out the scissors.
Well!
You’d think World War III had hit our lounge. Son, before the scissors even touched a hair on his head, was writhing on the ground screaming at Daddy “GET AWAY FROM ME”, he suddenly turned into a child that Daddy couldn’t even forcibly hold to calm down, he was…almost like a mad man. It really frightened me. But what scared us the most was the anger we saw coming from him. He was uncontrollable, and just yelling AT my husband.
He was spanked, without anger, until he calmed down. He was then sat down…and we went through it all again. He was spanked again, and sat down to try again. This time he sat through the whole haircut (and Daddy took a loooong time doing it, haha) absolutely perfect. Not a wimper, not a murmer…just very happy with no worries.
(We all then went out for icecream, while son watched on. Broke my tender, foolish heart, but an important step in the lesson for him). We have now decided that son is going to get a haircut every day until he can sit there happily, without the rebellion.
January 24, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Just to clarify, in case some don’t know, Rebekah Anast is Michael and Debi Pearl’s eldest daughter.
January 24, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Another shocking post on 7xsunday.net
http://wwwDOT7xsunday.net/forum/index.php/topic,25482.0.html
Here, Gabriel Anast clearly says that:
-a wife is property of the husband
- if she defrauds him (sexually), he can put her away
- If she is not able to give him sex, he must still care for her, but he may take another woman
- If a man is impotent, his wife can go off and find another man.
In another thread, about marriage and divorce, Gabriel makes a statement that seems to mean he is ok with polygamy too.
How are these people reading their Bibles??? I’m stunned.
January 24, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Oh that article about the haircut makes me sick.
Sick and very, very angry.
Where do these people live? Did you take a snapshot of the screen? (I don’t know how myself.)
You should send a copy of that link to the state child abuse agency where they live. That is a crime! They openly posted about a crime.
Yeah, I’ll bet that little child IS very angry at all the control and domination of his little heart that fills that ungodly home.
Seriously, how can we report them and who would be the proper authorities to be notified?
January 24, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Thank you, shadowspring.
January 25, 2010 at 4:20 am
Shadowspring,
I don’t know how to take screenshots.
There’s a discussion about this thread over on Freejinger. Lots of people are shocked and disgusted.
I don’t live in the US, can you even report someone if you don’t even live in the country?
It doesn’t surprise me that that board gives advice that goes against the law. It’s the second generation of Pearl, which seems to be getting worse. Check out Gabriel Anasts beliefs on marriage for a mind-blowing experience.
I’ve considered joining the site to give that mother (and others) some humane advice, but I’m afraid it would only lead to the site becoming private.
January 25, 2010 at 7:50 am
Hillary and madame, thanks for posting the links to those philosophies on raising children. Stoning children to death? Why do these people act as though those OT laws that were given to Israel are to be reinstated today? Scary to think these people want to run the government. And think about the fact that Doug Phillips stated that bringing an end to DCFS should be one of the goals of homeschoolers! Really scary!
That whole story about the haircut was so wrong on a number of levels. Of course this was abusive behavior. But the first question I had to ask was why they would make such an issue of this. And since when are haircuts painful? No wonder the child screamed. I kept thinking about how little these parents understand children and, even worse, how they don’t seem to think that empathizing with children is important. It looks like the Pearls have incited another generation of parents who aren’t able to practice one anothering in their homes.
January 25, 2010 at 7:54 am
Well,my husband has been proven right.
He has long said that this movement, to be true to their ideals, would end up practicing or promoting polygamy. I guess I just expected this sort of thinking to be a little further removed from the “main stream” of patriocentricity. Imagine how cherished any wife would feel if she was unable to have a sexual relationship with her husband so he picks up another wife for that need. And how appealing would it be to be that woman who is there only to meet the sexual needs of the man? Maybe this will have some appeal to Mr. McNeil.
January 25, 2010 at 7:57 am
“Yeah, I’ll bet that little child IS very angry at all the control and domination of his little heart that fills that ungodly home.”
And then parents wonder why a few years down the road their children choose a different path in life and often leave home under bitter circumstances. It is like men who are abusive for years and then when their wives leave them they are stunned and surprised and place all the blame on her.
January 25, 2010 at 9:35 am
Karen,
I just got thinking about how the Pearls don’t care much about the law at all. They won’t submit to the authorities of the country they live in, and they are all for going back to the ways of ancient patriarchal times, like that were the ideal Christian society.
This came to mind as I was reading Gabriel Anast’s advice to a woman who was sharing a difficult situation she is in and asking for advice. She is married to one man but living with another one. Her husband has another woman too, I believe.
Gabriel considers them each married to the person they are with now. She has “gone whoring”, and he is not committing adultery unless he is sleeping with another man’s wife.
Gabriel’s advice is that she just be a good wife to the man she is living with now. If she has slept with him, her husband (whom he already considers her ex-husband) couldn’t take her back anyway, as she is “defiled”.
You can see how the laws of the US are disregarded.
I don’t think they even believe in marrying legally at all.
I think they read the Bible much like Molly (from AinM) has said, like a manual for some electronic device. They don’t see the whole, they only see certain passages addressing certain situations. Like they only see the famous Proverbs verses when they approach child discipline, completely ignoring the one-anothering (I like that term!), loving others as we love ourselves, doing unto others…. etc.
Their teaching is dangerous.
January 25, 2010 at 9:54 am
I kept thinking about how little these parents understand children and, even worse, how they don’t seem to think that empathizing with children is important.
I don’t think they believe in empathy at all. I’ts all about keeping the law. A child’s or anyone else’s feelings are disregarded in the process.
A good example is the advice for a man to go to the elders and even put away a wife who doesn’t give him sex (for reasons other than physical disability or inability to do so). He never said to talk with the wife, see what it causing her lack of desire. No. She’s not fulfilling her marital DUTY. That alone is the issue.
It makes me so sad to see the beauty of building a relationship based on love, trust, understanding, empathy, turned into a relationship built on duty, law and rules.
Parenting is all about parents controlling their children. Break the will, demand first time obedience, spank, spank, spank (’cause the Bible says to). They are destroying the iron- sharpens-iron relationship of parenting! My children teach me so much when I let them!
I don’t agree with Driscoll very often, but this I do agree with: Problems in the bedroom are usually solved outside of the bedroom.
January 25, 2010 at 10:13 am
“Changes of heart simply cannot be legislated.”
Kay, this is so very true. And this is one of the down sides to the whole notion of taking problems through a church court procedure. So often in family situations or marriage situations where two Christians are struggling, the counseling is only band-aid and church courts end up getting in the middle of things they really aren’t qualified to deal with or don’t understand at all.
Think about it. The Biblical qualifications for church leadership are ignored so much of the time and men are placed in places of authority because they have some sort of “position” in the secular world. Then they are placed in the position to “excommunicate” those who won’t obey them. After decades of church discipline being so passe, in the last few years the pendulum has swung so far the other direction that now churches even excommunicate daughters who desire to leave home and live independently even when they are in their twenties! I can only imagine what other spiritual abuse we will see in the future.
January 25, 2010 at 10:21 am
“My children teach me so much when I let them! ”
Amen!
I have been working on a series of podcasts on women mentoring women and one of the things that I keep realizing is how this isn’t a top down situation as so many of the patriocentrists seem to think it is. We are supposed to one another each other, even when it comes to mentoring each other, including our children. I just can’t stand it when I see an “older woman” talk down to a younger one as though her age gives her the right to be arrogant! We all learn from each other if we have teachable spirits and a spirit of graciousness. This includes how we relate to our children, too! (really everyone)
January 25, 2010 at 10:35 am
Another very disturbing thread from that forum. It begins as a theoretical discussion of wife discipline, and then a woman comments that she was spanked by her “command” husband (Pearl term) for
getting upset. She is advised to be more sweet and submissive to him. No one advises her to get counseling, no one asks if there has been a history of abuse, no one takes any of the steps that are necessary in assessing an abusive situation. So tragic.
http://wwwDOT7xsunday.net/forum/index.php/topic,16728.0.html
January 25, 2010 at 10:38 am
That thing about the little boy made me so sad. I just can’t imagine what it is like for those children, and I know why there is so much “anger” in their little hearts! It’s all about modeling at that age.
I know in my house I get frustrated and I tend to yell, and then I see my daughter acting exactly the same way, and you know what, I’m ashamed. Ashamed of myself for letting anger get the best of me and showing her that this is somehow an acceptable behavior. The only way to change it in her is to change it in me. There can’t be a double-standard.
When our kids have tantrums like that, we do not beat them into submission, we take them somewhere where they are safe and we don’t have to listen to them throw the tantrum (their bedroom, usually), and let them finish in private. We do not sit on them to get them to obey, because that only tells them that the bigger/stronger person gets their way, while the little guy must submit. What a marriage this couple must have, too!
January 25, 2010 at 10:40 am
Madame, it won’t help for you to join the 7xsunday forums. I am a member there (shame) and I haven’t been there or posted in a long time. You can’t sign up just to tell people the right way to do things, they see you as a troublemaker and threaten to ban you.
Anyhow I had a gutful of that site, I read it once in a while and post something scathing if I can figure out how to do it in a way that I’ll get away with it. But those people are nuts. In our patriarchial stint, I thought they might be right and that’s why I signed up, but so glad I saw the light.
Oh, and you are not allowed to be against “Created to Be His Help Meet” on there, they just call you ungrateful etc and delete the posts exposing the book.
January 25, 2010 at 10:47 am
How about this quote I found?
“”Sex is not just a pleasurable act of procreation. It is an act of kindness, care, and generosity. For a woman, it is like an act of worship; for a man, it is an act of joy in the blessings and gifts of his wife.”
(Quote source: “Safeguarding Your Children” Article by Rebekah and Gabriel Anast, September 2003)”
Reading more quotes from Michael and Debi Pearl on sex it seems that they also believe that a woman is to worship her husband through sex.
“Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pearl,
When I picked up your book, Holy Sex, I was afraid to read it. I thought you would tell me that what I was feeling was wrong–but you didn’t, and instead you have given me a wonderful gift . . . Enjoying my husband has always been fine with me, but I have experienced a deeper longing and a “hunger” for him. I thought this was wrong. Times when I kissed and touched him from head to toe, for me were feelings of adoration and sometimes worship of him, and I felt it was wrong. I loved him so much, I desired to pour all of my being into him, but I struggled with whether it was right to do so.
(Quote source: Created to be His Helpmeet by Debi Pearl pg 171)”
Debi responds with, basically, “this is how it should be”.
I thought that we were to worship no one but God? But, now they have turned the act of sex into a woman worshiping a man and a man receiving the gifts of a woman’s worship?
What happened to giving one’s self to the other in mutuality? What happened to 1 Cor. 7 where it doesn’t say anything about this stuff at all but makes it clear that the woman has just as much authority/right in the bedroom as the man? How can it be one-sided worship of men if this verse is true?
January 25, 2010 at 12:06 pm
“Here, Gabriel Anast clearly says that:
-a wife is property of the husband
- if she defrauds him (sexually), he can put her away
- If she is not able to give him sex, he must still care for her, but he may take another woman
- If a man is impotent, his wife can go off and find another man.”
Sheesh….what part of Matthew 19:9 (“Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery”) does this guy not understand??????????
Whenever a person or church advocates a return to Old Testament/Mosaic
Law ways of doing things, sooner or later they are going to find that they will have to choose between the “ancient paths” and OT ways of behaving, and the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Looks like Gabriel Anast has made his choice – but it’s too bad about the folks who may be following him into apostasy.
January 25, 2010 at 12:10 pm
BTW, I didn’t think to ask, is Gabriel Anast Christian in the first place?
His teachings sound like a version of nonTalmudic Judaism.
January 25, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Are you ladies also posting these on the “quotes” link?
January 25, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Shadowspring,
Good point. I’ll copy and paste some of the most outrageous I’ve found so far.
January 25, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Back to the haircut.
My 4 year old used to hate having his hair cut. My solution with the boys has been to use clippers and give them crew cuts. They don’t mind having it done, and they always get rewarded for sitting still and letting me get on with it. Still, the first few haircuts involved some persuading from my side, including holding the clippers, feeling how they vibrate when switched on, and assuring that I wouldn’t cut anything but hair.
It’s a different story with my 2.5 year old daughter. She needs a haircut because her 4 year old brother cut one pigtail off last week (yes… he climbed up to the top of a bookcase to retrieve the blunt scissors he used!) so one side is longer than the other.
I bought some sharp scissors and have attempted to cut her hair a couple of times with no success. She says NO, that will hurt! It makes perfect sense as I’ve been telling her that scissors are dangerous for a long time now.
Any tips on how to get her to let me cut her hair?
I’ve snipped a little bit off my own hair to show her it doesn’t hurt, but she still shakes her head wildly and says no.
January 25, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Now, this is interesting. From “for men, not boys” by Michael Pearl
God did not command the man to rule over his wife.
You said, “I have told her that she needs to obey me.” Let me say it again, God did not command the man to rule over his wife. There are several passages that address the woman, telling her to be in subjection to her husband; for that reason men get the impression that God has granted them some divine right to rule their wives. Not so. The Bible never gives the man license to command his wife. That is a Muslim practice, not Christian. God does command the wife to submit to and follow her husband, but it does not command the man to demand submission. God did not create one sex to rule, and the other to be ruled. A wife’s submission is a gift to be given. It is a praise and honor to her man. No man deserves the submission of another human being. No man has a right to subjugate another—especially not a woman whom he loves. The role of a woman’s submission to her husband is a spiritual duty before God, not a social class system to be politically enforced. When Sarah called Abraham lord (1Peter 3:6), God commended her for it because it was a voluntary act of humility and faith and an expression of her submission to God.
No authority over her
You said, “She does not acknowledge that I have any authority over her. I have told her that she needs to obey me and leave it up to God to deal with me if I am wrong.” Authority is the power to constrain. God did not give you that authority, nor even the authority to rebuke. I have been married for 37 years and I have never so much as hinted to my wife that she should be in subjection to me. I have acted as one in charge, and in most cases she has honored that. But in our early marriage, when she was sometimes cantankerous, I left her alone and moved forward as if I were in charge and she were voluntarily following. In time, she always caught up and was right by my side with her support. I knew well what her God-ordained duty was, but I also knew that God had asked more of her than I deserved. I felt that it was my duty to earn her respect and trust, not to come between her and her God, lashing her with my words when she did not obey God’s command. A man is never so arrogant and small as when he acts the dictator and presumes upon his wife’s spiritual duty to be his helpmeet. She is a voluntary helper, not a ward of his state.
The sentence in italics seems to contradict the rest. If you act like “the one in charge” and keep going, even if your wife is not following, you are basically forcing her to follow you.
It spoils the rest of it, which I think is very good.
It’s taken from: http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/marriage-family/fathersmen/article-display/archive/2007/august/15/men-only-not-boys/
January 25, 2010 at 4:04 pm
I like what Michael Pearl wrote in that article because he puts his finger on what is so wrong about Patriarchal/CBMW-complementarian teaching: They pair up submission with leadership and ruling, when God never called the man to rule or lead the wife. He called him to love her.
Michael Pearl seems to believe he is to lead, or “be in charge”. It would be interesting to know where he finds support for this belief.
And I wonder, if he believes what he wrote in that article, how he recommends his wife’s book!
January 25, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Question: I read Gabriel Anast’s post as “take another” = remarriage after divorcing first spouse. Is he actually advocating polygamy?
January 25, 2010 at 5:16 pm
A man is never so arrogant and small as when he acts the dictator
and then
I have acted as one in charge
These statements do seem to contradict each other.
January 25, 2010 at 5:17 pm
OOps! un-italicize the last sentence for me, moderator? =)
January 25, 2010 at 6:42 pm
About the 2.5 yr old. I would see if I could trim the other side while she is napping sometime. When my kids were toddlers, I could only trim a little while before they got too squirmy. So I would finish the sides while they were sleeping.
January 25, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Mary, it looks to me like he IS advocating polygamy FOR MEN.
Anast says, “If she is not able to give him sex, he must still care for her, but he may take another woman”,
…but on the other hand, he tells women to “go off and find another man” if their husbands become impotent, even though Jesus says that that is adultery.
So in essence, he tells the men to revert to OT morality, and he tells the women to go to H***.
January 26, 2010 at 7:49 am
Dear Cynthia,
He’s not a nuanced writer, and that’s what’s confusing me. Here’s how I’m reading it:
It’s okay for a man or woman to get divorced and remarried for sexual needs. HOWEVER, in the case of a man leaving for another woman, he needs to continue to take care of his ex-wife.
Is this a reasonable interpretation, or am I completely misreading him?
January 26, 2010 at 10:31 am
I just posted a quote from VF Ministries website on the “best of” thread. Here’s a sample:
“Furthermore, the biblical text does not say, as it did concerning the man, that God breathed into her nostrils the breath of life. The import of this difference is not explained in the text, but it may show that she also derived the immaterial aspect of her life from the man. If this be the case, then it means that she received both her body and soul from man by divine design and through God’s creative power (i.e., the principle of life being first implanted in man by God and now extended to the woman through the man by God’s power).[1] The woman’s origin is, literally, from the man.”
I am in the process of reading through the OT looking specifically at what God says about women and marriage and families. Is it just my pride that causes me to be offended at the idea that my soul is derived from man’s rather than given directly from God? This “indirect creation” idea just bothers me a lot.
January 26, 2010 at 10:32 am
Rebekah Pearl Anast also has a website called Dreaming Awake. Maybe this has been discussed on truewomanhood before, but I don’t ever recall seeing anyone mention it here.
http://www.dreaming-awake.com
Rebekah writes down her dreams, followed by the interpretation she and Gabe come up with.(Rather, it seems like she usually punts to Gabe and he gives her the interpretation)
It is unusual to say the least. The dreams under the category “War and Apocalyptic” make me scratch my head and go huh???? She writes under the pen name Ruby Archuletta. If you go to the archives, she states in Oct. 2006 that she is Rebekah Anast.
Here is an excerpt:
“Who’s Ruby, and are these really dreams?
Ruby Archuletta is the name of a character in a book called The Milagro Beanfield War by John Nichols, and was also filmed as a movie right here in New Mexico, where I live. The story is Hispanic (although I am not) and is quite hilarious in culture and human interaction. The person Ruby was a hard-working, passionate local who ran a mechanic shop, and tried to talk her people out of apathy. “Ruby” is a penname I chose because the character and the movie is of interest to me, the initials are the same as my own, and I live in NM, where the story took place. And, when I was a child, my play-pretend name was Ruby.
My real name is Rebekah Anast. I am an author and freelance writer for homeschool magazines. Some readers have tracked me here, wondered about the penname, and if these fantastic stories are really dreams, or just another outflow of my imagination and writing skills.”
January 26, 2010 at 10:39 am
Also wanted to share something I found interesting in my reading. In Exodus 2, the story of Moses’ deliverance is entirely credited to Moses’ mother and sister. I think it’s safe to assume that it was done with his father’s knowledge and approval, but there is no mention of him in its implementation.
“When SHE saw that he was a fine child, SHE hid him … SHE got a papyrus basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then SHE placed the child in it and put it amontg the reeds along the bank of the Nile. … His SISTER stood at a distance to see what would happen … His SISTER asked Pharaoh’s daughter, ‘Shall I go and get one of the Hebrew women to nurse the baby for you?’ … And the GIRL went and got the baby’s mother. … So the WOMAN took the baby and nursed him.” (Exodus 2:2-4, 7-9)
–my emphasis–
God credits them in Scripture for their deeds, just as he acknowledges the worth and work of the Hebrew midwives, who are named in Exodus 1, although the Pharaoh is not.
January 26, 2010 at 11:33 am
madame said:
Any tips on how to get her to let me cut her hair?
I’ve snipped a little bit off my own hair to show her it doesn’t hurt, but she still shakes her head wildly and says no.
I had a similar problem with my 3yo girl. She needed a haircut badly to fix her own attempt at a “hairtut”, but she would not let me get anywhere near her with scissors. So I took her with me to my hair appointment at the salon, she watched the hairdresser do my hair, and then I asked her if she wanted hers done too and she was more willing to let the hairdresser fix her hair! I guess it was less scary and more exciting and “grown up” for her.
January 26, 2010 at 12:42 pm
“Some readers have tracked me here, wondered about the penname, and if these fantastic stories are really dreams, or just another outflow of my imagination and writing skills.”
Prideful much?
I haven’t been to this website, but after reading this self-praise, I have no desire to. And she doesn’t actually answer the questions very straightforward, either. Weird.
January 26, 2010 at 2:04 pm
emr,
Why is it safe to assume that Moses mother had his father’s approval? The whole world does not live a Vision Forum life. Could be that Dad is not mentioned precisely because he had nothing to do with it.
All we know for sure is that Moses mother and sister did act according to the leading of God in hiding Moses and later sending him down the Nile in a basket.
In my experience, it is just as likely that the father didn’t even know they were hiding Moses. Maybe he just assumed that he was quietly smothered to save him a worst fate. The Bible doesn’t claim he had a hand in saving his son.
I say that because in many primitive cultures, men do commit infanticide or demand that the child be abandoned. His Dad had to know that keeping the child would bring the government down on his head.
Maybe he knew, but I see no reason to presume that he did.
January 26, 2010 at 2:24 pm
emr,
“For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.” 1 Cor.11:12
Ultimately, everyone’s life comes from God. However, that doesn’t mean that VF will not try to make it appear that the Bible is saying otherwise.
Keep in mind that every man since Adam has been “born of woman.”
January 26, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Moderator,
I see that there is another Kay here – should I do something to distinguish?
January 26, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Kay, I think you are fine. The other is “kay” with small letters!
January 26, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Abby – Rebekah does go on to answer questions and further explain the dreams. It’s a long post and for brevity, I just posted the first part, where she tells her real name. Here’s a little more of how she explains the website. If anyone wants to read the whole thing they can look in her archives.
She states:
“I do write stories, screenplays, songs and poems, but this blog is reserved only and specifically for dreams that I have while totally, and completely asleep. If an entry is not a dream, it will located in the section titled “Musings” as this entry will be.”
January 26, 2010 at 3:19 pm
emr,
I think you are right – The whole world does not live a Vision Forum life. There really is no reason to automatically presume. Abigail certainly did not have Nabal’s permission to approach David and intervene for her loved ones.
January 26, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Shadowspring, I understand what you’re saying and that had occurred to me. I just think that, based on my experience, it would be very hard to hide a baby — while nursing him — for that long a time! Especially from someone in the same house, with whom you are presumably sleeping. And the writer of Hebrews praises the faith of “Moses’ parents” for hiding him.
January 26, 2010 at 6:58 pm
A father would have to be pretty uninvolved not to notice that someone was hiding a baby in the house. I will give you that.
January 26, 2010 at 8:01 pm
As someone who has had a hard time with dreams in the past, I am a little concerned that someone is having this many vivid dreams that she is able to recall in great detail, and I would be more concerned that she isn’t getting very good sleep!
I was in a grumpy mood this morning, so I apologize if anyone thought I came across rudely when I wrote that earlier comment. I know I regretted the attitude later. I had a very restless night with a lot of dreams!
January 26, 2010 at 8:07 pm
On the Exodus story: I find it interesting that the story at the beginning is about mostly women (and a girl) defying the authority of the land, with what seem to be no major ramifications. They were probably the first feminists!
The Hebrew Midwives: Not only did they defy pharaoh, they insulted the Egyptian women to him!
Moses’ Mother and Miriam: Hid a baby from being killed, then basically tricked the pharaoh’s own daughter into letting them take him back home to be safe.
Pharaoh’s daughter: Knew the baby was sentenced to death but took him as her son anyway with knowledge of the king (he had to have known at some point!)
And later in the story of Exodus, Miriam is called a prophetess and put on a level with her brothers as a leader of Israel.
Until Moses grows up, the women in his life were basically the most powerful force behind him.
Whether with the knowledge of men or not, these women (who undoubtedly “knew their place”) were not afraid of anything that might happen to them in order to do the right thing. I think that’s a pretty cool story.
January 27, 2010 at 1:14 pm
There is much to speculate about Moses’ father, Amram. It could be that he was working away from home for a time (9 to 5 jobs hadn’t been invented yet), he may have died before the birth, or he may have divorced Jochebed – just a few possibilities. Also, it’s not mentioned directly that Moses had any personal relationhip with Amram. What we do know is that Jochebed and Miriam did all they could to save Moses’ life.
January 27, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Hey, all…. just my 2 cents worth, but I think that while Gabriel Anast’s teachings are purely heretical and ought to be exposed as such, we should leave Rebekah Anast alone, and quit criticizing her blog. There’s a lot more going on there than meets the eye.
January 27, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Abby, good points. And those few early years, however many they were, grounded Moses securely in his heritage and his faith. Although he was taken from his home and raised in the most pagan society of the time, groomed for power and success, given a (gasp!) pagan education — yet he still identified with the Hebrew slaves and was unwilling to see them mistreated. Those years with his mother shaped his character and helped to prepare him for what God had planned. Powerful stuff.
January 27, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Another story that comes to mind is that of Zipporah circumcising her and Moses’ son because the Lord sought to and was about to kill him when he was on his way back to Egypt to lead God’s people out of slavery. She saved his life and didn’t go through some tortured and weird “appeal” process in order to do so.
I am studying Numbers in depth. I came to Numbers 6 concerning the Vow of Separation or the Nazarite Vow. It was interesting because it states that “when either man or WOMAN shall separate themselves to VOW a vow of a Nazarite….” Wow! Women can decide to take this vow? God must not have checked with the patriarchalists before He decided to write that.
And then I thought of Numbers 30 and had an “aha!” moment. Numbers 30 is used as patriocentrists to claim that an adult woman is forever and always under the authority of her father and that an adult woman is never to live under any other roof but that of her father or husband.
But, Numbers 30 does NOT say that at all. It is talking about vows. And it specifically is dealing with religious vows and the proper worship in the temple. And, then Numbers 6 tells us that a woman was free to make take the vow of a Nazarite. And I believe that Numbers 30 is directly referring to this vow in Numbers 6 and not saying what the patrios say it says.
Context, context, context.
January 28, 2010 at 9:42 am
Cynthia, I think you are right. I did “visit” that dream blog and read one of her dreams. Very detailed, which interested me. I think a lot of people have vivid dreams like that, me being one of them, of course most of the time I don’t remember them in great detail, but I’ve been told to keep a dream diary.
Perhaps her dreams are sometimes from God, perhaps not. I read the one about Native American wedding. To me, it was a lot more like if it was from God, I think her interpretation was off, but if she’s getting the interpretation from her husband, I’m certainly not surprised that there was some weird spin on it.
God does give dreams to non-believers, too; if we look at the Old Testament, many of the people who received dreams were not Jews. So he may just be trying to reach her through these dreams, but she’s missing the interpretation. Hopefully one day she’ll be given a dream that wakes her up to who God is and what he really wants her to be.
January 28, 2010 at 9:47 am
Corrie, I spent months slowly going through Exodus-Deuteronomy last year. I used a study Bible, which helped me, but I think I really saw things, particularly about how God “dealt” with women, that shook off a lot of the fog that I’ve been under. I realized that a lot of the things that even feminists say are misogynist are in fact the exact opposite, they are protective! The context is so important! How can a modern American feminist possibly understand (or live within!) a culture where women are so treated. It really gave me a “bigger picture” perspective to see that God ALWAYS protects his people when they give him the chance, and even when someone isn’t part of “His people” he still cares enough to offer them protection.
January 28, 2010 at 10:54 am
Cynthia, why leave Rebekah Anast alone? She’s as full of it as her husband is, and has written things that are extremely detrimental to women.
January 28, 2010 at 11:20 am
That Rahab doctrine is apparently alive and well at Trinity Baptist College (Jax, FL)
I hadn’t heard it in an IFB church myself, but a former member reports:
“The teacher of the SS class taught on Rahab and used her as an example of “truth to whom truth is due”. But God’s Word says we are not to lie. When I raised my hand and gave scripture to support that, the statement was something to the effect that there were those who thought differently. She was a high up at the college and was speaking of others at the college.”
“Truth to whom truth is due.”
Um…what about treating your neighbor as yourself??
ps. pls pray for my 2 daughters, who are currently stranded at an airport bcz of a winter storm coming in!
January 28, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Abby, most of what passes for (and is excoriated as) feminism ISN’T, at least it’s not what feminism started out to be.
Take clothing styles — a lot of the 30/40 somethings in the Patrio movement claim that the trend toward immodesty in dress is the result of the feminist movement.
, lacquer-y looking makeup, and permed, cut and set hairdos, and into longer skirts, sensible shoes, and natural makeup and hair.
They aren’t old enough to remember the 1960′s, when the feminist movement steered fashion away from stiletto heels, mini-dresses, skin-tight dress bodices, obligatory hats, GIRDLES
Before feminism, clothing was all about seducing and keeping a man; feminists REintroduced the idea that a man should come to love a woman for her beautiful MIND, and just maybe, for her beautiful SPIRIT. (Of course, Jesus and Paul had a 1960 year head start on the concept…)
January 28, 2010 at 1:43 pm
“She saved his life and didn’t go through some tortured and weird “appeal” process in order to do so.”
Good point, Corrie!
Patrios don’t usually have much to say about Ruth, either. She definately took the initiative in her relationship with Boaz. Under cover of darkness, she made a proposal by uncovering his “feet.” Whether they were literal feet or a euphemism for reproductive organs, either way she did the instigating.
Of course, the latter would make a patrio gasp!
January 28, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Another good verse that must be explained away by the patriocentrists:
“1 Listen to what the LORD says:
“Stand up, plead your case before the mountains;
let the hills hear what you have to say.
2 Hear, O mountains, the LORD’s accusation;
listen, you everlasting foundations of the earth.
For the LORD has a case against his people;
he is lodging a charge against Israel.
3 “My people, what have I done to you?
How have I burdened you? Answer me.
4 I brought you up out of Egypt
and redeemed you from the land of slavery.
I sent Moses to lead you,
also Aaron and Miriam.”
God set before the Israelites Moses, Aaron and Miriam to lead them? Must have been a typo.
And the Jewish literature on Miriam places her in a seat of great honor.
Miriam sounds like another one of those white-washed feminists.
January 28, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Abby,
Yes, it is hard to understand some of the verses in the Old testament concerning women, especially since we did not live in that culture. Frankly, some of them are troubling to me. On the surface they do not seem to value women. The attitude that women could be thrown out to gangs of perverts so a man could be protected and not suffer the shame, as if they are far above that sort of thing and women are not, deeply troubles me. But, it is also proof that the patriarchal mindset is neither Biblical nor godly. Women, in these patriarchal cultures, were constantly vulnerable and oppressed and they were looked down upon as lesser and worth less than men.
I just studied Numbers 5 concerning the “law of jealousy”. It troubled me at first. But, if we look at it as a vehicle of protecting women from an irrational husband who had the power of life and death over you, then it takes on another meaning. It is a bizarre chapter, for sure.
I had a father who was irrationally jealous of my mother and accused her of wild things that were never true. He was a serial adulterer so it may have been projection? But, when he would get in one of his irrationally jealous moods, my mother suffered horrendous abuse. And no matter how much she begged and pleaded with him and assured him that there was not another man, he would not believe her. He would even go after me, insisting that my mother was hiding a man in the house during the day while he was gone at work and when I didn’t admit to his irrational assertion, I would be beaten.
Maybe Numbers 5 was a way for a woman (and her children) to receive protection from this sort of emotional and physical torture/abuse?
A potion of water mixed with dirt and ink will cause a woman’s belly to swell and thigh to rot? Or was this a ruse to get an irrational husband off of his wife’s back? When neither her thigh rotted or her belly swelled, then he would have to face the fact that he has falsely and unfairly accused his wife and then he was now accountable to the priest to stop doing that.
I don’t think I will ever understand some of these things this side of eternity.
January 28, 2010 at 3:21 pm
If women in leadership positions are always a curse per the patrios taking Isaiah 3:12 and ripping it out of its context, then why would God say through the prophet Micah that he sent Miriam along with Moses and Aaron to lead them through the wilderness? And the verses that precede the one in Micah that calls Miriam a leader, are ones that specifically point out that this was a blessing and not a burden to them.
January 28, 2010 at 4:02 pm
““Some readers have tracked me here, wondered about the penname, and if these fantastic stories are really dreams, or just another outflow of my imagination and writing skills.””
Or the product of smoking crack?
Weird stuff.
January 28, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Just one horrendous ramification of women being devalued:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/28/afghan-men-struggle-sexual-identity-study-finds/
Sin begets sin begets sin begets sin…
January 28, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Don’t you know, Corrie, that Miriam led ONLY the women?
January 29, 2010 at 8:04 am
Wow! This just popped in my inbox from an incredulous mother. A couples retreat for daddy and daughter? XP
Typical VF promo: they quote studies (and in:”studies are in”) but they do not give the name of the studies, probably because they just made up the whole thing.
They claim that the “average father” has nothing of eternal value to share with his daughter. How insulting to fathers everywhere! Again, no proof to offer for this factoid. They only wrote it to make the mark who reads the con feel superior about his desire to pass on something of value to his daughter.
Ugh. Posting right after the homosexual bent of Muslim misogynists, we see that Christian men are different. They don’t disdain ALL women- only women who are grown adults, and especially those dumb enough to marry them.
Married men should be working on their relationship with their wives, not their daughters. If you want to pass on something of eternal value to your daughters, love your wife. Love your wife, cherish your wife, serve your wife in love, humble yourself to your wife in front of your daughter- that’s how to show your daughter that she is valued and treasured.
January 29, 2010 at 8:05 am
http://www.visionforum.com/onlineemail/vision-forum/2010/01/27_father_daughter_reminder/
Oops! Forgot the link.
January 29, 2010 at 8:24 am
Okay I just read the promo again and my reaction is no less indignant. I absolutely HATE the self-righteousness imbedded in this advert.
They totally slam fathers- dads of every race, religion and creed. *THEY* are the only dads who spend any time with their daughters, the only dads who have anything of value to pass on to their daughters, honestly they put themselves out there as the only men on the planet who notice that they have daughters!
How can people fall for such blatant lies? Do they all live on isolated farms apart from civilization? How could such a blatant lie be believable to the average person?
Every single day, you will see Dads playing with their children (daughters and sons) on my street. Jewish, Hindu, unknown-to-me spiritual beliefs, they are out there in droves on any nice day. Loving your daughter is not just a Christian thing.
And it’s not just an American thing. The Indian woman I tutor in English has very fond things to say about her father from her childhood in India. My daughters Chinese roommates have close relationships with their parents, including fathers.
Repeat: I absolutely HATE the self-righteousness imbedded in this advert.
January 29, 2010 at 9:21 am
Hey ladies,
I just thought of something. Do you know who subscribes to the Rahab’s Lie doctrine?
If you can find evidence that Phillips & Co. offer it, teach it at seminars, well…their lawsuits won’t be worth a flip, will they? I mean, they’re all Biblical Liars, right? No credibility in any courtroom. :no:
January 29, 2010 at 10:24 am
Corrie–Numbers 5. As far as that whole “potion” thing goes, I agree. It makes very little sense unless there’s something supernatural going on behind it. I do think that God, being all-knowing, would have used that as judgment on the woman if she were an adulteress, in some supernatural way. Or perhaps she would be so terrified of what it would do if she were guilty that she might confess before being subjected to it. Of course an innocent woman had nothing to fear.
I know a lot of people now think it’s horrible that a woman would have to stay married to such a man for the rest of her life, but it would have been a far worse fate if she had no way to disprove his lies and he was able to send her out with absolutely no proof. Even living forever with a jealous husband in that day would have been better than being turned out as an accused adulteress. It is absolutely the opposite of what we think it should be, but that’s because the culture is the opposite (in many ways) of what we live in, too.
January 29, 2010 at 10:29 am
On the Pearls/Anasts. I think I agree with Cynthia still, more because I believe that living so long in such a twisted belief system can leave a person completely vulnerable to misunderstanding. If this woman was taught the same beliefs her whole life and now her husband is telling her the same thing, I don’t think she’s a completely innocent victim, but how is she to know what else is out there or what might be True besides what she knows. She believes deeply what she preaches, and even though she’s wrong, it’s not as if her motives are evil, they are just wrong.
I don’t think we can judge whether or not her dreams are from God or from her own head, because I’ve known many people who receive dreams from God. Their theology is not perfect (though, I’d guess better than Rebekah”s (sp?)), but in the world I live in, people still receive dreams and visions. They are usually personal, not often given for the benefit of others, but they are still given as confirmation of something or to be confirmed by others.
I think we could be getting into a weird area, and I know that this isn’t something everyone here agrees with me on, so I’ll just leave it at that.
January 29, 2010 at 11:03 am
Light,
Ha! Of course, that is how her leadership will be explained away. Just like they explain away Deborah’s leadership of the nation of Israel. These two women and their leadership over the nation of Israel needs to be devalued in order to keep the paradigm in check. Surely God would NEVER put a woman in leadership over a nation!!!! So, since this is true, then we must change Scripture in order to fit our preconceived notion.
But, why would God mention her if she was only the leader of women when He was addressing the whole nation of Israel through Micah? That’s weird. Surely, Miriam wasn’t the only woman who led only the women in Israel? Why doesn’t God mention these other female leaders of women when He is addressing His people?
Fact:
Miriam was a prophet.
Deborah was a prophet.
God’s word tells us that Miriam and Deborah were both leaders over the nation of Israel.
God never tells us that Deborah was second choice since there was no man to be found to lead Israel. (That is an ASININE assertion! God is so impotent that He couldn’t raise a man up to do a man’s job?)
God never tells us that Deborah’s leadership was a curse to Israel. In fact, her leadership was a BLESSING to Israel and the nation of Israel still recognizes that FACT to this day.
God never tells us that Miriam was a leader over the women only. God’s word does tell us that He gave the NATION of Israel Moses, Aaron and Miriam to lead them and that their leadership was a blessing and not a burden. And the nation of Israel still understands Miriam’s great contribution to the leadership of Israel to this day.
January 29, 2010 at 11:13 am
Alisa,
Nice find on that article!
“The report said: “When it was explained to him what was necessary, he reacted with disgust and asked, ‘How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean, when one could be with a man, who is clean? Surely this must be wrong.’”
Makes sense.
“The report also detailed a disturbing practice in which older “men of status” keep young boys on hand for sexual relationships. One of the country’s favorite sayings, the report said, is “women are for children, boys are for pleasure.”
This is just like old Roman culture. Many of the great philosophers of that time talked about this very same thing.
They like to blame the feminists for homosexuality in men but they need to start looking in the mirror at their own attitudes towards women to get to the crux of the issue.
“The report concluded that the widespread homosexual behavior stems from several factors, including the “severe segregation” of women in the society and the “prohibitive” cost of marriage. ”
Yes, lots of men spending lots of time together and women are kept separate.
I could make some suppositional parallels to some things I see in the patriocentrists and their behavior and the findings of this article, but I won’t.
January 29, 2010 at 11:16 am
Assiemama, I agree with you on this one. Although the patrio men may be driving the bus in these situations, the women do enormous harm with their “advice”, too.
Look at this discussion on Rebekah’s advice on FreeJinger:
http://freejinger.yuku.com/topic/1090
January 29, 2010 at 12:26 pm
“”It must be noticed in connection with sex-relations that a girl in surrendering her body loses her honour. With a man, however, the case is otherwise, because he has a field for ethical activity outside the family. A girl is destined in essence for the marriage tie and for that only; it is therefore demanded of her that her love shall take the form of marriage and that the different moments in love shall attain their true rational relation to each other.”
Sound familiar?
But the “Christian” patrios didn’t pen this.
I found it here…
January 29, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Momgodin, I know that Steve Wilkins and the Auburn Avenue crowd teach that doctrine.
January 29, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Remember in “Saved by the Bell” when Zach would do a freeze take? That’s how I feel right now!
Okay: For Vision Forum to say that “the average father” does this or that, they must have met lots of people from lots of places with lots of backgrounds to know that this MUST be true (insert sarcastic voice).
I, for one, have probably one of the best relationships with a father that a grown-up married daughter could have. We can talk about anything, barring “feminine” issues, and both of my parents are really just good conversationalists. I am annoyed that the VF people would lump all dads except themselves into such a disparaging group.
I don’t think we have an unhealthy relationship, but from the pictures in that ad, I think the girls in those families do. Why are men spending so much time on their daughters? What about their sons and their wives? I haven’t heard about any marriage retreats, focusing on healthy marriages, or father-son weekends focusing on how to treat one another and teaching the younger men how to be good husbands in the future. Is that because once you’re married, that’s it? Sons don’t need any instruction, because holding up the marriage is all on the woman? What about mother-daughter weekends, too?
I’m glad I live in reality.
January 29, 2010 at 4:26 pm
that retreat….would Callaway be closed to the public then? those are our stomping grounds!
January 29, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Savanna, I can’t help but laugh about your typo in the first word of #133… Sorry.
January 29, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Abby, they do have a father son weekend mentioned for the future, but NOTHING for mothers!
No mother/son, or mother/daughter and no marriage retreat that I know about, but even if they did it would in no way make up for their outrageous self-righteous fear-mongering in the above advert.
How awful for their (normal) teens that they will have to give up daydreaming, peers, and thoughts of boys in order to what? Be daddy’s “helpmeet”?
Let the little girls be human, for crying out loud! Jeepers.
January 29, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Re: Miriam and Deborah — check this out. Nobody ever says, “wait, we can’t ask her — she’s a woman.” Nope, Huldah just lays “Thus saith the Lord” on them and they accept it, no questions asked.
2 Kings 22:11-20
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Acbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant: “Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD’s anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.”
Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Acbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to speak to the prophetess Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem, in the Second District.
She said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Tell the man who sent you to me, ‘This is what the LORD says: I am going to bring disaster on this place and its people, according to everything written in the book the king of Judah has read. Because they have forsaken me and burned incense to other gods and provoked me to anger by all the idols their hands have made, my anger will burn against this place and will not be quenched.’ Tell the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the LORD, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says concerning the words you heard: Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people, that they would become accursed and laid waste, and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I have heard you, declares the LORD. Therefore I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be buried in peace. Your eyes will not see all the disaster I am going to bring on this place.’ So they took her answer back to the king.
Also found in 2 Chronicles 34.
January 29, 2010 at 7:34 pm
I have noticed that every so often Vision Forum has a father-son retreat at a dude ranch somewhere. I don’t know if it’s annual or not, it’s not nearly as well advertised as the father-daughter one.
When I was in high school we had a father-daughter week-end. Some elements were always the same.
1) Meals. Just dinners, no fancy tea parties or anything that precious.
2) Performances – The dance, music and drama departments would come together to do some musical comedy. I remember Guys & Dolls and Once Upon A Mattress and The Music Man. Yes, girls played all the parts.
3) Sports – Not “Father/daughter Unity Games.” There was the annual tennis tournament, the annual golf tournament, and usually a number of others.
4) Academics – The science fair was set up, there were usually some student presentations in History, English and Theology, and so on.
5) Mass – Student led and in Latin, no less.
The point was to show off what you had accomplished for the year, or what you were capable of accomplishing. To take pride in your abilities. But these Vision Forum week-ends seem like just the opposite to me. It’s mostly about having it worked in that you’re noting but your father’s maid/nanny/doormat/surrogate wife, and that there’s nothing you can take pride in or do without him. It’s very fake and contrived. But then, what exactly have these girls accomplished? They can clean and cook, maybe, and diaper a baby and recite the party line. Is there anything else that they *can* take pride in?
It’s…kinda sad to me.
January 29, 2010 at 8:27 pm
And in case it comes up, yes I believe that taking care of a home, raising children and helping out in the family business are good and valuable things to do, and I know that homeschoolers can and have accomplished quite a lot over the years. I get that.
But as I understand it, being able to keep a house, raise a family and help out the family business are expected of patrio girls. Those aren’t special accomplishments related in any way to a young woman’s unique talents or the skills she’s chosen to nurture. And while you hear a lot about the accomplishments of patrio boys and non-patrio boys AND girls, You rarely, if ever, hear anything from the girls. At least I haven’t.
And none of that changes the idea that this week-end retreat of Vision Forum’s is more about absorbing the party line than anything.
January 29, 2010 at 10:13 pm
I am just wondering if anyone has seen Doug Phillips’ latest blog post.
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2010/01/6198.aspx
My mission to Haiti is four-fold: First, I will be establishing one of the only distinctively Christian reporting operations to tell stories of both the present crisis and the work of Christians on behalf of the sick and the widows and the orphans in the midst of Haiti’s present horror. Second, I will be working to facilitate the rescue and delivery of orphans to Christian families in America. Third, I will be identifying specific families that need direct support from the people of God in America. Fourth, my team will be providing specific relief to people in distress.
Look I have been praying over this and even talking over it with my husband for over a day now. And in all honesty I am not someone who panics or overreacts or anything like this.
But we have both been so grieved and have been praying and, of course, donating money to certain organisations who are working with the poor people of Haiti who have been so devasted by the earthquake. And our money has mostly gone to a charity via our church but I also have a good friend involved in Doctors Without Borders and we have donated to that very confident in the good work they do.
Now in all honesty I am not looking to criticise those who go to work in disaster zones. God bless them. But having recently talked to our good friend… his advice was (and he has been in Africa TWICE with Doctors Without Borders (MSF)) ‘I am not going, in these cases they need people immediately equipped to cope with disaster zones… in six months, they might want me to rebuild…. but my skills are not needed in a disaster zone’.
Again I know this is just our acquaintance and of course many people ARE needed in disaster zones and the fact my friend specialises in training and assisting local people in improving themselves and their own resources… that’s not the only help available. People are of course needed in the here and now.
But look. With all my fertility problems, (though I would remain under 26 and very hopeful the Lord wil still bless us even though we are very enthusiastic about being adoptive parents at some point… perhaps if we cannot be natural parents, perhaps afterwards if we can, we would be blessed) adoption is something we have looked into a lot.
And to see Doug Phillips advertising taking children from their country, from their surviving family, in a matter or days or weeks.
I am so in favour of adoption.
But look. Imagine if a natural disaster swet through our country tomorrow. Would you want your children sent to Germany or China, or would you want a few weeks to see if your sister survived to care for them and determine if they should be sent abroad forever?
I am not saying the poor children who are sole survivors shouldn’t be helped. But to speed their departure from THEIR COUNTRY… it just seems like Doug Phillips, with his film crew, it’s like their priorities are completely backwards. Why is relief their fourth priority? Why is ‘Christian journalism’ their first? Feed the hungry first! Then tell your story!!!
I can’t help but feel like they are trying to capitalise upon this awful disaster.
January 29, 2010 at 10:16 pm
*swet?
Er, swept, of course.
Sorry. I am obviously kinda emotional about all this. But it has really upset me.
January 29, 2010 at 10:23 pm
I just want to be very clear that I am not suggesting that Vision Forum are embezzling or in any way insincere about their desire to help the orphans of Haiti. I do not doubt their good intentions for a moment.
I do just wonder about the wisdom of a Christian group without apparent previous disaster zone experience going to Haiti with their primary goal being Christian journalism. Christian reporting is very important but it is SO far from a priority right now. What matters is helping the poor people of Haiti. And I am not convinced that the swift extradition of the orphans of Haiti is the best thing for them. I am so in favour of adoption and I have personally ecxperienced the heart breaking delays – but the safeguards are there for a reason and it is protection of children! Swiftly shipping them out of the country is NEVER a safe or appropriate solution! They are traumatised children and they need to be protected!
January 30, 2010 at 4:14 am
Savannah,
I went to the thread you linked in comment 133. Her advice is terrible. Especially this:
There is no point (that I can find in the Bible) in “standing up to your husband.” Either stay, and figure out how to make it work, or leave and find a believing man.
What about Matthew 18? I think that’s standing up to anyone who is sinning against you. Including a husband.
On the NGJ site there are a few articles by Rebekah Anast where she clearly states what she thinks about submission and marriage.
One of them “Noah’s wife”, speaks volumes. If Michael Pearl really treated Debi the way Rebekah recounts in her article, it’s no wonder she believes submission is doormathood. Who knows how much abuse she suffered and witnessed in her life!
Apparently, she is heavily pregnant and living precariously on a reservation. Her husband left his paying job to “follow God”.
Reading the article “Noah’s wife” was very hard for me, because if God really wants me to throw all caution out the window and just jump on whatever train my husband chooses, I’m doomed because I didn’t do that when my husband wanted to jump on a particularly scary looking train.
January 30, 2010 at 4:16 am
Cynthia,
In comment 110, you say to leave Rebekah Anast and her blog alone. Do you mean the one about her dreams?
January 30, 2010 at 5:18 am
The parents of Rifqa Bary have rejected counseling in efforts to pursue reconciliation:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584350,00.html?test=latestnews
Am I the only one who is not surprised? We need to be praying for this girl and this case. I have a feeling that it a trailblazing case for future situations like it.
January 30, 2010 at 5:20 am
“Swiftly shipping them out of the country is NEVER a safe or appropriate solution! They are traumatised children and they need to be protected!”
Claire,
EXACTLY.
God help these children. Please.
As if going through what they’ve gone through isn’t enough! God alone will be able to clear the confusion they’ll endure going from that to being in a patriarchal home.
January 30, 2010 at 9:13 am
Christian reporting is very important but it is SO far from a priority right now.
Claire, I so agree with you! Your statement above reminds me of this verse:
“If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?” (James 2:16)
His priorities are totally out of whack. The “Christian reporting” is, IMHO, nothing more than self-glorifying how great Doug Phillips is.
January 30, 2010 at 10:49 am
“First, I will be establishing one of the only distinctively Christian reporting operations to tell stories of both the present crisis and the work of Christians on behalf of the sick and the widows and the orphans in the midst of Haiti’s present horror.”
Okay, I did read on, and everything else seemed fine and good, but this really bugged me.
I have dozens of Christian friends on Facebook, all of whom are getting their information directly from missionaries and nationals who are in Haiti doing Christian work. To say that we aren’t getting the full “Christian” story is kind of ignorant.
We can easily find out what is going on in Haiti concerning Christian work, but obviously, Doug has not bothered to look outside his forums for information. I’m done now!
January 30, 2010 at 10:56 am
Claire,
I understand what you are thinking about the orphans, but look at it differently–there were already dozens of orphanages in Haiti, and there were already children awaiting adoption to other places. The children who lost family in the earthquake are just as important, but you’re right, they probably have family (if not parents) to help take care of them. But the children who were already waiting for a family, those are the children I hope Doug is talking about. But here’s the deal, I think they need *real* lawyers to assist with this, not “Christian experts in the law.”
One of my pastors is in Haiti helping out at an orphanage. It’s sad to say, but I think there are just hundreds of Haitian children who need a safe home to be adopted into. It’s these children whose futures are in most peril.
January 30, 2010 at 2:01 pm
I will say what you hesitate to say: NOW is not the time to begin a new work in Haitia. There are many many Christian organizations with an established ministry that need help right now.
I think what they mostly need is money,not a film crew.
Also it is more arrogance to say they would be one of the ONLY distinctly Christian reporting agency. First of all its not true. Established ministries with blogs, websites and newsletters have abounded in Haiti for a long time. They are putting their stories out there in cyberspace and have been since day one of the earthquake and recovery. Also, I’m pretty sure CBN was there right away, with established connections, but I’m not 100% sure because I don’t watch that channel.
And second adding that word “only” is a narcissistic touch, meant to establish that VF is uniquely superior and they want everyone to know it.
It seems to me that they are trying to capitalize on the publicity surrounding the tragedy and grab a slice for themselves. Whatever happened to giving your alms in secret?
If anyone needs to know of any established ministries in Haiti that could use their help, just google “help Haiti”. Or check your inbox. I’ve received lots of requests from friends asking for help with ministries they have been supporting in Haiti for a long time.
Or, if you know someone who has family in Haiti, ask if you can help directly. Western Union is allowing relatives to send money to Haiti for only a dollar a transaction.
The government of Haiti will hopefully protect their young citizens from hasty (however well-intentioned) adoptions. There is a reason it takes so long. There needs to be home studies, character references, background checks. I would be VERY troubled if one could just pop down there and start packing off children to foreign countries. While I don’t believe VF to be child predators, if it’s that easy for VF it would be that easy for child predators also.
Better to humbly take a back seat at this time, and provide resources to those already well-positioned to carry on the work. Already established orphanages are probably going to be swamped. Raise money and channel it where its needed, rather than go start your own work. It’s how the most good can be done, and if that’s your goal it seems to me that you would figure it out pretty quickly.
January 30, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Claire,
I agree with you. There seems to be a lot of people jumping up to help those in Haiti and that’s a good thing but things need to be sorted out some. My son, a USMC Captain, is currently on an aircraft carrier off the cost of Haiti and they are still sending in assessment teams in order to determine what exactly is needed. (For those of you on Facebook, it’s the 24th MEU – great photos). It’s still not determined what – except for emergency medical teams, food, etc are needed. It will take some time to sort things through in order to determine need.
January 30, 2010 at 7:25 pm
I was watching the Canadian news the other night and saw a planeload of orphans arriving. However, as I understood it, these were orphans in the adoption process *before* the earthquake, and the Canadian State Department had expedited the paperwork to get them to safety quickly.
Which puts quite a different spin on things. Not a clue if that’s happening in the US, I’ve given up on US news.
Can someone tell me what exactly makes Christian reporting different than other reporting? The facts are the facts. Of course I’ve given up on US news because they give you one fact, then what the Democrats think you ought to think about that fact, then what the Republicans think you ought to think about that fact, then what the lobbyists/corporations think you ought to think about that fact, and then what some church leaders think you ought to think about that fact.
It’s amazing how many more facts you get from the BBC, CBC or Global Network in a half an hour.
So, I’m thinking he just wants his opinion out there. And he’s using the crisis to gain a larger audience. Because no one else is telling you what you ought to think in the context of the Patrio world view.
January 30, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Americans Arrested Taking Children Out of Haiti
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60T23I20100130
I am glad to see that the authorities are keeping an eye on this sort of thing.
January 30, 2010 at 7:53 pm
More on the selling of orphans. Outrageous!
http://abandoned-orphaned.typepad.com/paulmyhill/2010/01/haiti-orphans-for-sale-for-50.html
January 30, 2010 at 8:22 pm
I have to point this out.
The group mentioned in the Reuters article:
http://www.esbctwinfalls.com/clientimages/24453/pdffiles/haiti/nlcrhaitianorphanrescuemission.pdf
Is associated with and a mission of the Eastside Baptist Church of Twin Falls, Idaho.
http://www.esbctwinfalls.com/templates/System/default.asp?id=24453
The mission is to help these children to safety and to “help them find a new life in Christ.”
January 30, 2010 at 8:58 pm
OOp, my mistake. They are primarily associated with the Central Valley Baptist Church in Meridian, Idaho.
http://www.centralvalleybaptist.net/cvbc09/home/index.cfm
http://www.centralvalleybaptist.net/cvbc09/splash/haiti2.cfm?CFID=36372505&CFTOKEN=55915618
January 30, 2010 at 9:16 pm
I wrote:
The government of Haiti will hopefully protect their young citizens from hasty (however well-intentioned) adoptions. There is a reason it takes so long. There needs to be home studies, character references, background checks. I would be VERY troubled if one could just pop down there and start packing off children to foreign countries. While I don’t believe VF to be child predators, if it’s that easy for VF it would be that easy for child predators also.
Glad that my faith in the Haitian government is well placed!
January 30, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Alisa–on the Rifqa case, I know that the court ruling from the 19th said she did not have to go back home. No matter what her parents try to do right now, they are under that ruling. I would wonder when her 18th birthday is, because once that day hits, she is no longer subject to foster care or any juvenile/family court rulings. It’s possible that the state would put her in protective custody. It’s disappointing that her parents would intentionally go against the court ruling or complain about it, but on the other hand, there is a very strong Muslim community in Columbus, and they have very good lawyers. They also regularly make claims of discrimination or misunderstanding, and as there are so many variations of Muslim beliefs that it’s really hard to tell on the surface whether or not they are telling the truth.
January 30, 2010 at 10:10 pm
“I have dozens of Christian friends on Facebook, all of whom are getting their information directly from missionaries and nationals who are in Haiti doing Christian work. To say that we aren’t getting the full “Christian” story is kind of ignorant.”
Sounds like VF has their own special definition of who is and who is not a Christian.
January 30, 2010 at 10:18 pm
“Cynthia,
In comment 110, you say to leave Rebekah Anast and her blog alone. Do you mean the one about her dreams?”
Yes.
I can’t explain it, and as a rule I prefer to rely on provable facts, not instinct or “hunches”, but in this case, my gut tells me that her dreams (though not necessarily the interpretations) may well be of God.
Besides, she seems fragile and vulnerable, and dreams are a very personal thing. Critiquing someone’s dreams on a public forum such as this would be very unkind.
January 31, 2010 at 1:17 am
Aussiemama, so sorry about my typo in #133. It was so NOT intentional. . . please forgive!
January 31, 2010 at 9:22 am
Sorry to interrupt the flow of conversation, but why aren’t my comments going through?
January 31, 2010 at 9:32 am
Oh, OK. That was weird.
Sorry for the double post.
Points very quickly ’cause I’ve typed them out a gazillion times…:)
(1) stoning isn’t the quickest way to die. In fact, it’s the cruelest. How could you, as a parent, sit and watch?
(2) I feeltremendously sorry for the Anasts and Pearls who subscribe to this “Noah’s Wife”type of marriage. Imagine what all those women could’ve been?
I think, as someone has stated on this log before, that this patriarchal lifestyle hurts the men just as much, if not more, than the women. In my estimation the men are brought up to be something short of tyrants disguised in a teddy-bear suit. All this insisting that women should submit is thinly veiled narcissism. I really wonder if all this prancing around and shouting about God’s plan for them to be the leaders of the home isn’t a product of their own upbringings fraught with periods of emotional famine where either their fathers or mothers neglected their emotional development.
January 31, 2010 at 10:31 am
A man, escorted by friends and their pastor rescues his wife from her job:
http://ahthelife.blogspot.com/2006/09/bringing-home-rebecca.html
When I first read it, the blog was more dramatic. It didn’t explain that it was Rebecca’s last day at work, and they talked about freeing her from slavery. They’ve toned it down and given some more information.
Oh well, it’s still a good laugh, I think!
Two unmarried daughter’s advice to wives and daughters on how to support “the men in their lives” and not “saw off their legs”.
http://ahthelife.blogspot.com/2009/05/she-sawed-his-legs-off.html
This “advice” leaves me wondering, who is doing the “leading”?
18. Understand that men lead men, men motivate men, and they make men better men. Your effort to lead him will only frustrate him, derail him and eventually if you succeed essentially debilitate him. If he doesn’t have a manly fellowship that he’s apart of, encourage him in that direction. If he does, help nourish the relationship. Also, understand that sometimes running with the “big dogs” can be a little rough. It may challenge him like never before. Your behind-the-scenes talk about that leadership and the heroes in his life can make or break his relationship with them.
January 31, 2010 at 10:54 am
I do think being raised in that paradigm has a lot to do with embracing it. In the lives of the people I know, their emotional needs were not met as children, there was a lot of rejection due to putting doctrine over the hearts of children and major life decisions made with no concern for childhood development issues.
My husband was hurt by it, as were his brothers to varying degrees. However the one who was sent away to boarding school the earliest is clearly the one with the most trouble emotionally. He is also the one not just affected by patriocentrism, but fully embracing it and living it today, much to the detriment of his entire family.
I will say this in his behalf: he really believes that he is living a life pleasing to God. His whole life is filled with people who believe like he does. No dissenters allowed. He thinks the rest of us have sold out, and I am sure he honestly believes that his is a happy rich full life and that the rest of us are living on spiritual scraps. (You can easily come to believe that if you don’t allow yourself to associate with anyone outside of your belief system.)
Surely no boys have been hurt more than those emotionally underdeveloped home schooled men who committed murder in frustration over their sexual passions (Couty Alexander and David Ludwig). I lay the blame for those murders directly at the feet of the home that produced these young men.
Seemingly the more hurt a person is, the more damage they do to others.
And reading on this blog about Rebekah Anast, her story sounds very much like others I have heard of that went terribly wrong. One woman’s story is on No Longer Quivering, another (the Robert Hale family of Alaska) I found on my blog grazing tour the other day. I hope she gets out early on if that’s the case, but it doesn’t appear that she will.
So yes, I think these men do suffer terribly. I believe they WANT happy homes, happy children, healthy family dynamics- and so they apply what they have been taught and it fails them. But they have so much shame associated with rejecting what they were taught is “God’s way” that even when it is NOT WORKING they just try applying it in a more extreme fashion. And it does not end up the way the preacher/teachers/their parents taught them it would. Very sad.
January 31, 2010 at 11:51 am
From “she sawed his legs off”, Ah, the life blog.
17. Let him provide and give him a reason to. Some women try to carry part of the monetary burden when there’s no need to. Others have no need for anything. Often women think they’re helping the finances by going without essential needs. I’m not talking a French manicure but let him take care of you. They’ve both essentially robbed him of his motivation to pursue and develop a vision for making things come together for his family.
Was the woman in Proverbs 31 robbing her husband of his motivation when she sold a field and bought another? And when she traded with the merchants? Or when she sewed clothes for her family? I mean, she should have let her husband buy them, right?
These two women come across as wealthy and spoiled.
My mother visited us recently, and in one conversation, it came out that my younger sister, who still lives at home, is the one paying for their food. She has a job, while my father has to turn down some jobs due to his health, and jobs are scarce these days with the economy crisis. Should she go home and let her dad provide for her?
January 31, 2010 at 12:04 pm
From bringing home Rebecca:
Crossing the threshold excited great emotion in Rebecca that bubbled over as a loud “Wah-hoo!” Her last day of working for another man forever!
I can understand the relief of finally being able to give up a job you don’t want. But somehow making her now more virtuous than other women who may have to hold down jobs in order to be the helpers their husbands need, or in order to keep their family afloat because they are alone, or for whatever other good reason.
Why did Rebecca have that job in the first place? Was she supporting her husband until he could get a good job in his field? Was she helping him finish a degree and get established in his career?
There are many women who have kept a roof over their heads and paid the bills while the husband finished school, or who put their husbands through university.
Doesn’t it make more sense to be grateful that the wife had a job that allowed the husband to get to the place where he could provide for them and they could have a family with mom at home?
It seems very disrespectful to do something like “bringing home Rebecca”. It’s hilarious, because it’s so silly, but the meaning of it all is not so funny.
January 31, 2010 at 12:06 pm
From my post above. I didn’t complete my sentence!
I can understand the relief of finally being able to give up a job you don’t want. But somehow making her now more virtuous than other women who may have to hold down jobs in order to be the helpers their husbands need, or in order to keep their family afloat because they are alone, or for whatever other good reason, seems wrong to me.
January 31, 2010 at 2:46 pm
An update on the situation in Haiti, reported on above:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100131/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_haiti_americans_detained
From the article:
Silsby said the group, including members from Texas and Kansas, only had the best of intentions and paid no money for the children, whom she said they obtained from Haitian pastor Jean Sanbil of the Sharing Jesus Ministries.
Silsby, 40, of Boise, Idaho, was asked if she didn’t consider it naive to cross the border without adoption papers at a time when Haitians are so concerned about child trafficking. “By no means are we any part of that. That’s exactly what we are trying to combat,” she said.
January 31, 2010 at 4:19 pm
“This “advice” leaves me wondering, who is doing the “leading”?”
Madame,
Ha! Women, of course. Really, if you push aside all of the semantics and word gymnastics then you are left with women leading men and women as very powerful beings who can emasculate and “make or break” them.
Their definition of “leader” is not a leader at all. It is a weak follower who is dependent upon being the “leader” which is in direct proportion to how much his wife strokes his fragile ego. She is master of his destiny and will lead him into success or failure by even so much as a look.
January 31, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Shadowspring,
It would be interesting, if not scary, to do a follow-up on these men, the products of the patriarchal societies. Maybe they’ll learn to drop it and move on. Maybe not.
Yes, i’ve seen the No Longer Quivering site and was totally floored by what I’d read. When I was in the Church, I thought it was just a minority who held those beliefs, and no one ever really brought up the issue of how much it was hurting women, children, or men. I wonder if these men don’t find later in life that their wives and children have deserted them and are flabberghasted as to what went wrong.
“If Warren’s not happy, then no one’s happy.”
BTW, I’m somewhat new to the site. What happened with Rebekah Anast?
January 31, 2010 at 4:26 pm
” Have a repertoire of jokes and shenanigans that he can’t resist laughing over. ”
I am thinking short sheeting the bed, putting saran wrap over the toilet…..any other shenanigans you can think of that I can add to my “repertoire”?
January 31, 2010 at 4:30 pm
I am sorry but that whole workplace thing is not going to make unbelievers attracted to Christ. They will just have more proof that Christians are freaks. I do not understand why people have to make such a ridiculous public spectacle out of something that should be very private based on their own preferences. We should live QUIET lives and that was anything but quiet!
January 31, 2010 at 4:49 pm
“The Father and Daughter Retreat is a time of learning and fellowship, but it is also a time for celebration. Fathers and daughters can enjoy the world famous Callaway Butterfly Gardens; they will have time to enjoy long, meaningful walks; and, and they will participate in our Father and Daughter Unity Games.”
Yes, the so-called “unity games” where daughters practice shaving their daddy, dressing their daddy, combing their daddy’s hair and basically learning how to groom their daddy and serve his “needs”. They are also blind-folded and are to follow their daddy’s voice in total obedience as he leads his blind-folded daughter around by the mere sound of his voice through an obstacle course.
And, what is this really teaching the daughters? Since when does a father need to be shaved or his hair combed by his daughter unless he was paralyzed from the neck down? And what father would actually enjoy that sort of “game” which is really a guise for training daughters how they can serve their fathers? I am thinking these are great games for narcissists.
January 31, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Corrie,
Please tell me you are kidding about the Unity Games.
Gracesong,
And I think the discussion about Rebeka Anast (daughter of the infamous Pearls) and her husband Gabe starts on this thread post #73. It’s my understanding her husband has dragged her out to an Indian reservation in the desert because God has called him Noah-fashion to go out and be even farther removed from normal civilization.
Isolation is the first step in total domination.
January 31, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Compare those silly “unity games” to the weekend my 17 y.o. just spent with my husband. They went away for a father-daughter weekend and went snow tubing with some of the church youth group who also were there. Hubby also took her to our favorite humungous used bookstore where they browsed for hours and daughter got a bunch of books in the field of her career interest. They sat by a cozy fireplace in the lodge and looked over all the college classes she’s had so far (you can attend community college while you’re a h.s. senior around here), and planned out the next logical steps in her education. They talked about getting in touch with my husband’s professional contacts who may be able to give her a good job while she’s in college. So they got home an hour ago, and daughter is so excited about her future, field of study, college, and beyond. I’d ask them if shaving was involved in their weekend, but they’d probably think I was crazy.
January 31, 2010 at 6:03 pm
I’ve seen the “bringing home Rebecca” story. As an employee, I cannot imagine having a group of people invade my office and disrupt my work to “liberate” a co-worker. Did Rebecca give notice to her supervisor, or did she just walk in and say “I quit?” Rude and unprofessional are the words that come to mind. This also puts a burden on the other employees who now have to (perhaps unexpectedly) pick up the slack.
January 31, 2010 at 7:37 pm
emr,
It was Rebecca’s last day of work. She was going to leave anyway, but they decided to turn it into a show. Still very rude, if you ask me. It’s not like she had been held captive or anything, she was blessed to have a job, for goodness sakes!
The way the blog was first written, it was hard to know what had happened, but the bloggers have changed some wording and added information.
January 31, 2010 at 9:23 pm
I am guessing that it was probably her last day of work. With the patriocentric high view of top-down authority surely they cleared their little party with her boss?
But I think it ugly and in-your-face. They basically insulted everyone else there as being slaves- with no prince charming to come and rescue them, the losers. They even posted a picture of a pregnant co-worker who wishes she could be a stay-at-home mom. STBU, co-worker! What else could they possibly mean by that picture and caption?
I think the whole thing was in very poor taste.
January 31, 2010 at 11:58 pm
“I think the whole thing was in very poor taste.”
Yes…and to whom did it draw the most attention – God or Rebecca?
February 1, 2010 at 1:34 am
Hey, who out there lives near the Callaway Gardens? Wouldn’t it be fantastic to send in a mole to record all the shaving and blind-folded “follow my voice and not your own” activities?
I do worry about the rare girl that makes the error of showing up in pants for the outdoor Unity Games, especially after the pointed directive that MOST girls wear dresses for their outside indoctrination activities.
Can you imagine attending a picnic in a dress, not to mention running around blind-folded in a long prairie skirt? (Somehow I’m reminded of polygamists requiring their daughters to swim in prairie-dress garb, despite the risk of drowning.) How about the daughters shave their daddys while blindfolded, maybe using those Victorian-era open blades?
Something else about that Father-Daughter advertisement– They are careful to describe the rooms as having two double beds plus a “dressing room for changing.” Does this hotel really have “dressing rooms?” Or are we talking bathrooms? Perhaps they invested in dressing rooms instead of indoor plumbing, and guests use outhouses out back? Or more likely, the very mention of bathrooms is unladylike, especially if you’re a patrio high-tea stay-at-home type-of daughter? Just weird.
BTW, sorry I’ve not been around for a while. But like the good college-educated Christian feminist that I am, I did my homework and read every post I’d missed. You guys continually rock.
February 1, 2010 at 1:47 am
Compare those silly “unity games” to the weekend my 17 y.o. just spent with my husband.
That week-end sounds a lot closer to the father-daughter week-ends we had in high school, except for the lack of snow.
I think if anyone suggested the girls shave the fathers they’d be lucky if they *only* had to deal with a flock of very upset nuns.
February 1, 2010 at 9:36 am
Is it just me, or are there too many “dramatic” photo opportunities that Doug is taking? Mainly of himself.
It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
Similar to when I hear Coca Cola and McDonalds are supporting “anti obesity campaigns”. Its a publicity opportunity whilst simultaneously adding to the problem.
February 1, 2010 at 9:40 am
The very idea of shaving a patriarchal man conjures up images of Whoopi Goldberg and Danny Glover in the color Purple. õ_0
February 1, 2010 at 10:54 am
Light, your husband’s relationship with your daughter sounds like how our family functions. Everything is more organic, not so contrived and controlled.
February 1, 2010 at 10:59 am
I noticed an interesting new trend…it seems that the number of independent patriocentric conferences is on the rise. There was the recent Sufficiency of Scripture conference and the upcoming Family Economics Conference and the Love the Church Conference. That is just off the top of my head. But the NCFIC seems to be coming up with one venue after another to promote their agenda. Is this because they aren’t as welcome in homeschooling conferences as they used to be?
I also noticed that much of the rhetoric is blending the ecclesiocentric agenda with the patriocentric agenda with lots of emphasis on elders etc. Finding it all curious….
February 1, 2010 at 11:36 am
“How about the daughters shave their daddys while blindfolded, maybe using those Victorian-era open blades?”
Debbie,
LOL! Now, that would be an interesting “unity” game.
“Something else about that Father-Daughter advertisement– They are careful to describe the rooms as having two double beds plus a “dressing room for changing.” Does this hotel really have “dressing rooms?” Or are we talking bathrooms? ”
Hmmmm….this is an aspect I never thought of. I don’t know exactly how to frame my concerns about this aspect, especially considering the whole Father/Daughter emphasis and “wooing” that goes on during this conference.
But, I don’t think there is a “dressing room”. I do think it is a bathroom but they just have to make everything sound so Victorian and fancy.
February 1, 2010 at 11:36 am
Andrea wrote,
“Similar to when I hear Coca Cola and McDonalds are supporting “anti obesity campaigns”. Its a publicity opportunity whilst simultaneously adding to the problem.”
Exactly. They’re doing a good deed, but by publicizing it, they also make themselves look good in the public eye, and are rewarded with more business at the same time.
Thus their good deed loses value as a good deed, because it loses the quality of altruism.
Now, that may be OK for corporations, but Jesus says that it’s NOT OK when it comes to our personal acts of charity:
Mat 6:2 Therefore when thou doest [thine] alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Mat 6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
February 1, 2010 at 11:43 am
I hope so! The rest of the home schooling movement needs to distance ourselves from these crazies if there is to be home schooling in the future.
The only reason I am bothering to speak out against patriocentricity is for the sake my possible grandchildren. I want the joy of home school freedom to be available to them as it was for my own children.
Otherwise, I am very much a live and let live kind of gal. If you want to go off and screw up your own life, well the Constitution gives you that right. But if you are going to go act crazy disguised as me, then I have to take a stand.
As a Christian who also home schools, these patrios are damaging my reputation in the community! As I read somewhere recently, “Hey, Vision Forum, get off of my cloud!”
February 1, 2010 at 11:51 am
“Corrie,
Please tell me you are kidding about the Unity Games.”
Shadowspring,
No, I cannot do that. I would have to lie to you in order to do that.
This quote is off of Doug Phillip’s blog from April 4, 2004:
“The Father and Daughter Retreat was not only a time to serve (and shave) Daddy, but to dress up pretty as a picture.”
Yes, the retreat is about serving daddy (which includes shaving him and combing his hair and dressing him) but about looking as pretty as a picture.
After all, isn’t that the sum total of a woman? Might as well start them as young as you can to be a fascinating woman!
http://killingthebuddha.com/mag/hunger/victory-through-daughters/
Here is a quote from the above link but you will see that Doug Phillips states that each of these games was designed to teach these girls about a different aspect of their relationship with their father (Blech):
“Whether or not this is true, more questionable aspects of practicing being helpmeets abound. As one of the Botkins’ characters in So Much More suggests, it can mean fetching a father’s slippers for him in order to free the father up for weightier dominion tasks in reclaiming the world for Christ.
Anna Sofia has served thus herself, as her father explains in an appendix interview included in So Much More so it might contain some proper male authority to address fathers. One day, while father Botkin was entertaining a “very important political leader,” he called to his daughter. Anna Sofia, then five or six, came into the room to untie and remove her father’s shoes, and she then asked the guest if she could untie his shoes as well. Years later, Geoffrey Botkin says, the politician brought the evening up, telling Botkin, “‘You know when I decided we should have more children? It was that night your sweet little daughter helped me with my shoes.’ One simple act of hospitality had eternal consequences.”
The extent to which Botkin views his daughters as his ambassadors, or extensions of himself, is perplexingly hinted at when both he and Doug Phillips slip during the conference and refer to So Much More as Geoffrey Botkin’s book. This could seem either an indication of his daughters’ total identification with their father, or else, perhaps, indication of the heavy paternal hand guiding the virtuous daughters’ movement—as present in the writing of the book as it feels in every frame of the film and every still photograph taken of the two sisters.
Such lessons are repeated wide-scale at the father-daughter retreats, where daughters are given object lessons alongside the sermons through a series of ideological games, including a blindfolded obstacle course, where chains of blinded daughters were guided solely by relying on their fathers’ verbal commands; contests for fathers “wooing and winning the hearts of their daughters”; and intimacy-building “unity games” that teach daughters to serve their fathers by shaving their faces, grooming their hair, and knotting their shoes and ties. As three of Phillips’s young daughters, Jubilee, Liberty, and Faith, explained on a video posted on Vision Forum’s Web site, “Each of the games was designed to teach us a principle about our relationship with our fathers.”
Or as Doug Phillips explained to the fathers in attendance, he who “tells the story controls the culture,” and storytelling—setting up the basic architecture of your children’s worldview—is “one of the most significant patriarchal duties that God gives us.” So, he tells fathers, it’s imperative to start teaching your daughter now all “the stories she needs to know” because—in an alarming revelation about the young marriages patriarchs support—the nine-year-old before you now may, in six years’ time, be not just older, but married as well.
It’s a short window of opportunity for a father to guide his daughter where he wants her to go, and a short time for him to experience what Phillips calls “the greatest privilege of the ages: to have someone look at you and say, ‘Father, I love you. Father, shepherd me.’ Father, father. The very words we call our God and savior. God has given you fathers the opportunity to look at these girls and say, ‘You are mine. You are mine.’””
February 1, 2010 at 12:06 pm
http://jewelsbyjulia-lauren.blogspot.com/2009/03/home-from-vision-forum-2009-father.html
Here is a blog with firsthand descriptions about the Father/Daughter retreat.
“First 8 fathers serenaded their daughters a cappella, then there was a contest of how daughters could help their fathers ‘get ready for work’, by combing his hair, tying his tie, putting on his shoes, and the best part… ‘shaving’ him with shaving cream and a plastic knife.”
“Daddy and I got to bed late but stayed up talking about things like marriage, children, and… fishing.
”
February 1, 2010 at 12:16 pm
http://southernthundertn.blogspot.com/2008/12/total-war-vs-noble-war.html?showComment=1229153880000#c726622861481144494
Matt Chancey, a good confederate?
Follow the comment’s author back to his own blog, too.
February 1, 2010 at 12:39 pm
“Anna Sofia has served thus herself, as her father explains in an appendix interview included in So Much More so it might contain some proper male authority to address fathers. One day, while father Botkin was entertaining a “very important political leader,” he called to his daughter. Anna Sofia, then five or six, came into the room to untie and remove her father’s shoes, and she then asked the guest if she could untie his shoes as well. Years later, Geoffrey Botkin says, the politician brought the evening up, telling Botkin, “‘You know when I decided we should have more children? It was that night your sweet little daughter helped me with my shoes.’ One simple act of hospitality had eternal consequences.””
I am trying to understand how a girl untying and removing one’s shoes causes them to have more children?
Is that the same as a person getting a dog because they see the neighbor’s dog fetching their newspaper every morning?
And do Botkin’s boys untie and remove the shoes of his guests or is this just a female’s job? If it is only a female’s job, why is it only a female’s job?
What picture does this give about their views concerning women?
February 1, 2010 at 12:40 pm
“The very idea of shaving a patriarchal man conjures up images of Whoopi Goldberg and Danny Glover in the color Purple. õ_0″
No kidding!
February 1, 2010 at 12:45 pm
“http://southernthundertn.blogspot.com/2008/12/total-war-vs-noble-war.html?showComment=1229153880000#c726622861481144494
Matt Chancey, a good confederate?
Follow the comment’s author back to his own blog, too.”
Wow, a whole lot of southern sympathy goin’ on there!
February 1, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Karen,
You ain’t kiddin! Bless your heart!
Follow the links. They are even more eye-opening.
There are several commonalities that I see showing up when I follow the links.
And then there is their shared hatred of all things Abraham Lincoln.
And it wasn’t the “War Between the States” or the “Civil War”, it was the “War of Northern Aggression”.
Put it all together and you have one BIG patriarchal soup.
February 1, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Thatmom said: “I noticed an interesting new trend…it seems that the number of independent patriocentric conferences is on the rise. There was the recent Sufficiency of Scripture conference and the upcoming Family Economics Conference and the Love the Church Conference. That is just off the top of my head. But the NCFIC seems to be coming up with one venue after another to promote their agenda. Is this because they aren’t as welcome in homeschooling conferences as they used to be?”
Yes, I imagine (and hope) that this is the case. I also believe that patrio homeschool conferences are on the rise because currently it’s the only way for all those adult stay-at-home daughters out there to meet an appropriate head-ship. A target-rich environment, if you will.
I know a family that has little means but lately seems to be scrapping together enough money to send their grown daughters to many of these events. Other than attending church or the grocery store (always accompanied by a parent, of course), these gals had rarely left their four walls before. Suddenly they’re hitting the conference circuit, ala Vision Forum.
Hey, if it worked for Josh Duggar! He spotted his bride across the room at a conference, thought she looked Gothard and Duggar-worthy, and got his daddy to contact her daddy… And BOOM! A wedding and a new baby before you could say ATI.
I’m sure my acquaintances consider the financial sacrifice of sending their daughters to these conferences as a wise financial investment. I see desperation, with a need to prove that their methods work as advertised.
At least the girls are getting a chance to escape their heavy housework, childcare duties, and heat of the kitchen for a few days now and then. But I bet the daughters feel the heat to catch the eye of a worthy young man ready to dominate–and phone her daddy asking for permission to get that betrothal process moving, ASAP.
February 1, 2010 at 2:17 pm
My niece from the patrio side was sent to Emmanuel College in Iowa, ostensibly to find a man.
She had some sort of mental breakdown requiring hospitalization (No details for me as I don’t have the required security clearance!)her senior year. I was told it was the pressure of finals that proved too much, but I wondered if it was not the pressure of and having to return home single, no prospects in sight, that really pushed her over the edge.
Not to worry, though. Daddy did find a nice patrio man for her eventually.
February 1, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Corrie said: “But, I don’t think there is a “dressing room”. I do think it is a bathroom but they just have to make everything sound so Victorian and fancy.”
Oh, yes, I agree Corrie. At least I hope that’s the case!
However, if the patrios were really trying to live an accurate life of their ante-bellum fantasies, they would use outhouses. Maybe they could call them “privies” or something.
Just another inconvenient fact to overlook in their Confederate obsession. That, and well, slavery.
February 1, 2010 at 3:33 pm
“Something else about that Father-Daughter advertisement– They are careful to describe the rooms as having two double beds plus a “dressing room for changing.” Does this hotel really have “dressing rooms?” Or are we talking bathrooms? ”
I’ve been in a number of hotels that have a short hallway between the main room and the bathroom, usually with the closet on one side and a counter and mirrored wall on the other, and with doors between the main room and the bathroom. It’s usually billed as a “dressing room”.
Usually we found them in the lower-end, older places. So, for me at least, this wouldn’t be a selling point.
February 1, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Light, your husband’s relationship with your daughter sounds like how our family functions. Everything is more organic, not so contrived and controlled.
Organic is the perfect descriptor, Karen. I have often likened my (egalitarian) marriage to “organic.” In an organic family relationship, people play to their God-given strengths, and are not trying to contort themselves to fit into man-made boxes.
February 1, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Shadowspring (201), Did you mean Emmaus college, Iowa?
February 1, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Karen, I wish I could show those self-righteous knuckledraggers at Southern Thunder THIS picture:
http://www.yorktownsquare.com/img/Burning-of-Chambersburg.jpg
Is there any way to make it visible here on TW?
The picture depicts the burning of a town near my home in PA by Confederate soldiers in the summer of 1864.
“The burning of Chambersburg was accomplished by General John A. McCausland under order of General Jubal A. Early who commanded him to capture the town, levy a tribute upon it of $100,000.00 in gold or $500,000.00 in U.S. currency and in default of the payment to burn the town.
The burning began at 8 a.m. before many were aware of the invasion and was completed by 11:OO a.m., leaving parts of 11 squares of Chambersburg in flames. 2,000 people were made homeless and 537 buildings burned with a value of real estate of $713,294.34. After the fire, rebuilding began at once, resulting in a uniform streetscape still to be seen in the greater part of the burned area.”
Real “Noble War”, that – burning a town to the ground because the citizens refused to capitulate to an extortion attempt.
“The house of Mr. James Watson, an old and feeble man of over eighty, was entered, and because his wife earnestly remonstrated against the burning, they fired the room, hurled her into it and locked the door on the outside. Her daughters rescued her by bursting in the door before her clothing took fire. Mr. Jacob Wolf kill, a very old citizen, and prostrated by sickness so that he was utterly unable to be out of bed, plead in vain to be spared a horrible death in the flames of his own house; but they fired the building. Through the superhuman efforts of some friends he was carried away safely. Mrs. Lindsay, a very feeble lady of nearly eighty, fainted when they fired her house, and was left to be devoured in the flames: but fortunately a relative reached the house in time, and lifting her in a buggy, pulled her away while the flames were kissing each other over their heads on the street.”
…from The Burning of Chambersburg, by Rev. Benjamin Schroder Schneck, “an Eyewitness and a Sufferer” written in 1864
http://books.google.com/books?id=ipRBAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22burning+of+Chambersburg%22+deaths&output=text&source=gbs_navlinks_s
February 1, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Yes, that’s the one. Sorry for the error.
February 1, 2010 at 5:55 pm
“Just another inconvenient fact to overlook in their Confederate obsession. That, and well, slavery.”
LOL!
Debbie, I have missed you!
February 1, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I just saw this quote on Annie C’s sidebar (at her blog) and thought it was good:
“True manliness differs also from the false in its attitude to woman. Its knightly feeling makes it wish to defend her rights, to maintain her claims, to be her protector and advocate. False manliness wishes to show its superiority by treating women as inferiors. It flatters them, but it does not respect them. It fears their competition on equal levels, and wishes to keep them confined, not within walls, as in the Mohammedan regions, but behind the more subtle barriers of opinion, prejudice, and supposed feminine aptitudes. True manliness holds out the hand to woman, and says, ” Do whatever you are able to do; whatever God meant you to do. Neither you nor I can tell what that is till all artificial barriers are removed, and you have full opportunity to try.”
- James Freeman Clarke, 1886″
February 1, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Cynthia,
And then there is always “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and the many other stories of what it was like to be a slave on a Southern plantation. Yes, yes, I have heard many protestations about how nice slave owners were to their slaves in spite of all the firsthand accounts of the horrible abuse they suffered at their “master’s” hands. But, I am of the opinion that it isn’t “nice” to think so highly of one’s self and so poorly of another. If you don’t want to be owned like property then it is not “nice” to own another human being like property.
The only time I would buy a slave was in order to set them free. That would have been the “nice” thing to do. Anything else is just semantics.
And let us not forget that Lady Lydia likes to wax eloquent about slave families living the dreamy patriocentric lifestyle where the “wife” stayed in her cabin and cooked dinner and took care of the kids while her “husband” was out in the fields.
Yeah right!
February 1, 2010 at 6:34 pm
“Hey, if it worked for Josh Duggar! He spotted his bride across the room at a conference, thought she looked Gothard and Duggar-worthy, and got his daddy to contact her daddy… And BOOM! A wedding and a new baby before you could say ATI.”
LOL!
Well, speaking of the Duggars…I wonder how Doug Phillips can rant on and on about the “world” being child-haters and persecuting those that have big families when the “world” is so gung-ho about the Duggars!
They have been on the morning shows and they are ALWAYS positive towards the Duggars. And People Magazine just did an article on them and that was also VERY positive towards the Duggars.
It seems that this is just more proof of the fear-mongering that the patrios use to keep their flocks in line. Oh, and don’t forget that true Christian homeschoolers want to do way with the public school systems AND the child protective agencies.
In fact, I am a sort of celebrity because of the amount of children I have. Oh, people might say things behind my back (I don’t know) but to my face they are always amazed that I have 10 children and they think I am some sort of rock star or something because of having so many children. Too bad that doesn’t pay off for me like it has for the Duggars. I could use a second washer and dryer!
February 1, 2010 at 6:51 pm
I wonder what Lady Lydia would say about all the light-skinned slave children that some of those slave “wives” had…
February 1, 2010 at 8:04 pm
“True manliness holds out the hand to woman, and says, ”Do whatever you are able to do; whatever God meant you to do. Neither you nor I can tell what that is till all artificial barriers are removed, and you have full opportunity to try.””
- James Freeman Clarke, 1886
Thanks to AnnieC for finding this and to Corrie for sharing it here. This is inspiring to me. “Whatever you are able to do; whatever God meant you to do.” Now THAT’S a real man.
February 1, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Go into any bookstore and you can find first-hand accounts of what it was really like to be a slave. If you’re squeamish you can start with A Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglas and American Slave.
February 1, 2010 at 9:03 pm
http://www.visionforumministries.org/events/fdr/008/faqs.aspx
Y’all have to look at this. Not only do they tell the girls what to wear, but the dads too. (They really liked that Dockers ad!)
And they will have daughters aged 4 to 30?? That is a HUGE age range to plan activities for. How discouraging must it be to go to this with your dad when you’re 27, and you’re playing games alongside 8-year-olds.
The other thing I found very interesting is the bios of the Botkin girls. Previously they’ve been presented based on their book, their gifts, etc. These bios are all about how they are serving their father. It becomes, as Alice said, “Curiouser and curiouser.”
February 1, 2010 at 9:20 pm
From the above site:
Messages are brought by both Fathers and Daughters and are saturated with Scripture which pierces the heart of all ages.
So piercing is a good thing then?
February 1, 2010 at 10:19 pm
I was at the library tonight, and I was looking at a Christian book, reading the stuff on the back, and this quote caught my eye:
“Men have so horribly abused their power over women in the past that to wives, of all people, equality is in danger of appearing as an ideal…. Have as much equality as you please–the more the better–in our marriage laws: but at some level consent to inequality, nay delight in inequality is an *erotic* necessity.” C.S. Lewis (1943) “Present Concerns”
He’s basically talking about how he doesn’t see equality as something that can truly exist, because we intrinsically need something to bow down to, or to be bowed down to ourselves. Within marriage, he says that we cannot always *be* equals, because the relationship is not just a friendship. Anyway, I’ll have to re-read the essay again and try to glean more from it. The image I got was Philippians, and how we should learn to humble ourselves just as Jesus did.
February 1, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Corrie said, “LOL!
Debbie, I have missed you!”
Thanks, Corrie! It’s good to be back. You guys are like family, seriously.
Actually, I’ve been away since my husband went all patrio on me last November. Friends had mailed him some Doug Phillips literature about how he could be master of his universe, how he should be worshipped like a diety, how he deserved such treatment because of his gender. This appealed to him.
Hubby sold our home, quit his job, and bought an abandoned shack in central Montana, not far from the Unabomber’s old place.
We have no electricity or plumbing, so no internet for me to communicate with you ladies. Each morning I haul water from the muddy creek bed across the valley for us to drink. (I carry an ax to smash through several inches of ice, but at least there’s water underneath– not dry, like the coming summer months.) I gather prairie muffins deposited by our milk cow, Betsy, to heat our house.
I make candles to illuminate our two-room shack, my husband allotting me use of a single taper to knit dozens of colorful socks on these winter evenings. (Most of the socks go to hubby, but I’m supposed to start a home-business to save for his wish-list: A manly sword and a Doug Phillips-y Fedora.)
Yesterday the hunger pains hit hubby so hard that he slaughtered Betsy. Since he needed a large space to slice and dress our poor old girl, I was allowed to leave our kitchen for a couple of hours.
I took the opportunity to sneak away, hitching a ride to a neighbor’s house. I used their dial-up computer to reach out to you all. I may need some help escaping farther down the dirt road–further weeks down the road.
My husband has plans to kidnap our daughters from their jobs and universities soon, and is making progress in accumulating a posse. He’s having less success convincing our grown sons to return home to further his vision–once he figures out what that vision is, anyway.
KIDDING! I’m doing great, still happily married (nearly 30 years) to a guy who respects and honors me, and shares my wicked sense of humor. We still have a house, job, and several normal, independent, grown kids.
It was my husband’s idea, in fact, to have some fun and write this tall tale. He gets it; he gets us. I am a lucky gal, for sure.
And I wasn’t joking about the “like family” comment, either.
February 2, 2010 at 12:47 am
From that link above:
“God’s Word speaks volumes to the relationship between fathers and daughters: His most sacred duty is her protection and preservation from childhood to virtuous womanhood…”
Really? I’m having a hard time finding these “volumes” of scripture that supposedly talk about the Godly father-daughter relationship. There’s a few stories in there but all the ones I can think of are terribly negative. David, whose daughter, Tamar, was raped by her brother; Jepthah who made a rash vow and ended up sacrificing his daughter; Jacob, whose daughter, Dinah, was also raped by a local prince; Mordecai, who let his “daughter” be given into a king’s harem; the man in Judges 19 who offered his daughter to the crowd of perverts (who gang-raped her all night); Lot and his daughters…….’nough said.
Not a lot of “protection and preservation” going on in those Bible relationships.
Seriously, how can anyone knowledgable in scripture swallow any of those outlandish “scriptural” claims made by that group???
February 2, 2010 at 1:01 am
Abby, regarding Lewis, you can get a better idea of what he meant if you read the Perelandra Trilogy. It’s a three volume set, and the matter of equality of the sexes is dealt with splendidly in the last book, “That Hideous Strength”, but unfortunately it wasn’t written as a “stand alone” novel, and you’d need to read the first two to “get” the third one.
February 2, 2010 at 1:03 am
Check this out:
February 2, 2010 at 2:48 am
Wow! I’ve been away for a few days and the first post in my Google reader was yours, Debbie. You almost had me going there…nice writing, glad you are still safe and sane.
February 2, 2010 at 8:39 am
Cynthia–thanks for the suggestion! I’ve actually been waiting for the other two books to come back to my library, because they have That Hideous Strength, but the first two are out right now. I might have to reserve them, though!
February 2, 2010 at 8:46 am
The link about homeschooling is really troubling.
“Compulsory schooling is one of the greatest social achievements of our time,” Josef Kraus, head of the German Teachers’ Association.
Wow. Why? Why should society force children to attend public school? This is something that I don’t understand, and it definitely ISN’T democratic.
It’s kind of a cause and effect situation: Forcing all children to attend school with the same curriculum will eventually make them indoctrinated into that society’s “System” and no one will ever question what the government does. Obviously that’s a little extreme, but nonetheless probable. It’s the same with Gotthardites and any other Christian group that makes its own curriculum. And it’s the same with Communist governments. When people are all forced to learn the same information, they will eventually all think the same way, and anyone who doesn’t is a troublemaker!
February 2, 2010 at 10:17 am
I added this new Voddie quote this am via the Generation Cedar blog:
“I believe one of the greatest crutches in the church is the nursery. Parents who have neglected to train their children have very little encouragement to do so when there is a place to hide them. The father who should be up in arms by the time he gets home from church because of the embarrassment to which his child subjected him ends up going home with a clear conscience while the nursery worker takes a handful of aspirin.” -Voddie Baucham
If we truly believe that children are part of the body of Christ, isn’t part of our job at church to minister to little ones? And part of that is understanding their developmental stages, what they are capable of, etc. This is just more of the same sort of teaching that comes out of the whole patriocentric mindset…control, power, making the dad look good.
February 2, 2010 at 11:08 am
One of my pet peeves is churches that don’t have a nursery. For me, the fact that there was a nursery available for each of my six children meant that I was able to participate at least a little in the worship service. Yes, I had the care of the other children, but it is so very hard to take care of them and a baby at the same time.
Most full time mothers are already with their children 24 hours a day. When faced with another church service with no available help, many reach the conclusion that it is easier to just stay home rather than try to sit with the child or spend the whole service in the foyer. What kind of church is not interested in the spiritual development of the mothers of young children?
I know that theoretically, the father is supposed to be there, but my husband has a job that keeps him away fairly often. Also, our pastor’s wife would be unable to have his help during the service. And I am sure that there are other reasons that more help is needed – not just “incompetence” of parenting methods.
February 2, 2010 at 11:43 am
kebbler–the other obvious flaw in that plan is that if the mother gets to go to church and participate while dad watches the little ones and has to go in and out of the service with them, then the dad misses out on a sermon or communion or whatever else might be part of the service if he has to take a child in the hallway to quiet them.
I grew up in a church where we had Sunday school before church, but there was a nursery for very young children DURING the service. Any child over 5 was expected to (and really ought to be able to handle–in any church if need be) stay with their parents during the service. But they wouldn’t really “get” any of it.
Churches NEED to focus on young children and how to reach them, as children coming to Christ before their teens is CRITICAL to future spiritual development. And I’m not talking about a superficial “I believe in God” kind of faith, but a lasting faith that holds on even when they leave their parents’ home.
Voddie Baucham can criticize all he wants, he just doesn’t understand at all what it is really about.
February 2, 2010 at 11:47 am
Karen, the more I read that quote the more infuriated I am! Am I to understand that any parent who wants to sit through a church service and put their children in a nursery are horrible parents? And that all nursery workers are secretly miserable? This is just absolutely ridiculous! My children’s teachers in church are absolutely wonderful, they clearly love teaching children about Jesus or just spending time with babies and toddlers while their parents have a time to worship God in community! They MISS my daughter when we go to a different service! They remember their names, they are wonderful Christian people and I wouldn’t trade a single one of them! My daughter even has a teacher that we see regularly in other church services who still remembers her name and I think that is just awesome! But perhaps we are just the exception, in our church of 7,000.
February 2, 2010 at 11:50 am
Exactly!
I don’t want to be in a church where people don’t consider children as valuable members of the congregation, and where they aren’t interested enough in their needs that they are willing to participate or at least facilitate a nursery.
Our last church didn’t have a nursery or Sunday School(not enough children),and I ended up having to sit in the kitchen with our kids, Sunday after Sunday. I finally left, for many reasons, but the lack of interest in the children and the message that we ought to just discipline them more so they weren’t disruptive, was very high on my list of objections.
February 2, 2010 at 11:53 am
This sentence oozes patriocentricity out of every pore. Oh my… It’s the “my children are there for me, to advance my cause, to bring me honor, polish my ego” mentality. So sad.
February 2, 2010 at 12:26 pm
I have actually flip flopped about this issue.
We rarely used a nursery as our children were growing up,usually beginning in the pew with the smaller ones and taking them out to walk as necessary. Much of it depended on the child at the time and what was at the root of the disruption they were causing. One of our boys has learning disabilities and there were seasons when he really struggled with self-control even though he was not little. He was also way too disruptive in the nursery when he was little (made a beeline for girls’ hair bows immediately and pulled them out!) so that wasn’t an option.
Now I have come to see the value of a nursery and think it should be an option but not one that everyone has to use. (There are some churches that frown on children in worship and I disagree with that.) If we really consider the developmental stages in a child’s life, we have to realize our littlest ones are not physically wired to sit through a long service, especially one of these highly regulated patrioentric ones with 2 hour sermons etc.. Sure, you can train a child to do it but at what cost? I have seen way too many “rods” sticking out of diaper bags and wooden spoons beating the ground around the a blanket during blanket training time. Why? What is the point? I think Voddie tells us…the father’s glory. (Do you remember the Scott Brown told us that a man’s goal is to bring glory to his earthy father?)
While I think it is good to get children into a regular worship service at a young age, I don’t think it should be the only option and certainly not a situation where a child is physically restrained or beaten in order to have them be there.
I have shared this story before, but we once went to church with a family who believed in thigh and cheek pinching in order to have well behaved children. I used to cringed to see a baby who was just learning to use his little voice at 8 or 9 months of age have his little cheek pinched so hard it left a red mark every time he babbled. He learned to be quiet alright but at what cost? And then one Sunday I looked over at a little one who was about 3 and when our eyes met I winked at him. He smiled at me but his father promptly pinched the little boy’s inner thigh until tears where running down the child’s cheeks. He began to sob without making a sound and I got the message, too. God’s house is not for smiling at older ladies! I was too stunned and intimidated to anything back then but boy oh boy if that were today it would be a different story.
February 2, 2010 at 1:11 pm
The paradox here is that many patriarchal groups are credobaptist — they don’t even believe that children can be saved until they reach the age of reason, usually as a young adult.
So, what is the point of infants and toddlers having to sit through a two-hour church service?
February 2, 2010 at 1:21 pm
I just want to know if Voddie Baucham has ever had to keep all of his small children occupied and quiet through an entire worship service.
February 2, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Karen, I absolutely agree that there is a time to train children to sit through a service–how would we ever be able to attend a wedding or funeral or some other function where we needed to be quiet. They need to learn there are times when they need to sit quietly.
But we should always have an option in CHURCH for children, and children’s behavior in a service does not reflect on their parents as much as the parents would like to believe. If I took my 22 month old into an 11:30 church service without giving him lunch and expected him to sit quietly and not whine, well, I’m just being stupid. He needs to eat lunch at 11 or 12, and takes a nap soon after! He’d be hungry and tired, which would make him cranky–and sitting still? Forgetaboutit. He won’t sit still for five minutes at home, I’m not going to be able to get him to sit still AND be quiet in a church! It’s honestly laughable that we should expect things of children that are just not developmentally expected.
Besides that, abusing your children for behaving exactly as children naturally do, that just hurts my heart.
I honestly don’t get the whole “Children are there to honor their fathers” thing. Yes, we ought to honor our parents, but is this something that has to come down from the parents, like “HONOR ME, OR ELSE” or shouldn’t it be “I love you, Dad (or Mom), so I know it is right to honor you.” Dishonorable parents really don’t deserve any honor from their children, and I don’t think that commandment was ever meant for children to be abused into some sort of sick grovelling obedience. I also don’t think that “bringing honor” to your parents is something that children should be expected to do, I think that this, also is subjective. Children (even as adults) should be loved IN SPITE of any dishonorable thing they might do. I’m not seeing this in the Patrio world. We don’t live in the Old Testament, why would we want to bring that kind of culture to America?
February 2, 2010 at 1:27 pm
emr, certainly not! He’s tying a heavy load on the backs of over-worked young parents, but he wouldn’t lift a finger to help them! And he probably has little idea of what it is really like, he’s the preacher!
February 2, 2010 at 1:39 pm
“If we really consider the developmental stages in a child’s life, we have to realize our littlest ones are not physically wired to sit through a long service, especially one of these highly regulated patrioentric ones with 2 hour sermons etc.. ”
Well said, Thatmom. I actually am concerned, not impressed, when I see a very young child sitting still as a church mouse in church. It’s not natural for them–God made most of ‘em squirmy. If they’re not, usually something’s not right.
“The father who should be up in arms by the time he gets home from church because of the embarrassment to which his child subjected him ends up going home with a clear conscience while the nursery worker takes a handful of aspirin.”
Oh, Voddie Voddie Voddie. Why should the father be the one “up in arms”? That makes it sound like he is innocent of the problem. So the mom’s solely to blame, I guess? Bad kid behavior = mom’s fault. Good kid behavior = glorified father.
BTW, why do patrios rarely use the word DAD? They almost always go for the more exalted FATHER.
February 2, 2010 at 1:42 pm
At my in-laws church in Denver they’ve walled off one side of the nave with soundproof glass. So that families with little children can sit in there, listen to the mass over a speaker, watch and participate, while no one else has to listen to their children crying. My MIL is a Eucharistic minister, it was her job the day we went to bring the host over to that section. It certainly seemed to be a workable system, just an expensive one.
February 2, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Cynthia, there are some patriarchal groups that practice paedocommunion as well as paedobaptism.
I understand that it’s necessary for small children to be able to sit quietly when necessary, but I wonder how much they are learning. (Of course it’s a point of pride that nothing in the service is “dumbed down” to be accessible from a child’s viewpoint.) Some kids are going to pick up on the message and have some level of understanding. Some kids, I fear, are just going to learn that church is *really, really* boring.
February 2, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Re: # 231
I’ve been on both sides of this too. But eventually realized, like a lot of things, it isn’t necessarily an “either/or” decision. There are many variables and it comes down to using common sense.
February 2, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Thatmom posted, “And then one Sunday I looked over at a little one who was about 3 and when our eyes met I winked at him. He smiled at me but his father promptly pinched the little boy’s inner thigh until tears where running down the child’s cheeks. He began to sob without making a sound and I got the message, too. God’s house is not for smiling at older ladies! I was too stunned and intimidated to anything back then but boy oh boy if that were today it would be a different story.”
Oh, my. My breath caught a bit in my throat just reading that. How incredibly heartbreaking. Sobbing silently. For smiling. I know these people believe that they are “right”, even “oh-so-right”, but what kind of monsters??????
Okay, I need to take a bit of a walk.
February 2, 2010 at 3:54 pm
“while the nursery worker takes a handful of aspirin.” -Voddie Baucham
Wow – what stuns me about this is his assumption of what nursery workers feel about serving in the nursery. I have volunteered in the nursery for YEARS, taking care of ages from newborn to 4 year olds. Never once have I felt the need to take an aspirin or looked at nursery duty with the type of disdain that Voddie does. Sure, there are occasionally children that act up, but my experience has been that it’s a BLESSING to care for those children.
February 2, 2010 at 4:31 pm
millenniumwoman Said: “Sure, you can train a child to do it but at what cost? I have seen way too many “rods” sticking out of diaper bags and wooden spoons beating the ground around the a blanket during blanket training time. Why? What is the point? ”
Wow, your post hit a nerve. Every time I visit my daughter and attend her church I see this and it makes me ill. This is a church that had classes on GKGW and has been influenced by the teachings of Douglas Wilson, Ted Tripp, Fugate and some others. During the service it is common to see some of the fathers frequently taking their small children out of the service and I figured they were just taking them to the bathroom. Then I found out these children (mostly they are between ages 12mos to 5yrs) are being taken out and spanked for not obeying. Not obeying means they are told to stop moving a leg, keep still, not lean against the parent, sing when told to or stand up when told to and are being defiant which means they not instantly obeying with a cheerful attitude. These children are sitting right in front of me and I have never seen any of them disruptive in any way. They are well behaved, nice children so what I am seeing makes no sense to me. Some of these parents carry whackers in their pockets or purses. This is really offensive to me.
On one Sunday I watched the father sitting ahead of me take his little daughter (about 3yrs old) out several times and for the life of me I couldn’t figure out why, I mean she was quietly sitting there. After the third time I got up to go to the bathroom and saw her taken into the pastors office. As I walked past the office I could hear her being spanked and crying. A few minutes I came back past the office and she was still being spanked and crying. At this point I opened the door to the outer office, looked into the inner office and saw the child on the floor crying with both parents lecturing her about obeying. I was so upset, if they had still been spanking her I think I would have opened the office door and said something, but since they had stopped I went back into the church service.
After the service I had the opportunity to speak with the pastor in his office, and there in his office laying on a table was wooden paddle with holes in it. I told him that I was concerned for the children I had seen taken out to be spanked, concerned that they would view God as punitive, or view church as the place where they got spanked and said I felt what I had seen was excessive. He wanted to know if I had ever taken mine out of a service to be spanked, my answer was no, it had never been necessary. After the church service I have heard some of the moms say how frustrated they are because it seems to them that all they do is swat their children all day. It all makes me feel so sad.
When I spoke to the pastor of my daughter’s church, I said that the parents taking the children out to be spanked was more distracting than anything any child did. It is really distracting. I also said that if at my age I have difficulty sitting still in a church service then why should children be expected to sit still. Just thinking of that paddle being used on my grandchildren or any child still horrifies me. I find myself on Sundays in church thinking about those children and praying for them. My daughter and I are both members of the same denomination so it was a shock to see that happen in her church when nothing like that ever happens in the church I attend.
This occurred a few years back and I find it still appalling and offensive because it is still happening. These are all good parents who love their children, do really neat things with them and cherish them, hopefully their children will feel that even with the excessive spanking being done to them in the name of “godly discipline”.
February 2, 2010 at 4:41 pm
At my in-laws church in Denver they’ve walled off one side of the nave with soundproof glass. So that families with little children can sit in there, listen to the mass over a speaker, watch and participate, while no one else has to listen to their children crying.
I’ve seen that too. They usually have toys to entertain little ones in there too.
February 2, 2010 at 4:44 pm
emr Says: “Some kids are going to pick up on the message and have some level of understanding. Some kids, I fear, are just going to learn that church is *really, really* boring”
So true. When my oldest grandchild was 5yrs old, I was amazed that he could remember much of a sermon that we had heard that morning and that the two of us could sit out on the porch swing and discuss it. I have never felt that his sister who is a year younger than him gets it in the same way he still does.
February 2, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Abby,
Re. post 234. I agree with you.
You can’t force a child to honor you. You can beat a child into fearing you, and you can teach a child to obey out of fear for negative consequences, but is that what we want?
I don’t want my children to fear me, although they will naturally know that some actions will bring consequences, but I want them to obey out of trust and love, and a desire to please me, not fear.
I learned early enough to obey out of fear, and to hide disobedience (lie) out of fear too. I always felt burdened and bad, but the fear of punishment kept me in the vicious cycle.
I agree with you that children need to learn to sit still, but depending on their age and their personalities, they will be able to sit more or less still, and for longer. I wouldn’t expect my 6 yo and 4 yo to sit still through a two hour sermon, unless they had just eaten and were taking a nice, long nap! My 2 year old.. you can forget about that!
Our church growing up was a small house church. We children were expected to sit with some grownup during the first part of the service which included singing, some prayers, and communion. After that came the awaited “the children may now go to their classes”. Knowing when it will be over, and the fact that we participated in most of what was going on (singing), made it a lot easier for us to do.
February 2, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Abby,
Children are not forced to attend public school, they are required to attend school from the age of 6 to 16. There are good Christian schools and other schools (Waldorf and Montessori come to mind), that are good alternatives for parents who don’t want their children to attend public school.
You are right about people conforming. This is true. But the way I know Germans (I live here), they aren’t conformists who don’t ask questions. They are definitely law-abiding and like uniformity, like nice neat houses with perfect gardens, but at the same time, children don’t wear an uniform to school (like British children do), and are respected as individuals. At least, that’s what we have found in our first two years of Kindergarten (which is not yet school)
I’m not so afraid of indoctrination as I am of losing freedoms and of the government taking over our parental responsibility.
I don’t agree with the family fleeing Germany and seeking asylum in the US on the grounds of persecution, because all parents in Germany know that by the age of six their children must go to school, by law, so if they break the law, they can expect the government to come down on them. There are years to make plans, and there is a way to leave the country if you don’t want to send your children to school. We live in Germany and would like to leave, but if we can’t leave before our eldest has to enter public school, he’ll just have to go.
I see good reasons to have compulsory education, or, at least, that parents must show proof that their children are receiving a good education. There are parents who couldn’t care less and would not bother getting their children to school if there were no consequences.
All things considered, Germany is a country where we still enjoy a lot of freedom, and there is a lot of support for families. Many people have it much worse around the world.
Should Germany take into consideration parental right to (responsibly) choose whether to send their children to school or not? I think so. As I said, I’m more worried about freedom and personal responsibility being taken away in the name of protecting minorities, than I am of indoctrination.
February 2, 2010 at 5:41 pm
“The other thing I found very interesting is the bios of the Botkin girls. Previously they’ve been presented based on their book, their gifts, etc. These bios are all about how they are serving their father. It becomes, as Alice said, “Curiouser and curiouser.”
emr,
I wonder what those patrio websites and bios will look like 50 years from now? Probably not so bragadocious – when the daughters are pushing their fathers in wheelchairs, helping them bathe and feeding them with a spoon.
February 2, 2010 at 7:06 pm
“He smiled at me but his father promptly pinched the little boy’s inner thigh until tears where running down the child’s cheeks. He began to sob without making a sound and I got the message, too. God’s house is not for smiling at older ladies! I was too stunned and”
This and Mary’s similar comments just left me speechless for a while…Can they really believe this is what Jesus would do? Would they treat the child this way if they could see Jesus physically standing right there watching? It’s as though their Bibles have Col. 3:21 and all references to mercy, grace and understanding removed. I realize these are young parents – trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here – maybe they are simply THAT ignorant of child development…but this is hard to take. Years ago I spent about 1 1/2 years attending a patrio type church, but thankfully never witnessed or suspected anyone of treating/abusing their children in this way.
February 2, 2010 at 7:18 pm
madame Says:
January 19, 2010 at 10:52 am
If the creation order is that important and clearly reveals who ought to rule over whom, then why is it that humans were created last?
And why did God give dominion over the animals to the male AND female together?
I think God meant that humankind has dominion over the animals, and are meant to work together.
The article would have annoyed me a year or so ago. Now I just find it amusing how they can fail to see, over and over and over again, that it’s not Christ like to seek to rule over others. They keep missing it.
My response:
I can see where this can be confusing. However, you must look at it from God’s view. When a man and women are married, they become one flesh. This oneness is much greater than sex, it is the intertwining of two lives into one life together. However, there are still two distinct individuals that can be seen. So often times God recognizes the two, and sometimes he recognizes the one.
But in the relationship, God has cleared set the man over the women. However this does not mean that she does not have a role in subjecting creation. I often think of one of my favorite movies, “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”, where the mother tells the daughter that her father is the head of the house, but that she is the neck, and she can turn the head to look in different directions to see different things. When I saw this, I thought to myself how true her words are. A good wife does herself credit and her family credit when she is able to turn her head’s eyes onto something that needs attention, which he must focus on. Needless to say, men need women to help us focus our eyes to where they should be. However, I will not go on about how women need men, for the focus on Genesis was that Adam was alone in the Garden, and God saw that this was not good, so he created women out of man for her to be his help mate. God’s statement it two fold, it sets up creation order, while at the same time clearly defines a women’s noble purpose.
February 2, 2010 at 8:27 pm
The baby was disciplined for SMILING???
Sheesh, those people should never come to our church or they’ll have a nervous break-down. In our chuch, it’s commonly expected that cute babies will distract everyone within 3 pews of them. Our pastor often “rebukes” (jokingly) from the pulpit all the folks who are smiling at a baby instead of listening to him. He’s been known to laugh and raise his voice to be heard over a screaming child being drug out of the sanctuary. Our church is noisy, distracting, and so full of love that you can feel it. We laugh at the kid who yells “amen!” or loudly answers the preacher when he asks a rhetorical question (some funny stories there!).
My heart goes out to that poor little boy who can’t even smile at church. I wonder how long he sticks around church when he’s older….
February 2, 2010 at 8:53 pm
But in the relationship, God has cleared set the man over the women.
Check your creation account again. Nowhere does God command the man to rule over or lead the woman. Why don’t you give me the verse in Genesis where God tells the man he is OVER the woman? *crickets* … *crickets* … *crickets*
I often think of one of my favorite movies, “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”, where the mother tells the daughter that her father is the head of the house, but that she is the neck, and she can turn the head to look in different directions to see different things.
Actually, the mother in that movie says, “…and she can turn the neck ANY WAY SHE WANTS.” Which is, quite frankly, sad. But true, in far too many marriages. And it’s manipulation, pure and simple. And that’s the problem with the whole patrio movement, Michael, because women end up manipulating their husbands instead of dealing with them directly, since that can be seen as being “unsubmissive.”
it sets up creation order, while at the same time clearly defines a women’s noble purpose. Woman’s purpose is clearly laid out in scripture. She is man’s ezer. I suggest you do a word study on ezer. It is used 22 times in the OT, 21 times to refer to God as our ezer. It means rescuer, ally, helper … but does not connote subordination at all. God clearly tells us woman’s purpose in Genesis. It is to rule over the earth WITH the man. Not as his junior assistant, but right alongside him.
February 2, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Mcneil: “But in the relationship, God has cleared set the man over the women.”
Clear to you and to all the men who conveniently ignore the words of Jesus Christ Himself, the Word of Life. But not clear if you take the WHOLE counsel of scripture and not just a few apparently male favoring ones.
Micheal, you search the scriptures because you think in them you have dominion(life). But those scriptures speak of Jesus Christ and bear witness of Him. But you refuse to go to Him that you may have life (and a happy marriage) (John 5:39 & 40)
Stop pushing your false doctrine down the throats of women. It’s bitter water and poisons the life out of us.
Come back when you have actually met and learned from Him who gives of Himself and Living water freely. Then you might have something to say to us. Otherwise, all you bring is death.
(P.S. Not saying you aren’t saved, but am saying you deeply misunderstand what being saved is all about. It’t NOT all about you being the boss and having your way. That’s the world’s system. Reject that worldly system so you can actually learn Life from God.)
Sorry ladies, I get so sick of men blabbing on about their authority.
“Submit ta ma authoritay!”
sheesh.
February 2, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Michael #249
The very fact that men and women are complementary means that they MUST be equal. How can the husband be “over” (have authority over) the wife if it is established that she has a unique contribution? How can the wife have authority over the husband when he has a different perspective and unique contribution? For how can the brain say it is better than the lungs? Or the blood has authority over the skin, when neither can function without the other?
No, that quote from Big Fat Greek Wedding is exactly what is all wrong.
You altered the quote slightly, so here it is word for word:
“The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants.”
This quote is about manipulation. It shows how little respect Maria has for Gus. It is not about helping him see a different perspective, it is about making him do what she wants him to do.
February 2, 2010 at 11:03 pm
I caught Reb Bradley on Family Life Today last week talking about parents who are “standard bearers” vs. those who have their children’s hearts. Good to hear him get some airtime talking about this problem, which he sees as pervasive in the homeschooling world. This is the first episode of 3, for anyone who wants to listen.
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/FamilyLife_Today/archives.asp?bcd=2010-1-27
February 3, 2010 at 12:27 am
“The baby was disciplined for SMILING??? ”
We adult Christians are supposed to become as little children, not take little children and make them into dour, sanctimonious adults.
This type of incident causes me to wonder if these people KNOW the God they are trying to worship at all.
February 3, 2010 at 1:15 am
A visiting family’s little boy remarked, “Nobody coughs in that church” after sitting through a two hour service in our old church. Yet, parents hauled kids out of the service all the time and they were always coming back sodden faced and dry heaving.
I watched a very angry looking guest pastor haul off and repeatedly hit his two year old and lecture her on obedience and his authority for stepping back and forth from foot to foot and finally tugging on his jacket saying she had to go pee. Her mother had not come with them.
The man was busy talking theology with another “esteemed Man of God”. This happened after the service in the back foyer. I was standing with him and two other persons and the child was behaving no differently than anyone who waited too long to go pee.
I’m embarrassed to say I didn’t say anything. I’ve mentioned to a few of these type of men since, online about their inappropriate behaviour and they have always revealed their crazy character by going ballistic.
I’ve seen a lot of very, very mean people in reformed circles – controlling to the point of sheer stupidity. We were taught by pastors to “Beat your child until he breaks” and “close your windows so the neighbours don’t call social services on you when your kid is screaming.” The pastor who told us this had a daughter run away from home.
I spanked for all kinds of stupid reasons too, until one day I thought this is insane, I’m not doing this madness anymore. Things worked better by anticipating the kids’ needs and capabilities and working with that. I hate that we were ever caught up in that thinking.
February 3, 2010 at 3:34 am
Mary,
The story in comment 242 made me feel sick.
What did the pastor say when you pointed out how you felt about the discipline? And what did he say when you pointed out that parents taking their children out to be spanked was more distracting than anything a child did during the service?
It’s sad that years after you spoke with him, these things are still going on.
I wonder whether that three year old little girl will leave the church when she is old enough. It wouldn’t suprise me in the least. Church, for her, is the place to go to be spanked for doing nothing other than being herself. And God is the one who wants it that way.
Every parent who treats their children like that, for no good reason, ought to get some of their own medicine. I propose those parents each get a “guardian” who whacks them every time they shift in their seat.
February 3, 2010 at 3:35 am
Those are the funniest stories.
February 3, 2010 at 3:37 am
[...] This second one leads to a thread on the Blog True Womanhood and is basically a discussion between some very intelligent ladies on the subject of patrio-centrism and its impact on families and women trapped in them. patriocentricity 10 [...]
February 3, 2010 at 7:50 am
I said:
Every parent who treats their children like that, for no good reason, ought to get some of their own medicine.
It should read:
Every parent who treats their children like that ought to get some of their own medicine.
There is no good reason to keep taking your children out of a church service to spank them. If they can’t sit quietly, work on it gradually. Those poor children are probably way too young to sit through a preaching!
February 3, 2010 at 8:40 am
Count me among those so stunned by reading these accounts of child abuse that I could not comment immediately.
Are these people really so stupid? Do they not understand that the message they are continually sending is that God is NOT love, rather that God can NOT stand love or happiness or friendliness or little children?
They think they are teaching their children how to follow Jesus? They are not teaching their children to follow Jesus!
They are teaching their children that love equals domination.
They are teaching their children that if you reject and hate yourself first then God will accept you, otherwise you WILL be punished.
They are teaching their children that God likes people who hide their true selves from others, so much so that adults are allowed to be petty, vain, proud, violent, hard-hearted and tyrannical as long as the outward persona is quiet around others.
They are teaching that peer approval is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing of all.
These children learning such things are the next generation of wounded hearts, cruelly abusing themselves and others because they know no other way to live.
Many of them will leave the religion, but few of them will ever be able to leave the abuse.
It’s always what we DO rather than what we SAY that is really shaping our children’s future lives.
February 3, 2010 at 8:51 am
Our dear Hillary has a great article on her blog this week:
http://quiveringdaughters.blogspot.com/2010/01/white-washed-idolatry.html
White-washed idolatry? I think she nailed it!
February 3, 2010 at 8:53 am
“We adult Christians are supposed to become as little children, not take little children and make them into dour, sanctimonious adults.”
Amen!
I always grieves me to see children pushed into adulthood from an early age and then placed into a holding pattern once they are young adults. Does this make any sense at all?
February 3, 2010 at 8:57 am
Three cheers for Reb Bradley telling it like it is.
A couple years ago we heard Steve Lambert from Five in a Row talk about some of the same things. It was terrific. Someone recently told me that during one of the workshops we hadn’t attended, Steve talked about the number of “arranged marriages/betrothal deals” have resulted in divorce. I guess it was a powerful presentation and quite eye opening. Good for these men who are finally speaking out. They are joined by John Holzmann from Sonlight and even Norm Wakefield as Hillary points out.
February 3, 2010 at 8:58 am
Corrie, if you are reading today, maybe you should tell us that face-slapping story again. It would go with this thread of discussion and it really shows that a lack of respect for children and their autonomy is at the center of much of the patriocentric thinking.
February 3, 2010 at 9:00 am
“They are teaching their children that God likes people who hide their true selves from others, so much so that adults are allowed to be petty, vain, proud, violent, hard-hearted and tyrannical as long as the outward persona is quiet around others.”
AAAhhh, yes, that “gentle and quiet spirit” verse that has been hijacked out of context and used to whip women who have an opinion. As long as you are outwardly “quiet and gentle” in outward manner, you are godly.
February 3, 2010 at 9:41 am
Karen,
The very last weekend my family was at my partiocentric brother-in-laws camp, our family suffered a violent and hear-breaking incident.
I was very emotional- crying, angrily denouncing the animal responsible (not the people who owned said animal, just the animal) and cursing like a sailor in my gut-wrenching mixture of pity, anger, fear, and regret. (I was holding a beloved family pet screaming in pain for twenty minutes. VERY TRAUMATIC!!!!)
My daughter, who was already depressed, was in emotional shock. It was her therapy pet, her best friend. She did not react at all, but was stone-faced and silent.
Later Mr. Patrio wrote to my husband about how “proud” he was at the way my daughter “handled” the situation. This was is the same email in which he denounced me as a wicked person.
Quiet=righteous, right?
In this case, quiet= extremely traumatized beyond words. My daughter l-o-v-e-d her little dog. It was three months before she could cry. She kept her wall plastered with pictures of her dog for two years after that, and wore his collar as a bracelet about the same amount of time. She lovingly tended the rose bush we planted over the dog’s grace, and I mean religiously tended it daily. It was the healthiest plant I have ever seen.
And all those years, she has hated her uncle. She hates him with a passion, albeit a quiet passion!
I have spoken with her on many occasions about forgiving him. I am still praying that she will be free to forgive him. As of the last time we talked, she still hates the man.
As for me, I got over it and forgave him within weeks. Being so expressive about my heart to God is really healing.
But to the patrios, I am wicked because I express emotion and because I dared confront a man about his reckless decisions and the violent result.
At least my husband took up for me that time!
February 3, 2010 at 10:03 am
You know, I was thinking last night that in the same way this probably pretty small (I hope) segment of “Christian” parents who swat, hit, beat, whack, and pinch their little children give Christians who believe that corporal punishment has a limited and temperate place in an overall discipline plan a bad name – the same as those who have abused the concept of homeschooling to isolate and control their children far into adulthood have given a bad name to homeschoolers like thatmom and shadowspring and most others.
And in the same way that reasonable homeschoolers are frightened that those who flaunt the excesses and the worst of the homeschool scenario will cause negative ramifications on the legality of homeschooling, Christian parents who spank moderately, temperately, and infrequently should be concerned that it will become illegal to hit one’s children because of the excesses of people who are spanking literally babies *for smiling*, and some of the other scenarios that have been observed and reported on this board.
In our home, we did not hit our children as a matter of course. The few times that we did resort to it, we found it counterproductive and frankly, something ugly that we didn’t want to be a part of our home. That was OUR PERSONAL opinion and the way WE chose to deal with our sons.
However, I know many Christian parents who spank occasionally under certain circumstances, and they feel that it is a positive. I support their right to make the decision that they feel is right for their home, although it is different from ours. But they likely will not keep that right if these excesses come to light in the eyes of the overall public. Normal and reasonable people, Christian or not, will certainly be appalled.
February 3, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Re: 261 Shadowspring,
In our church the emphasis was put on the fact that “foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child and the rod will beat it from him.” If you didn’t beat your child you were a bad parent. You were no better than a heathen and you may as well go push him off a cliff. You hated him. You were a disgrace. That is what we heard, day in, day out. There was no balance on love, mercy, grace. I remember the first time I suggested to my DH he consider practising grace toward one of our children as Christ had toward him. He looked like I’d picked up a 2 x 4 and stunned him with it.
Stupidity it appeared to be and did become. But I firmly believe it was simply from being in a very controlling and cultic church and ourselves being beat week in and week out with pulpit rage. Google for John Reisinger’s article “When Should A Christian Leave A Church?” We were part of that group of churches. They preach Christ but there is no question in our minds now that our experience was that of a cult.
The elders would be on your doorstep and in your bed and in your face and you would be hauled before the whole church and you would be shamed behind your back if you didn’t fall in line.
It truly rattles the thinking and normal respectable people end up beating their kids. They had a study for weeks on how to discipline your kids. The focus was on training/coercing this child, whose heart was totally depraved and filled with all manner of wickedness and evil, who God had so blessed you with and it was now your job and the job of the elders and the job of the church – SO HELP YOU GOD, PARENT! – to conform that child to God’s will.
I don’t think that people are stupid. Just mix in aberrant,twisted or incomplete understanding of pleasing God and suddenly rationality gets scewed.
Discipline in this group always meant beating. It never meant quiet talk or any other means of having the child understand his unacceptable behaviour. This is how kids were treated. This is how “unruly” members were treated.
February 3, 2010 at 12:29 pm
madame–on the German homeschooling issue. I didn’t mean my words to come out as if they were absolute truth. I hope you didn’t take it that way. If, though, that is what is going on in some parts of Germany, then it is probably very dangerous.
The way I look at it (which is “American” in many ways), no child should be “forced” to go to any school other than the one his parents choose for him. If that means he is taught at home by his mother or father, then the government really ought not get all huffy about it, as long as learning is actually going on (that’s really the important part–that they aren’t raising a feral child or simply not educating the child).
It is disturbing when I hear stories about past governments (I’m talking like the Roman Empire) that took boys away from their parents to indoctrinate them for the “State” instead of letting parents do what parents do best, and that is to parent (can I say Parent enough times?).
I think that the government ought to take a more passive role in child-rearing when there are no abuses going on (Abuse of the child, lack of education, or neglect in general), but when there is a concern, this is why we have social services. Of course, even there, things aren’t as they should be, but in general, children’s rights and parents’ rights ALWAYS need to be considered.
It doesn’t sound to me like this family had “run out of options” so to speak, but if this was really just about the right to homeschool, they might have a case. If it was about their concerns about curriculum or indoctrination, not homeschool in specific, then this is something that they could have changed by finding a private institution. It really seems like the article was crafted to omit the true motives of the family.
February 3, 2010 at 12:37 pm
I struggle a lot with the spanking issue. I’ll be honest and say that I was rarely spanked as a child, but for my husband, it was borderline (if not over the line) abuse when he got into trouble. Things were “done differently” where he was raised, but to me, this doesn’t mean that he has to be the same way.
I struggle with anger issues, and I’m very impatient, so when the house gets too noisy or chaotic, I get very frustrated and lash out. I have made mistakes, but I don’t believe I’m alone in this struggle, either. I wish it wasn’t so taboo to talk about this kind of issue without someone instantly calling children’s services just because a mom had a rough day. Giving parents options, tools, etc. to deal with anger more positively is really something I wish I could see more of.
But to see parents expect the impossible of their small children is absolutely heartbreaking. As someone who has worked for many years with young ones, I’ve learned a lot about development, and have a better understanding about what children can and can’t be expected to do at a certain age. This is why I love children’s ministry being available, because there are adults who want to hang out with kids in an appropriate setting and help them grow and learn about Jesus in a healthy, happy and loving environment. And so that I can take time out to do the same without being stressed out over my kids and whether or not they are behaving “righteously” or whatever.
February 3, 2010 at 12:48 pm
“As someone who has worked for many years with young ones, I’ve learned a lot about development, and have a better understanding about what children can and can’t be expected to do at a certain age.”
Abby, this is one reason I really want to encourage moms to be aware of those stages. Sadly, I don’t think I have ever seen, not once, a patriocentric blog where this was even acknowledged. Shoot, all they can offer is a “don’t sin” approach to adults who struggle, so why should there be any greater empathy toward children?
February 3, 2010 at 1:22 pm
“The focus was on training/coercing this child, whose heart was totally depraved and filled with all manner of wickedness and evil,”
And there’s a big clue to the whole Patrio problem – the heretical Calvinist doctrine of total depravity.
You know, if John Calvin’s parents had been Patrios, and had married him off young and encouraged him to take up farming instead of theology and law, the world could have been spared untold misery.
February 3, 2010 at 1:35 pm
I have certainly read the scripture about “if you love your child, you will beat him”, etc. There is also scripture that demands that disobedient children be stoned – to death. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny that advocates of this type of extreme abuse would use selective scripture to back up their claims. Because they surely pick and choose what scriptures they’re going to use.
This is 2010. That does not mean that the Bible is not applicable – of course, it is, when read and applied in context. But when we’re talking about language written in the *BRONZE* age, with the relative primative understanding about the psychology and emotional well-being of people (including children)that people possessed at that time, we must firstly, recognize who the audience actually was, and secondly, we must temper it with the reason and advancement in understanding that God has also given us.
February 3, 2010 at 1:51 pm
You know, I was thinking last night that in the same way this probably pretty small (I hope) segment of “Christian” parents who swat, hit, beat, whack, and pinch their little children give Christians who believe that corporal punishment has a limited and temperate place in an overall discipline plan a bad name – the same as those who have abused the concept of homeschooling to isolate and control their children far into adulthood have given a bad name to homeschoolers like thatmom and shadowspring and most others.
And in the same way that reasonable homeschoolers are frightened that those who flaunt the excesses and the worst of the homeschool scenario will cause negative ramifications on the legality of homeschooling, Christian parents who spank moderately, temperately, and infrequently should be concerned that it will become illegal to hit one’s children because of the excesses of people who are spanking literally babies *for smiling*, and some of the other scenarios that have been observed and reported on this board.
You should be.
As someone outside the Christian community, the prevailing belief that we see is that Christians and other religious fundamentalists beat their children to encourage mindless obedience. Full stop.
And I know not every Christian beats their children, and I know that there is supposed to be a difference between spanking and beating (although I disagree, that’s not my point), and I know that it’s not in the message of Christ. But there’s enough of this kind of thing:
In our church the emphasis was put on the fact that “foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child and the rod will beat it from him.” If you didn’t beat your child you were a bad parent. You were no better than a heathen and you may as well go push him off a cliff. You hated him. You were a disgrace. That is what we heard, day in, day out.
…
It truly rattles the thinking and normal respectable people end up beating their kids. They had a study for weeks on how to discipline your kids. The focus was on training/coercing this child, whose heart was totally depraved and filled with all manner of wickedness and evil, who God had so blessed you with and it was now your job and the job of the elders and the job of the church – SO HELP YOU GOD, PARENT! – to conform that child to God’s will.
…to color many opinions of both the church as a whole, and the faith as well.
February 3, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Wade Burleson’s blog today, about Christians and OT law, is excellent and relevant to your post Savannah.
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/
February 3, 2010 at 3:20 pm
madame Says: “What did the pastor say when you pointed out how you felt about the discipline? And what did he say when you pointed out that parents taking their children out to be spanked was more distracting than anything a child did during the service”
That’s when he asked me if I have never taken mine out of a service to be spanked. When I answered “no”, his response was his wife had occasionally taken theirs out during a service. He also made the comment that perhaps some of the parents were overdoing it. Apart from that he really didn’t have much else to say. I did notice a subtle difference after that; something I can’t exactly put my finger on, though children were and still are taken out, it doesn’t seem as excessive as it did.
madame Says: I propose those parents each get a “guardian” who whacks them every time
they shift in their seat
I have often thought the same thing. Someone needs to take a whacker or glue stick to them and see how they like it. On a side note I now look for glue sticks in the ladies rooms in that church and throw them in the trash when I find them while muttering under my breathe “you won’t be hitting any more children” to the glue stick.
Kay Says: “Can they really believe this is what Jesus would do? Would they treat the child this way if they could see Jesus physically standing right there watching? It’s as though their Bibles have Col. 3:21 and all references to mercy, grace and understanding removed.”
They rely heavily on the Scriptures are sufficient for raising our kids (Deut 6:4-9; Eph 6:4; 2 Tim 3:16&17).
And these verses from Proverbs:
Proverbs 29 – 17Correct your son, and he will give you rest; Yes, he will give delight to your soul.
Proverbs 13 – 24He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly
Proverbs 19 – 18Chasten your son while there is hope, And do not set your heart on his destruction.
Proverbs 22 – 15Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him.
Proverbs 22 – 6Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.
Proverbs 29 – 15The rod and rebuke give wisdom, But a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.
Hebrews 12 – 3 For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls. 4You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin. 5And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: “My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; 6For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.
As far as developmental stages, the attitude with them is that stages are a psychological term and excuse for sin. It is explaining away a childs sinful nature instead of correcting it.
It is very sad and frustrating to watch feeling helpness, unable to do much other than pray.
February 3, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Abby,
This is an interesting article that explains the regulations regarding homeschooling in Germany.
http://german-way.com/blog/2009/02/03/homeschooling-verboten/
The article on the Romeike case has made German education law seem dictatorial, when the truth is, all German children (and according to the article from German Way, children residing in Germany) are expected to attend school from the ages of 6 to 16, but parents may decide which school they want their children to attend if they aren’t happy with the school in their catchment area.
My husband and all his siblings went to a Christian school, and we live very close to a Steiner/Waldorf school. If we wanted to, we could enroll our eldest in a Christian school, but we have decided it’s better for him to go to the village school because we (well I!) don’t really want him spending so much time on the bus every day.
Yes, you are right that parents should have the right to decide whether their children go to school at all, and I agree that parents shouldn’t be “relieved of their responsibility” or have their right taken away.
February 3, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Re: 277
Mary you are spot on. All the hardline scriptures but nothing to compliment and no thinking outside of that. Psychology is completely dismissed.
I was told by the pastor that schizophrenia does not exist because there was no lab test for it.
On a happier note.
One of our sons recently said he wants to make his lifework advocating for those being taken advantage of – prompted by seeing how his younger brothers were treated in the second uber-controlling church we got tangled up in. He said, “I was powerless to do anything about it. Never again.”
February 3, 2010 at 4:23 pm
“The article on the Romeike case has made German education law seem dictatorial, when the truth is, all German children (and according to the article from German Way, children residing in Germany) are expected to attend school from the ages of 6 to 16, but parents may decide which school they want their children to attend if they aren’t happy with the school in their catchment area.”
In my opinion, the part in bold IS dictatorial. It is not decreeing that all young citizens have a right to an education, it is dictating that all young citizens ATTEND SCHOOL.
That is a huge difference!
Here in the US, the Supreme Court decided that the state’s obligation to see that every young citizen has access to an education must be balanced with a parent’s right to privacy and to direct the upbringing of their children.
That is why home schooling can be and is regulated in every state, but can not be and is not prohibited in any state.
Just as the Germans can oversee or regulate private schools, they could easily make laws to oversee home schools to ensure that children are educated adequately.
It was my understanding that Germany would not allow home schooling because they are afraid that the large fundamentalist MUSLIM population would be further isolated from the rest of German society. Is this not the case? (My young Muslim neighbor from across the street once asked me to please not ever tell her parents about home schooling. She was afraid she would never be able to leave the house if they knew it was an option.)
I tend to see their point, though I am not sure how I might advocate resolving it. I do find home schooling itself an excellent way to teach and learn. Unfortunately, it is a ripe venue for zealots to abuse for their advantage unless there is oversight. Personally I expect to see more oversight of home schooling in America in the future.
February 3, 2010 at 5:28 pm
“As far as developmental stages, the attitude with them is that stages are a psychological term and excuse for sin. It is explaining away a childs sinful nature instead of correcting it.”
Mary,
There just seems to be such disconnect with these people on certain things. I’m sure none of them would expect or require their 2 day old infant to walk into church, feed themselves and change their own diapers…It’s as though good sense just gets thrown out the window. We all have our blind spots, I know, but…????
February 3, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Shadowspring,
I was just talking about this with my husband. I don’t know all the reasons why school is compulsory for children ages 6-16 in Germany.
Reading the sentence you boldened, it definitely sounds dictatorial, and I guess access to education shouldn’t be an obligation but a right.
The article made it sound like the parents had no option but to send their children to their local school or homeschool them (and risk losing them), but if their main problem was the anti-Christian curriculum, they had the option of sending their children to a Christian school. The parents were ready to make huge investments and sacrifices (move abroad and try their luck!), they could have also found a good Christian school to send their children to.
I’m not FOR the German homeschooling ban. I believe all parents should have the right to choose how their children will get the education they have the right to.
As you said:
February 3, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Abby,
You said in comment 271:
I wish mothers were more open to talk about their struggles and find support, in each other, from school teachers, etc…
My husband and I were talking about this recently when I told him I think I’m struggling with depression. Life becomes overwhelming and if the children are all clamoring for my attention (which they do frequently), the house is a mess, and I don’t feel on top of things, I can easily lose it.
I’m afraid of talking about this with mothers at the Kindergarten, and won’t raise the subject with the children’s teachers. In fact, I fear that they may tell their teachers, who could call CPS and have us investigated! So I don’t talk about it, and I just isolate myself a little bit more.
I know I’m not alone. My next door neighbor has let it slip that she fears losing her children, so they conform.
Another mother asked me once whether it ever happened to me that I just wanted to scream or hurt one of my children.
Absolutely! I’m human!
But I get the feeling that many parents are fighting very hard to keep the outward perfect look. Nobody wants to draw attention on themselves because nobody wants the CPS to come calling. There have been horrendous cases in the news where parents have lost their children for no good reason, but ironically, there are still just as horrendous cases of children being abused and/or neglected by their parents.
February 3, 2010 at 6:07 pm
I really like Clay Clarkson’s book, Heartfelt Discipline.
I am of the mindset that corporal punishment is NOT mandated by the Bible.
February 3, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Mary, how do they use the glue sticks for discipline exactly? Sounds so strange. Whatever it is, I’m glad you throw them away when you spot them in the restroom.
February 3, 2010 at 6:47 pm
“However, I will not go on about how women need men, for the focus on Genesis was that Adam was alone in the Garden, and God saw that this was not good, so he created women out of man for her to be his help mate. God’s statement it two fold, it sets up creation order, while at the same time clearly defines a women’s noble purpose.”
Yes, the focus was on man’s NEED.
As far as some sort of “creation order” being a clear definition of a woman’s noble purpose, I am not following it.
If being created before another thing is created means that that created thing gets to be boss then the animals should be ruling over us and not vice versa. Were not the beasts created on the same day as human beings? And which beast was created first because I really want to know which beast all the other beasts are to be subject to?
And, take a good look at the Bible because God *consistently” turns the idea of being first on its head. As we see, God chooses the younger and not the older to receive the blessing (Jacob’s sons; Joseph’s sons, eg). Jesus tells us that the first shall be LAST and the last shall be FIRST.
Does that mean that women will rule in Heaven?
February 3, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Debbie,
They use the glue sticks that are meant to be used with hot glue guns. They are about 10 inches or so long and vary in diameter but they are long and flexible and they sting. When this became popular with on the homeschooling speaker circuit, I took a glue stick and whacked myself with it and it stung like a you know what.
What really gets me is when I see people speaking about spanking and the implements of spanking and they seem excited. It really creeps me out.
February 3, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Thanks, Corrie. I’d been visualizing those little glue sticks. Somehow they didn’t spell punishment to me.
Sadly, I can picture it all too well now.
I can also imagine ways to use some permanent Crazy Glue on some of those crazy abusive parents.
February 3, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Madame,
I am not sure I am wholly sympathetic with the asylum plea either if it is because they want religious textbooks. As you wrote, that is obtainable at a private religious school if that is your objection.
Actually, as much as I LOVE home schooling I doubt if I would emigrate to avoid prosecution over it. I would emigrate to keep my children safe though, and I understood that a teen home schooled student who consistently expressed her desire to continue to be home schooled was committed to a German psychiatric ward with a diagnosis of “school phobia” :\
However I would try to get a green card any other way than claiming a need for political asylum. That seems melodramatic to me, but I freely admit I have no knowledge of international law.
Corrie,
I used corporal punishment on occasion. It’s best function was that it was out of the ordinary, and I only called on it when I got disrespectful taunts such as “so, I wanted to go to time out anyway” or some such.
I think it was Dobson who wrote that spanking is not appropriate after early elementary? I got that idea somewhere anyway.
I was very concerned that I not use my hands, as my mother used to slap me on the face. And I didn’t want to hit so hard as to leave marks because that would be cruel. It wasn’t a matter of searching for the perfect instrument. Like Corrie, I would’ve checked it out on my hand first.
But I don’t think it so awful if it is limited to true defiance/disrespect (wiggling or smiling does NOT fit that description!). I experienced corporal punishment in school (jr high) and I did not find it traumatic at all. However I did eventually quit band.
Oh, also if people count the toddler two finger hand spank “No! No! Don’t play with Daddy’s keys.” then I spanked then as well.
What these families are doing isn’t discipline for defiance/disrespect- it’s rejection and punishment for being human. It’s wrong on every level, and I think they will wish they had been drowned instead on the day they look Jesus in the eye and remember these incidents.
February 3, 2010 at 10:33 pm
“As far as developmental stages, the attitude with them is that stages are a psychological term and excuse for sin. It is explaining away a child’s sinful nature instead of correcting it.”
Here’s what I can’t fathom–how can reaching your children where they are be used as an excuse to allow them to continue sinning? If I see my daughter, who is almost 5, begin to lie, intentionally with the idea that this will keep her out of trouble (this is about the age where they learn stuff like that), then I will address that head on. But I will address her HEAD and her HEART not her BOTTOM, because she needs to *understand* why it is wrong to lie to get out of trouble, and needs to feel some sort of remorse for it that comes out of her own understanding, not my beating it into her behind that lying is a sin. But I would never say “Well, that’s about the age they learn that, so I guess it’s okay.” Just because a behavior is figured out developmentally, doesn’t make the behavior a good one. When young toddlers begin to bite out of anger, do we allow them to continue biting other children? No, of course not, but hurting them to tell them not to hurt others is a little (okay, a lot) ironic.
February 3, 2010 at 11:36 pm
“It’s wrong on every level, and I think they will wish they had been drowned instead on the day they look Jesus in the eye and remember these incidents.”
Maybe.. and as Christians we have a two-fold duty — a duty to expose such false teaching, AND a duty to pray for the people who are being deceived by it.
May God have mercy on them, and their children.
February 3, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Those stories about kids and abuse IN the church building are really, really sad. The more I hear about this sort of thing the more grateful I am for my mom always bringing little snacks and things to color and a blanket to play on in front of the seats. We were expected to stay where we were put and be quiet, and once we were about 6 or so we were supposed to sit on pews, but we could still color if we wanted to. I actually still doodle a lot when listening to sermons, while trying to look up at the pastor often to show I AM listening, but I am very kinesthetic (or fidgety) and I cannot retain info while if I am not doodling while listening. I have heard that in the days of the Puritans the ushers carried long poles with a feather on one end and they would tickle people who fell asleep in the service. If they didn’t wake up they would use the other end to knock ‘em on the head. If you’re going to have corporal punishment at church for not sitting perfectly alert, then at least be equal opportunity and do adults too, I guess. Sheesh.
Shadowspring, it almost scares me some of the similarities between your family and mine. I lost my dog too as a teenager, probably about the same age as your daughter. It was also because of a neighbor’s consistent bad decisions (not a relative) that allowed their pit bulls to roam loose. Losing my dog was the absolute worst day I have ever experienced, even now. I know that losing a dog can be “trivial” compared to child slavery or starving in Africa so I don’t want to say that I have lived through some enormous tragedy, but it was very, very traumatic to me personally. I can sort of understand your daughter’s and your trauma in that situation and I really feel for her.
February 4, 2010 at 12:19 am
I’ve just dumped a lot of parenting books recently out of sheer frustration with all of the manipulation. I’ve picked up Alfie Kohn’s books and find them to be much more compatible with Christianity than anything else I’ve read. “Kindness leads to more kindness.” Gosh, it’s almost like “A soft answer turns away wrath.” Also things like loving your children eliminates fear. That sounds a lot like “Perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment.” Crazy how I memorized all those verses as a kid and then when I went to start parenting I just read Ezzo and Dobson. We’re so afraid of messing up. We’re so afraid to ruin our children. Then we ruin them forever by teaching them that love and discipline equals violence and that punishing through external means is the only way to change a heart. But then we talk about how “God is gracious and loves mankind.” I’m holding on to Jesus, but it’s oh so hard because so many messages I’ve been given through the years have tarnished His good name.
February 4, 2010 at 12:21 am
I shouldn’t say that we “ruin them forever”. I don’t believe that. But we can do damage to our kids and cause them to hide their true selves.
February 4, 2010 at 1:25 am
wow Corrie, your post in #287 really scares me.
Parents discussing spanking implements for their children and getting somewhat excited over them is a very scary thing to think about. What? Are they now deciding that in addition to subtly browbeating a woman into rightful subjection to her husband, they’re now gonna “not spare the rod” and beat submission into their children?
Very scary stuff!
Well, if we want to look at the whole subconscious thing, you might almost say they (being the patrio-centric men) want others to experience and feel the pain and loneliness they harbor inside as a result of never having their emotional needs fully met. Thoughts?
February 4, 2010 at 2:42 am
I wish I had the time to read through all these threads, but I just wanted to pop in and say thank you for being here. I was first exposed to the patriocentric movement a few years ago when I encountered quiverfull teachings in the God blogosphere (where I used to be an active blogger under my real name) and through two friends who gave me the Pearls’ stuff – To Train Up a Child & Created to Be His Helpmeet. I immediately saw red flags and immersed myself in researching the pattern that I knew must be part of something bigger, but when I quit blogging, I put it all aside to focus on my family. A year ago, we became homeschoolers, and once again, I began encountering the same stuff, so I picked up my research where I left off (which is how I found Karen and this site) and set out to blog “the Mother of all Posts” but, alas, life got in the way again, so here I am, just saying how much I appreciate the fact that this dialogue goes on, as my heart breaks for the women wearied and oppressed by extrabiblical legalism, but too prideful and/or fearful to examine it (and of course also forbidden from learning theology themselves). Where I live, it’s a mishmash of beliefs, so the patiarchal families don’t look as conservative as other places, but the underlying principles are there.
February 4, 2010 at 4:02 am
“As far as developmental stages, the attitude with them is that stages are a psychological term and excuse for sin. It is explaining away a child’s sinful nature instead of correcting it.”
What about Paul saying “when I was a child I spoke as a child, did childish things”?? The way he talks it would seem that it was commonly accepted truth that children grow in stages.
Or what about “I once needed milk but now I eat meat?” Why is the physical truth any different than the emotional one?
February 4, 2010 at 8:19 am
L,
I am so sorry to hear about your beloved pet.
Losing a family member to unprovoked violence is ALWAYS traumatic!
Our little dog was killed by my brother-in-law’s pit bull “American Staffordshire terrier”. The dog was still a puppy (about 6 mos.), but with a huge head and jaws. Our little 5 pound dog never stood any kind of chance.
My daughter consoles herself with the idea (and it could be true) that our little dog gave his life to save the life of a child. You see, this brother-in-law runs a Christian camp, and the dog as a puppy was already snapping and exhibiting dominant behaviors. Who knows what could have happened if we had not made such a big stink about the death of our little dog?
At the very least a child would have been traumatized by being bitten. Getting bit by this dog would’ve been like smashing your arm with a sledgehammer. This particular dog with its dominant tendencies and this breed are both ill-suited for a children’s camp.
There was a time, before my bro-in-law went whole hog with the patrio stuff, when he was tender to the heart of children. He very much looked out for their safety. The former camp dog was rescued from the pound, and chosen for her docile demeanor. He is such a different man from the person he was fifteen years ago.
I think all the pride and macho posturing of patriocentricity affected this decision. This dog was a purebred registered animal (no rescue dog this time), and if anyone questioned the wisdom of a pit bull as a camp dog (hello!), he was ready with a long lecture that more or less amounted to “pit bulls are really gentle-don’t believe all those news stories and statistics”.
That is also when I found out how deep his contempt for women ran, as he refused to even speak to me about the dog after the incident! He did not care two cents for the pain he caused my daughter, and he certainly wasn’t going to listen to some woman go on and on about it!
It was an eye-opening experience, that’s for sure. Before this, I was very much “live and let live” on the patriarchy issue. If you want to live that way, fine, just don’t expect me to do so. But through this incident I discovered that behind those head coverings lay a deep loathing for women, their hearts and their brains.
Live and learn.
February 4, 2010 at 8:23 am
Holly P,
I’m not familiar with Alfie Kahn but that book sounds like a keeper!
February 4, 2010 at 8:39 am
Cynthia Gee, Abby, madame,
(Written in a gentle and tender tone)
I have been on both sides of the issue: helpless child bearing the burden of an over-stressed, depressed parent’s selfish “disciplines” and as an over-stressed depressed parent who was selfish and domineering in my dealing with my children.
I never slapped them, like I was slapped, but I darn sure used words and tone of voice to try to dominate them into submission when I felt like being kind and reasonable wasn’t working.
I have already felt great shame and remorse as I “looked into the face of Jesus and remembered these things”. Though I never attempted the total domination of personality and body that I am reading these patriocentric families are doing to their little ones (and in CHURCH no less!), I have still sinned against my little ones.
When I was confronted by my conscience, the solution was to confess my sin to God, confess my sin to my children, humbly ask both to forgive me, and endeavor to eliminate that way of dealing/not dealing with life.
Once you have been forgiven by our faithful just God, you are cleansed and justified.
But for those who do not repent and humble themselves and go to their brother (no matter how young) and be reconciled, I do believe that judgment awaits.
Jesus is the one that said judgment awaits those who offend the little ones.
As I read somewhere recently (Steve Brown’s A Scandalous Freedom), we don’t break God’s laws, we are broken by them when we try to ignore them. This statement of Jesus concerning little ones is truth. It won’t change.
Better to admit when we have run smack up against one of God’s laws, humble ourselves, and be reconciled now in this lifetime, than to minimize our sin or even pretend it isn’t what it is.
As a wrote at first, I speak as one familiar with both sides of the issue.
February 4, 2010 at 9:24 am
Michael McNeil,
As my husband and I are preparing to celebrate our 35th anniversary this week and also the upcoming marriage of our son, I have been thinking a lot about what it takes to be married to someone.
This morning I uploaded a new article on my website, one I previously had shared a few years ago on Valentine’s Day. I thought of you when I saw it today.
Still praying for reconciliation for you and your wife.
http://www.thatmom.com/?page_id=3764
February 4, 2010 at 9:27 am
Myrrh,
So good to hear your thoughts. I continue to be amazed at the number of families who are coming out of this movement, so many of them broken and struggling. Thanks for reminding us that we have to keep on keepin’ on.
February 4, 2010 at 9:29 am
Alisa said: ““As far as developmental stages, the attitude with them is that stages are a psychological term and excuse for sin. It is explaining away a child’s sinful nature instead of correcting it.”
What about Paul saying “when I was a child I spoke as a child, did childish things”?? The way he talks it would seem that it was commonly accepted truth that children grow in stages.
Or what about “I once needed milk but now I eat meat?” Why is the physical truth any different than the emotional one?”
Exactly. Imagine that, actually looking at what Scripture says rather than trying to make it say what you want it to say.
Has common sense gone out the window? If we read the Word of God, as believers, it makes sense to us. Especially when we come to it, fresh and open and not with man’s ideas or ideals clouding our vision.
February 4, 2010 at 9:32 am
“I’m holding on to Jesus, but it’s oh so hard because so many messages I’ve been given through the years have tarnished His good name.”
Holly, this is the cry of so many who have been abused by the paradigm peddlars. In their quest to build kingdoms for themselves,they hurt so many along the way and don’t even care. I so often cringe at the harsh edge on the pages of the patriocentrist writings. They seek to shame rather than to encourage and spur others on to good works.
February 4, 2010 at 9:33 am
BTW, Holly, so many good thoughts in that post.
February 4, 2010 at 9:39 am
Corrie, I agree about spanking. It is not mandated anywhere in Scripture. We spanked our children but rarely and if I had it to do over, I am not sure I would have. Maybe that is the Grandma in me. Anyone else ever hear Bill Wither’s Grandma’s Hands?
I, too, like Clarkson’s Heartfelt Discipline and also Tim Kimmel’s Grace-Based Parenting. These are my favorite two baby shower gifts.
February 4, 2010 at 9:46 am
Nominee for Illinois lieutenant governor doesn’t think 2005 domestic battery charge ought to worry voters:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/02/new-questions-in-2005-arrest-of-democratic-lieutenant-governor-nominee-.html
February 4, 2010 at 10:17 am
I just heard this song on the Christian station substituted with “Christ-hearted men”
“Give me some men who are Christ-hearted Men
who will fight for the right they adore.
Start me with ten, who are Christ-hearted Men
and I’ll soon give you ten thousand more, Oh!
Shoulder to shoulder and bolder and bolder
they grow as they go to the fore!
Then__there’s nothing in the world can halt or mar a plan,
When__Christ-hearted Men__can stick together man to man
(originally Stouthearted Men by Oscar Hammerstein)
February 4, 2010 at 10:32 am
“You know, if John Calvin’s parents had been Patrios, and had married him off young and encouraged him to take up farming instead of theology and law, the world could have been spared untold misery.”
Cynthia,
Your irony just cracked me up!…even though it is a serious subject. Hmmm…To laugh or to cry sometimes??
February 4, 2010 at 10:35 am
That makes me feel sick.
I hope they keep the topic to times when the children are not around.
Anne 2,
I remember a conversation I had about 1.5 years ago with our former pastor. We were talking about child discipline (he LOVES the topic)and he was trying to convince me that things would run more smoothly if I would just take a wooden spoon to my children. I mentioned the fact that I live in a country with a smacking ban.
His answer? Obey God, and let the government arrest you and take your children. In prison you can witness! And consider it all pure joy!
I can’t stand the mentality. It makes me angry, like hearing that there are thousands of families homeschooling their children in Germany when they know that their children could be taken.
It makes me angry that the main focus is on the parents and how it will affect them, not the children. What’s better, for children to go to public school and come home to their parents every day, where they will be loved and nurtured, or for parents to resist the law, homeschool, and have their children go through the trauma of being separated from their parents?
While I don’t agree with laws banning smacking and homeschooling, I also think parents are not considering their children first when they choose to break the law and put their children through the fears and secrecy that come with living “underground”, whether the government ever finds out or not, or they decide to do anything about it.
February 4, 2010 at 10:39 am
“Nominee for Illinois lieutenant governor doesn’t think 2005 domestic battery charge ought to worry voters:”
Evidently the judge who heard the case was of the same opinion — the charges were dropped.
Of more concern is the fact that the nominee’s girlfriend was a drunken prostitute – but then, the incident took place in 2005, and the fellow claims to have cleaned up his personal life since then.
Maybe in the world of politics that’s long enough for bad associations to be forgiven – after all, Sarah Palin’s husband severed his political ties with secessionists, sumpremicists and seditionists back in 1996, and the GOP has pretty much forgiven Sarah for associating with him.
February 4, 2010 at 10:46 am
“What really gets me is when I see people speaking about spanking and the implements of spanking and they seem excited. It really creeps me out.
That makes me feel sick.”
That’s because those people are PERVERTS.
Getting “excited” by this sort of thing is ABOMINATION, just the same as if they were practicing homosexuality.
February 4, 2010 at 11:09 am
Thanks for that reminder, Shadowspring.
Acknowledging my sin to them, letting them be angry at me and tell me how I made them feel, and then accepting their forgiveness (And God’s) is very humbling.
If our sinful natures can be corrected, what need do we have for Jesus?
February 4, 2010 at 11:23 am
“It makes me angry, like hearing that there are thousands of families homeschooling their children in Germany when they know that their children could be taken.”
I have to agree with you, madame. Once it became clear the wicked reprisals that the German government would take against dissenters (labeling it a mental illness to not want to attend a public school adn committing teens to mental institutions- sheesh!) then it was time to continue working for change in public opinion and government, but not time to continue home schooling.
One could still lobby for change while sending their children to public school. Home schooling has never been (in my mind) a command from God.
Home schooling is an awesome way of life that I believe should be open to anyone, but I would not sacrifice my children on that battlefield.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
In America parents faced fines and jail times, but no one was taking children from their homes or incarcerating outspoken teen home school advocates.
February 4, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Reb Bradley also had a great article, “Solving the Crisis in Home Schooling.” Here is the link: http://www.familyministries.com/HS_Crisis.htm
February 4, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Parts of that Bradley article seemed familiar…I think we may have discussed some of it here before? Even if so, it’s good enough to merit a second look.
The article’s quite long, but full of excellent, thought-provoking points. I very much appreciate the author’s humility, too. The patrios could take lessons from him.
February 4, 2010 at 6:36 pm
“But in the relationship, God has cleared set the man over the women.”
Michael McNeil,
Holding certain expectations of your spouse in a Christian marriage is fundamentally an attempt to get them to respond in a way that meets your needs. It is centered on you and that’s just the wrong focus. The mutual focus in a Christian marriage must be on acting for the good of the other as best you can. Loving your spouse as you love yourself.(Mk. 12:31)Serving one another. “You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature[a]; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.”(Gal.5:13-15)
The better you can shift the focus away from ‘what I desire to get from my partner’ and toward what you can do to act for the good of your partner, the healthier it will be for you and the marriage.
Ask yourself if it is effective, beneficial, or in any way helpful to live with your particular expectation(s)? Ask the Lord if it it is effective, beneficial, or in any way helpful to live with your particular expectation(s). Has it been beneficial for your children?
Harboring unmet expectations isn’t going to make a marriage better. Nor does it much matter who is justified in their expectation or not. They are going to build pressure and resentment on both sides. A marriage where people are trying to justify their expectations of the other has lost love, grace and mercy, and those expectations are the evidence.
There are no prescribed “jobs” or “roles” within a marriage. Both partners need to contribute and be actively engaged as best they can. It’s never going to be a 50/50 balance. More like 100/100. Expectations, since they involve a desire to change the other accomplish nothing, but increase your anger, frustration, and resentment. This in turn leads to even greater distance and even more entrenched positions on both sides. They contribute to the problem, not the solution. There may be a solution that preserves the marriage. But you are not particularly likely to find out if the whole relationship is weighed down under the burden of your unmet and frustrated expectations.
February 5, 2010 at 12:27 pm
I’ve been reading Charles Swindoll’s book on Esther, and I came across a great passage (by Chuck, that is) about how men should not lord it over their wives. This coming from a clearly diehard “Comp” but it was really a blessing, because he was talking about Vashti and Xerxes. He was saying how women have every right to stand up to the abuses of their husbands, and not only is it right, it is THEIR right to do so. I’ll have to get the book and type out part of the quote after lunch!
February 5, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Ladies, is the discussion on “manliness” edifying and encouraging for educated and enlightened women such as we aspire to be? Just a thought!
February 5, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Another thought — how would we react if a man wrote this way about us — different body parts of course?
February 5, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Shadowspring #298 – thanks for the sympathy. I agree with your daughter, her dog probably did save a child’s life. Pit bulls as a breed are not bad and I do not hold resentment for them as a breed – the best ones have done many feats of bravery in war and emergencies, but so many people get them and breed them and train them specifically to act out the PERSON’S internal aggressions and these dogs are way too effective at that. And the fact that that dog was acting so bad at 6 months means it was well on its way to a very bad ‘life of crime.’
I wish I could say something comforting to your daughter, but all I can really say is life has been good again and I have recovered in many ways, but I will never forget my dog and I wouldn’t want to.
February 5, 2010 at 4:51 pm
While the discussion on the unseemliness of “bumper b*lls” is an extremely valid one as already noted, let’s please do unto others as we would have them speak about us. An unfair and wholly untrue characterization of Doug Phillips only serves to undermine the credibility of those who are unmask the true dangers DP poses; ones that IMHO are far more alarming than our children seeing a fool’s ghastly bumper accessory. NOT that I don’t get offended by them myself, but I think there lies a more eternal, insidious danger to be reckoned with if we’re going to be bringing DP in the conversation.
February 5, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Precisely, Alisa. There is still the Golden Rule and decency — much more winsome, in my mind. It struck me as I was questioning Rev. Baucham’s negative tone about church nurseries, that sometimes the ladies here (including me!) are just as negative — or more so — in portraying the “other side.” We can do better than that, especially if we are trying to convince people that we’re offering an attractive alternative to patriocentricity rather than just airing our gripes. Why shoot ourselves in the feet?
February 5, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Alisa and Virginia, great insights. Thanks for reminding us of what one anothering ought to look like. Let’s see if we are up to the challenge of taking higher ground!
February 5, 2010 at 7:19 pm
“Another thought — how would we react if a man wrote this way about us — different body parts of course?”
“An unfair and wholly untrue characterization of Doug Phillips only serves to undermine the credibility of those who are unmask the true dangers DP poses.”
Well said, both of you. Thank you.
This IS a public list, after all, and whatever disagreements we and the Patrios have with one another, I don’t think that DP would ever talk that way about US in public.
We owe him the same courtesy.
February 5, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Now, leaving Doug Phillips completely out of this, why, may I ask, are truck B**** even legal?
I don’t need to drive down the road and see that, and neither do my grandkids.
I think that egals and comps alike ought to join forces and start a petition to get rid of the stupid things.
February 5, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Yes, there’s ample about Doug Phillips to talk about, without discussing the potential decor on his mythical truck.
Such as his reports coming in from Haiti. Apparently the whole reason why those missionaries weren’t just given a slap on the hand and let go was because UNICEF wants more abortions in the world? Is that what he’s trying to say?
February 5, 2010 at 9:14 pm
millenniumwoman,
I apologize if my remarks regarding the bumper accessories appeared to be directed at Doug Phillips. Actually, I was only meaning to address what might cause someone to think it necessary to make such displays and how we sometimes judge books by their covers – as in the example I gave of my daughter’s truck. I’m really sorry if these came off as offensive.
February 6, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Annie–I haven’t seen Doug’s reports, a link to anything like that would be helpful. But if that is any indication of what his “Christian reporting” is going to be, I’d rather be left out.
One of my pastors and good friend of my parents is in Haiti right now. When Charissa (I think–the nanny) was ill after the arrest, she was taken to the hospital where he and his medical team are working. He met with her, and he assured the church that while the intentions and legality of this group’s “mission” were severely misguided, they are definitely NOT traffickers in the common use of the word. They just lacked the sense to do everything “by the book.” Foolish haste, as I see it, and I think that in all honesty, they deserve to be prosecuted for the illegal actions they took. Whether they deserve long-term jail sentences is certainly up to the judge, but they broke the law, and even as a Christian, when you break the law and it requires jail time, you must serve it. They will undoubtedly NEVER be allowed to return to Haiti after they serve whatever time they end up serving, and any good that they could have done, had they taken the proper channels is now up to others.
This has nothing to do with abortion in my mind. It’s absurd and foolish of someone like Doug Phillips or any well-known Christian to say such a thing. He is beginning to sound like a broken record.
February 6, 2010 at 4:58 pm
The quote I mentioned the other day (a little long, but very good!)
“I, too, admire Queen Vashti. In the midst of an unsavory scene she was brave enough to say no to that which was blatantly wrong, and in resisting this insulting act of indignity, she took a stand against the greatest power in her universe. Good for her!
Submission does not mean that a wife is a sexual pawn in the carnal desires of her husband. It was never God’s design that a wife submit to her husband’s evil desires. In King Ahasuerus’s case, this took the form of desiring to display her before those who would have nothing in mind but lust. What he asked was not submission; it was sexual slavery. And I applaud Queen Vashti for her courageous decision. Marriage does not give a husband the right or the license to fulfill his basest fantasies by using his wife as a sexual object.
Having been in ministry now for more than thirty-five years, I’m virtually unshockable. But every once in a while I have to suck in my breath when I hear what some men demand of their wives, calling it submission. It is, rather, insulting and shameful. So a word of warning here: Be careful, men, what you ask of the woman God has given you. Be certain that it doesn’t assault her dignity as a person, or turn a precious human being, created in God’s image, into a sexual object for your own carnal gratification.”
He goes on later to say (this is where I slightly differ from him, but it tells where he’s coming from):
“Make no mistake about it, I’m all for submission, as long as it’s the biblical kind of submission. And I’m certainly in favor of the husband’s being the leader of the home, as long as he is God’s kind of leader, set forth in Scripture, not some extreme, self-serving, and humiliating concept of leadership and submission. I’m all for the roles God has set forth for husbands and wives in His Word…But, husbands, we don’t get obedience by fiat. We don’t bring about submission by legislation.”
Charles Swindoll, Esther, Chapter 2.
February 6, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Nor did I mean for my words to have anything to do with Phillips.
Don’t know the man. Have had no personal dealings.
Still am offended that there are no laws or nothing enforced against inappropriate and bumper decor.
still thinking… ‘snip, snip’ is the best response. God forgive me if I’m wrong and open my eyes to a better attitude.
February 6, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Links
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2010/02/6245.aspx
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2010/02/6251.aspx
I have yet to watch the Geraldo video.
February 6, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Oh, and Abby, I completely agree with your post. I don’t think this group intended to put these children up for adoption for profit, and I certainly don’t think this group intended to take these children away for any sort of sex trafficking scheme. I think they were trying to do the right thing, but they were doing it far too hastily, and ended up doing more harm than good.
What I don’t agree with is what seems to be coming out, that because they’re Christian and because their hearts were in the right place, that they should just get a slap on the wrist. They broke the law and have to answer for it, regardless of their personal beliefs. Sex trafficking and adoption-for-profit schemes are a serious problem worldwide, especially after a major catastrophe like this, and I can understand why Haiti would be so adamant about this conviction. If nothing else, they might be trying to make an example, and in their haste those missionaries ended up as “it”.
I mean, if someone from, say, France had gone into New Orleans after Katrina and taken children because the place was crazy and their parents had lost everything, as a nation we would have had fits! Justifiably! And we would make the people who tried it an example of how you do not walk all over the rights of our citizens. Just because Haiti is smaller and poorer and doesn’t hid the corruption as well as our government doesn’t meant they ought not to do the same.
February 7, 2010 at 9:32 am
One of the best quotes I saw about this situation is by (presumably) a non-Christian, who posted, “boy, wouldn’t it be great if Christians started really helping people and stopped helping themselves *to* people”.
Now I realize that may make some people upset, and I know that Christians do provide a lot of help in the world, but our Christianity or our good intentions do not preclude us from having to respect the laws and cultures of other countires, not to have to tell the truth (the major news stations were reporting that this Silsby lady had been caught in a number of lies), and that the fact that these children may have been headed towards “nice, Christian families in the USA” does NOT trump the fact that many of them already had parents who loved them, and these people had no legal right to try to take them.
I realize that some in this group may have been unwitting and with no bad intentions, and may just be guilty of ignorance or impatience or stupidity. But think how Americans would have reacted had some Muslim missionary group swooped down on New Orleans after Katrina and tried to spirit some children, who were also in chaotic, desperate situations, to Muslim families in other countries. Americans would have been screaming bloody murder, and rightly so.
Christianity or good intentions does not put people above the law.
February 7, 2010 at 2:06 pm
A little Sunday morning inspiration…
“Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.” Titus 3:1-8
February 8, 2010 at 9:23 am
Just tried to read the article Virginia posted and the whole tone is nauseating to me. It smacks of ATI giving us a gazillion points where we can improve and become “better” Christians. Plus it is loaded with assumption that good Christians all home school, dress a certain way, don’t have televisions, etc., BLECH!
The gospel declares that we are saved by grace through faith and this itself is the gift of God. We are not made righteous by any of our “works” of “righteousness” lest any man should boast. People who do not accept this truth go about trying to establish their own righteousness.
The whole “Christian” home school movement reeks of this garbage. Being more selective about what garbage you include will not bring about a better result. That’s pretty much my impression of that article. Keep the rules and the regulations, but add a few more and THAT will finally fix the mess? Puh-leese.
Home schooling is a method of education. It is not a command of God. Families who home school are not more obedient to the Word in any way, shape or form. But many sure are puffed up with pride by believing that silly notion.
All our works of righteousness are filthy rags in God’s sight, because we are attempting to prove that we deserve what we do NOT- God’s mercy and love.
All our works of righteousness are filthy rags in God’s sight, because we are attempting to establish our own record of godliness, instead of relying on the blood of Jesus Christ as our only hope.
“My hope is built on nothing less that Jesus blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame but wholly lean on Jesus name. On Christ the solid rock I stand all other ground is sinking sand.”
Those “Christian” home schoolers mistakenly believe that they are the cream of the spiritual crop, when in reality they make a mockery of the grace of God with their “holiness” way of living.
For the record, I am a Christian who also home schools. I never once deluded myself that home schooling was any more righteous than sending my children to a public/private school.
For all of those believers home schooling who mistakenly thought it was, I pity you. You are sorely misled.
February 8, 2010 at 9:44 am
I finally had a chance to check out Doug’s blog entries about the orphans in Haiti. I am glad to see that he has taken an interest in orphan ministry since, in the past, any mention of orphans and adoption has been woefully missing from his militant fecundity rhetoric. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if there was a new emphasis placed on adoption buy these people?
February 8, 2010 at 11:55 am
#336- Shadowspring, if you’re referring to Reb Bradley’s article, I think he is pointing parents to the follies of living a “gospel of homeschooling”, having come from that background himself. He had actively taught strict behavioral principles of parenting on the homeschooling circuit, but has had a change of heart after humbly realizing the failure of these methods.
A friend whose family came out of a spiritually oppressive church, not without suffering some damage, loves the “new” Reb Bradley and passes along his recent messages to her homeschooling friends who may be striving in their own strength and principles to raise perfect families.
The article on the homeschooling crisis is long, but well worth reading, I believe. This is how Reb Bradley concludes it.
It is possible that the pure gospel of Jesus, which first led us to him, has become clouded for us. We may believe in the grace of the gospel, but we have unconsciously supplemented the finished work of Christ with our own efforts to implement our preferred formula. We may have muddied the gospel with our preoccupation with outward appearances and external controls.
Loving him isn’t about our children – it is about HIM! God intends that the side effect of loving Jesus, and enjoying the grace of the gospel, will be that all people, including our children, will be touched by the Savior in us. I pray in Jesus name that as you read these words you will experience the grace of God in a fresh and new way.
February 8, 2010 at 11:59 am
I feel it right to explain my frustration further. “Movement” home schooling starts with the notion that your children can be trained to spiritual greatness if you will only control all aspects of their childhoods in the appropriate way.
In spite of all the protestations otherwise, that is the bottom line. People as produce; children who can be molded into the right kind of person in the parents’ (and they believe God’s) estimation.
What about a better view of children? Children not as produce to be presented to God but as autonomous beings already belonging to God?
What about children as gifts of God created exactly for this time and this place in which they were brought forth to life?
If they already belong to God, if we believe that He is at work in their lives, then by faith we can allow them the freedom to live in response to God and not in subjection to our carefully crafted list of rules in our carefully constructed environment.
Perhaps in this aspect of daily giving our children to God and trusting in HIM to work out HIS relationship with our children (rather than relying on ourselves and our job as parents) our public school peers have a leg up on us. Every day as they pray and send their children off to school, they are exhibiting trust in God and in their children’s ability to hear and respond to God. They are living examples of trusting God and trusting their children to respond rightly to God.
Many movement home schoolers only give lip service to faith, in reality behaving as if they must control every aspect of what is “allowed” into the lives of their children. They do not trust God to preserve their children in the world. They do not trust their children to hear from and respond rightly God.
All believing parents (public, private, home schooling) are to teach the children the Word of God, at the same time hopefully living transparently open lives that their children grow up respecting. Our lives should point to the Living God as lover of our souls, Savior, Redeemer, friend and Counselor.
But for those striving to create perfection in their families, they are giving a false picture of God. He doesn’t demand perfection, He demands faith. Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God.
February 8, 2010 at 12:07 pm
ps Home schooling families can also trust God to be at work in their children. (It helps to avoid the movement home school rhetoric, though. =)
Home education is a method of education.
It is not synonymous with isolation and control. That is something the movement home schoolers made it out to be (though they call it sheltering and training, a rose by any other name…).
For many, home school was about freedom from the get-go: freedom to teach our children in ways that classroom teachers would LOVE to be able to teach: according to each child’s learning style, tailored to each child’s talent and ability; using real life experiences over textbooks as often as possible, able to concentrate inter-disciplinary studies around each child’s current interests.
A far, far cry from ATI…
February 8, 2010 at 1:55 pm
I agree that Reb Bradley has done a 180 with this article and was so pleased whens some one sent it my direction a couple years ago. One of the FIC churches were were part of had a pastor who loved the old Reb Bradley stuff and pushed it on parents.
February 8, 2010 at 4:29 pm
I was reading about that father-daughter weekend on the VF site and look at the information of speaker Elizabeth Botkin!
Where’s Jesus in all this?
February 8, 2010 at 4:55 pm
The “reconstruction of the west”???? What is that?
I guess I should be glad it didn’t say the “reconstruction of the south”, although perhaps it’s some sort of odd euphemism.
February 8, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Madame–yes. Where is Jesus? Where is religion, period? This leaves out any and all mention of how she is serving GOD in all of this, really. It’s clearly about helping DADDY serve God, not about serving him herself, because we wouldn’t want to have our own passion for Christ, now would we?
Uck.
How is a girl who wrote a book at a rather young age about being a “stay at home daughter” a “born rebel”? At least, anymore so than every human being is a “born rebel”?
And, I’m sorry, but what exactly is “the reconstruction of the West?” Totally missed that memo!
This is what Paul says:
“But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)–well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.” (Galatians 2:6)
(In other words, the apostles did not add anything to the message Paul was teaching, they said his message was sufficient.)
I think the “God shows no partiality” part is really important in situations like these, because the Botkin family have exalted themselves. They have called themselves the “great example” of what a family should be like, and yet they do not preach the gospel as it was given to the Apostles and to Paul: JESUS plus NOTHING.
I can imagine there are so many discouraged dads and discouraged daughters because their family’s lifestyle doesn’t look like the Botkins. Nor should it. But they have lost sight of the real goal and gone after something worthless. I just pray that people are not deceived by the flashy emptiness.
February 8, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Re: 343
Savannah,
I would guess they mean changing western civilization via some sort of reconstructionist thought and practise.
February 8, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if there was a new emphasis placed on adoption buy these people?
Yes! Yes!! YES!!!
February 8, 2010 at 9:20 pm
From the same site on Geoffrey Botkin:
“Geoffrey Botkin is a Christian leader and mentor to pastors in New Zealand, a nation that holds promise for the reformation of Christian civilization.”
Huh? New Zealand? WHAT?? How is that going to reform Christian civilization? Are they going to take it over or something?
February 8, 2010 at 11:48 pm
“Elizabeth Botkin has the privilege of assisting Geoffrey Botkin in his lifework. She finds her identity among her beloved father, her wonderful mother, Victoria, her sister and her five brothers”
I thought our identity was to be in Christ not man? Does she really know who she is? Is her lifework assisting her father in his lifework? Where is that found in scripture? She seems to be an extension of her father and her family instead of an individual. How sad.
To me it has been exciting watching my daughters grow up and become the women of God He intended them to be,not an extension of their parents.
February 8, 2010 at 11:53 pm
“Through the grace of God, she has been learning over the years how to submit her will to her father and channel her interests into avenues that further his vision. She and her sister serve their father through their interests in”
madame,
It appears that they substitute ‘f’ather for ‘F’ather.
February 9, 2010 at 4:24 am
#347-To get everyone up to speed on Geoff Botkin and the NZ exit strategy… http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2009/05/botkin-update-who-is-geoff-botkin-and.html
News of this has gone quiet for awhile, but no doubt it is still in the works.
February 9, 2010 at 7:50 am
Kay,
It appears that they substitute ‘f’ather for ‘F’ather.
Yes.
And It’s got me wondering whether there are any ulterior motives behind the use of father instead of dad.
It’s the first time I have seen it so clearly spelled out: children are there to do the will of their earthly fathers.
I wonder what they do with luke 14:
Of course, they probably explain it away with some passage or verse pulled out of context.
February 9, 2010 at 8:01 am
I wonder whether these women (because they aren’t girls any more!) are free to marry if they so choose, and I wonder whether there have been good Christian men turned down because Mr. Botkin is not ready to give his daughters away.
February 9, 2010 at 8:40 am
such a good article:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/january/17.48.html?start=1
February 9, 2010 at 9:40 am
Madame, I wonder what they do with Matthew 23:9: And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
February 9, 2010 at 9:44 am
Speaking of Botkin, has anyone heard of or researched any connections between him and Amway/the DeVos family?
February 9, 2010 at 10:03 am
Thanks, Karen.
So that’s the reason for minimum marriage ages in every state. I assumed there would be complications with pregnancies in the very young, but I guess as an American it never occurred to me what those might be.
madame,
Do you think the Botkin daughters have much opportunity to even met eligible bachelors? Few people I know would want to marry into such a family. I mean, they might think the girls cute and/or pity them, but get involved?
I think the list of potential suitors grows shorter by the day. But I guess they only need one.
February 9, 2010 at 11:34 am
Karen, that article was difficult for me to read. My mom is a woman who has suffered with a lot of problems, mostly stemming from giving birth at 15, during which she hemmoraged from a placenta abruption and she and my brother both almost died. How she managed to give birth (not a c-section) and go on to have 3 more children naturally is a miracle in and of itself. The fact that they both survived is, as well.
But I just can’t imagine living with such a horrible, yet curable, condition like these poor women, and it breaks my heart to even read it. It almost makes me want to become a nurse so I can do something to help.
February 9, 2010 at 11:59 am
#332- Annie C, good comment on the Geraldo video!
How nice of AT&T to make their phone lines from Haiti available so DP, jauntily attired in surgical cap, could have a free forum to expound on his wise observations and enlighten everyone back home.
February 9, 2010 at 12:20 pm
http://www.endfistula.org/q_a.htm
February 9, 2010 at 1:35 pm
That Christianity Today article rang a lot of bells for me.
I’ve had that problem for years. Not the fistula, but anovulation, and all the accompanying problems that go with it, the big, lumpish body, the odd hair growth patterns, the non-feminine emotional states, and yes, the infertility. I’ve know I was infertile since I was diagnosed at age 13, after puberty went horribly wrong.
And for years, decades, I prayed to God to fix it. To somehow make me like all the other girls. I don’t know that motherhood is still the supreme virtue in our culture, but the appearance of young, vital, fertility certainly is. So I prayed to be normal, just like all the other girls. To be slender and healthy and active, just like all the other girls. To have mood swings and emotions, just like all the others girls. To end up with babies, just like all the other girls. I tried to do everything everyone told me God wanted me to do, just in the hopes that if I did it all right and had faith, He would make me somehow better.
And you know what happened?
Nothing.
In the meantime I got to watch the other girls, who didn’t even try to stay “pure” until marriage have their babies while still in high school, and have their parents take care of them until they married, also young, and live lives as homemakers that I envied. While I got to work my way through college, and then fight my way into a job through the recession in the 1990′s, with no safety net under me, at all.
I remember crying because if I’d done the wrong thing somehow and had a baby, then I would have had something to love, and no one would say anything. Yet most landlords wouldn’t even let me keep a goldfish or potted plant. Water damage to the carpets, you know.
I remember how my mother gave my cousins money for groceries, covered their bills, and bought their daughters full wardrobes, while they stayed home to raise their babies. At the time I was working three jobs and going to school at night, and barely making the bills.
And then after I married, finally, at 27 when everyone else I knew married by 20, and by then were were trying so hard, and watching scores of Christian women having 6-8-10 children and beating them with glue sticks and plumbing line. Or hearing report after report of sexual abuse in any and every church, all the while they filled up with more and more children while the victims were called liars. While we would never tell a child that God wanted them beaten, and would never ever prefer the word of anyone over our child, and yet the few babies I did manage to conceive I lost.
I think it was the FLDS that was the final straw. Here were these young girls, who for all indication were being molested and forced to live this horrible life, all done in the name of God. And God was given an opportunity on a golden platter to stop in when the state stepped in. And instead they were all sent right back in for more.
So either God was a righteous monster who *liked* this kind of thing. Who rewarded those who broke his rules, who didn’t wait for marriage and who hung the millstones of abuse around the necks of children while ignoring the sincere prayers of others. Or there was no God, and religion was just the justification evil people made up to continue to do whatever they wanted, unstopped.
Yea, that’s how I ended up an atheist.
This might not be the best place for all this, but that article set it off, and some people have been wondering. So, there you go.
February 9, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Thank you, Annie C, for sharing that with us. It sounds like you’ve really endured a lot, and I’m glad you’re part of this community.
February 9, 2010 at 3:01 pm
I missed the whole truck b**** conversation but I am with Cynthia G- I think there should be a ban on those things.
Us “Titus2Lesbians” should unite against these hideous things!
February 9, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Annie,
“I tried to do everything everyone told me God wanted me to do, just in the hopes that if I did it all right and had faith, He would make me somehow better.
And you know what happened?
Nothing.”
I read your post through tears. I am sorry. I really don’t know what else to say except that, at some level, I can totally relate to the feelings in your post. No, I haven’t been through what you have but I have been through other things and I have also seen much of what you have spoken of.
” So, there you go.”
Thank you.
February 9, 2010 at 4:04 pm
(((Annie C.)))
For once, I have no words to offer, only my deep and heartfelt compassion and a very strong desire to hug you in person, and then maybe go out to Starbucks or wherever for some hot chocolate.
February 9, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Jesus in Luke (9: 59-60) said to a traveler, “Follow me.” The traveler replied, “Let me bury my father first.” Jesus said in return, “Let the dead bury their dead; you go and proclaim the reign of God everywhere.”
Remember that the man’s father wasn’t dead. The man was affirming his traditional family obligation to stay around until his father died. There was no Social Security in those days and your provision for old ages was the number of sons you had to take care of you.
madame,
To your comment #351 I’d also add – Jesus in Luke (9: 59-60) said to a traveler, “Follow me.” The traveler replied, “Let me bury my father first.” Jesus said in return, “Let the dead bury their dead; you go and proclaim the reign of God everywhere.”
Remember that the man’s father wasn’t dead. The man was affirming his traditional family obligation to stay around until his father died. There was no Social Security in those days and your provision for old ages was the family. This was the situation of Jewish society for hundreds of years, the very one into which Jesus was born.
Look at how Jesus approached the family values of his day. Jesus started his earthly life as an unplanned pregnancy from his parents’ perspective, and his teenage mother was pregnant before she was married. It’s interesting that those facts haven’t made their way into Christmas carols so far.
There is no reference to Jesus being married and his closest twelve disciples were either single or left their families as quickly as they dropped their fishing nets to follow Jesus’ call.
Look at Jesus’ specific teaching about family according to the Gospel accounts. He predicts that because of him, “Brothers and sisters will betray each other to death, and parents their children; children will rise up against their parents and have them executed. Everyone will hate you because of me.” (Matt. 10:21-22, Inclusive New Testament)
Somehow those verses haven’t made their way into those books of comforting family promises taken from the Bible.
And how about Matthew 10: 35-37: “Don’t think I’ve come to make life cozy. I’ve come to cut – make a sharp knife-cut – between son and father, daughter and mother, bride and mother-in-law – cut through those cozy domestic arrangements and free you for God. Well-meaning family members can be your worst enemies. If you prefer father or mother over me, you don’t deserve me. If you prefer son or daughter over me, you don’t deserve me.” (The Message)
Still, another traveler approached Jesus in this way: “I’ll be your follower, Rabbi, but first let me say good-bye to my people at home.” Jesus answered, “Whoever puts a hand to the plow but keeps looking back is unfit for the reign of God.” (Luke 9:61-62 INT)
About this time, Jesus received a letter from an organization called First Century Family Values. It said:
Dear Jesus,
We have noticed some devaluing of traditional family life in your teachings. You do not treasure the family as our people have for centuries. Your preaching against our traditional family values gores against all that we hold dear in our religious and cultural heritage, the very foundation of our society. If you continue to do this we will make you the subject of one or our future market-place programs
Sincerely, Top Patriarch
Jesus evidently did not take heed. A short time later, this happened:
“Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived and sent a message asking for him. A crowd was sitting around Jesus, and they said to him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” Jesus replied, “Who is my mother? Who is my family? “ And looking around at everyone there, Jesus said, “This is my family! Anyone who does the will of God, that person is my sister, my brother, my mother.” (Mark 3:31-35 INT)
This sounds harsh today and it was quite incredible to Jesus’ original audience, which valued their family traditions above all else. Jesus said that he preferred his spiritual family over his biological family. But even more radically, Jesus redefined the family as those who do God’s will. What’s the will of God that makes for family? John said that whosever loves is of God. Family is those who love you, not necessarily those who physically produced you.
February 9, 2010 at 5:01 pm
“Us “Titus2Lesbians” should unite against these hideous things!”
LOL… we’d be modernday heirs of Carrie Nation, but instead of smashing bars, we’d travel the country neutering pickup trucks –
and, wire cutters are much lighter than axes and sledgehammers!
February 9, 2010 at 5:26 pm
“But I just can’t imagine living with such a horrible, yet curable, condition like these poor women, and it breaks my heart to even read it. It almost makes me want to become a nurse so I can do something to help.”
I lived with a fistula for almost two years, right here in the USA. When our second daughter was conceived, my husband was unemployed. He had a good job and we had health insurance by the time Erika was born, and the insurance covered Erika’s birth expenses, but not mine, since I was pregnant before we got the insurance, making my pregnancy a preexisting condition.
The insurance company made us leave the hospital the day after I gave birth, and when my episiotomy stitches fell out and a fistula developed between my vagina and rectum one day after Erika was born, Blue Cross said that it was due to a preexisting condition — my pregnancy — and wouldn’t cover an operation to repair it.
All they would pay for was antibiotics to prevent infection in the wound left from where I tore. So, I went home in that condition, and it was over a year later that we found a doctor who agreed to fix me up, without insurance to cover the cost of the procedure.
This still happens today, especially in Florida and Texas and other right-to-work states, where most blue-collar jobs don’t even offer health insurance, because the “good Christian” politicians down there do their literal damnedest to rig the legal system against UNIONS, those nasty bastions of Socialism that would make employers do right by their employees and offer affordable health insurance.
February 9, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Annie C, thank you for sharing your life story with us. I am so sorry for all the pain you’ve experienced.
I, too, am glad you are here. You bring an important insight and a unique perspective to our discussions, and you are good at expressing yourself through the written word.
I hope you always feel loved and accepted in this place.
February 9, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Annie C.,
I’m sorry that you are feeling upset and disappointed. Please know that you are not alone.
It sounds like you may be open to the fact that there may be absolute meanings and values out there, but right now you’re not feeling them. Many of us have felt that way as well.
Personally, for myself, one reason I turned to God is because I see that He allows me the free will to do so. And if He allows me, then He allows others free will to choose right from wrong and good from evil also.
Jesus said that the first and foremost commandment was to “Love the Lord your God…”14 A personal relationship, characterized by the possibility of love, is only possible if created beings are given free will.
If God had created the universe with no possibility of evil or sin, then the created beings would have had no free will, and, as such, would be like programmed computers. Such beings would be incapable of love, since love involves making a choice – which requires the ability to choose not to love. For example, I can program my computer to say “I love you” when it starts up. Does this mean that the computer really loves me?
So, as humans, we can only experience real love because God has allowed free will possibility of choosing not to love, but to do evil.
I’m praying that you will find the comfort and love that you long for. ((hug))
February 9, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Thank you, all of you, for your kind words. If any group has ever shown me that good Christians can also be good people it’s the ladies here. And I’m glad no one was too upset by my rant coming out here, that article just pushed one of my bigger buttons.
Just so you all know, I’m actually doing much better these days. When I stopped praying for a miracle, and started accepting what could be done without divine intervention, I was able to find medical treatment that has been helping immensely. I’ve been losing weight, and mentally and emotionally I’m more stable. I haven’t noticed any hair growing back in, but that’s supposed to take a few more months.
The only downside, which really isn’t, is that we’re going to end up building our family through adoption. Sadly, they can’t get me to healthy and make me fertile, the medication I need causes major birth defects. But it’s all working out for the best after all. Someday I hope to be a very healthy mommy to someone who needs a forever family.
February 10, 2010 at 7:41 am
Annie C,
I hope this doesn’t sound too cheesy…
From your writings here, you sound like a very loving, compassionate person, who is more interested in doing the right thing by others than in sticking to some dogma. The children you and your husband adopt are going to be very fortunate indeed to have you as their mother.
I’m also glad to hear you are getting treatment that is helping you feel happier.
Hugs
February 10, 2010 at 8:29 am
Annie, the story of the FLDS kids broke my heart too. I had just been to Salt Lake City for my grandmother’s funeral a few months before that. Grandma never lived there and was never Mormon, but her second husband, who was much older than she was, had been born into a polygamous family with over 20 kids near there in the 1870′s. I did some research into this whole issue and it is so grieving to me that it is still going on and not just in those newsmaking big communities. I had the wonderful chance to meet some of my step-cousins while I was at the funeral, and I’ve often wondered if some of their distant relatives are in the FLDS communities. The thought sort of haunts me when I dwell on it.
There is a long video called “Lifting the Veil on Polygamy” on-line. It was produced even before the Texas story broke open. What an eye-opener on a horribly patriocentric situation.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7940067916847716536
You might also like to see the poem I wrote while flying into SLC and a follow-up about one of my artsy poetic non-conformist Mormon step-second-cousins.
http://virginiaknowles.blogspot.com/2009/01/three-poems-and-stories-behind-them.html
Blessings,
Virginia
February 10, 2010 at 10:15 am
Annie C.,
Adoption is the greatest gift ever. You are affirming to a child that they are worthy of love and that their existence is a blessing in the world.
So many of my good friends either are adopted or have adopted. They have all built healthy families with strong bonds of love. There is not one I regret knowing or having a part of my life.
You are the kind of mom I would hope for my baby if I were in a situation that made raising my own child impossible.
February 10, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Annie, your recent post made me think how so many people struggle with the constant tension between faith and doubt. Some people are led to one conclusion and some to another, and many of us flounder around, isolated, ashamed, and occasionally frightened – somewhere in the middle.
I have experienced much doubt, especially as I have grown older. There are a lot of questions that I’ve had since childhood that there seems to be no answer for other than, “have faith”. Often I felt shamed for even asking the question, at least within the church. Doubt is often seen as a sign of weakness: weakness of character, weakness of faith. Then comes the dreaded, “well, maybe you never have truly become a Christian, because *real* Christians don’t have these doubts”, (or if they do, they keep silent about them).
Although my outward life has never wavered much, I have thought about walking away from the Christian life from time to time. No one would know that unless I shared it, but it is there, nonetheless. I actually have come to dislike and distrust many Christians, as I have seen so much needless hurt inflicted on the vulnerable within the Church, and the world sees us as so unloving, with good reason sometimes. While I am never ashamed of Christ, I have often been ashamed of the behavior and attitudes of Christians (including myself at times). I also find the certitude of certain types very disconcerting, as it often seems like it is deep certitude without deep thought or deep consideration.
But the truth is, so far (at least for me), is that God is like the “great hound of heaven”, refusing to give up the chase for my faith. I struggle, and I share that struggle with those closest to me. My husband remains a “little Christ” in my life, and when things no longer make sense, he continues to “be Jesus to me”. My eldest son is much the same, so like his father that it brings tears to my eyes. So even in my darkest moments of flipping that coin that is faith on one side and doubt on the other, I try very hard to remain open to God and His possibilities. And I believe that is all He asking of me in those moments: “Lord, I believe – help thou my unbelief!”
I don’t know if this resembles at all your struggle, but I wanted to let you know, in a way that exposes my vulnerability, that doubt is not the death knell of faith, as it is so often portrayed within Christianity. Real Christians struggle with real doubt, and sometimes those issues remain unresolved in this lifetime. Sometimes the best we can hope for is to make peace with doubt, and give it its rightful place as the thing that makes us question, makes us re-evaluate, and makes our faith stronger if allowed to do its job.
Okay, I’m rambling. . . hopefully, this will make sense to a small degree to Annie or anybody who has struggled or is struggling with doubt. Annie, I’m not trying to “talk you into faith” or anything like that – I would not presume I could. I am hardly in a position to do so anyway. I hope you can understand what I am trying to say.
February 10, 2010 at 1:48 pm
I would ditto Savannah. I couldn’t have put it better. I’ve been known to get quite disillusioned with many Christians’ behaviors and attitudes and it’s easy for me to project that onto God himself. I think the biggest mercy for me in recent years is that I have lost so much of my fear of doubt, failure, and rejection. I don’t beat myself up over it so much — just pick up and move on. I too get annoyed at “certitudes” which are so often either-or fallacies. I wish I could shake the sense into some people, but instead I work at teaching my 20 middle school English students to think for themselves and go deeper than the surface impression. At least that is my goal for myself, too.
February 10, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Could you all pray for a very dear friend of mine, single mom to precious eight year old. She had to get a physical in order to get insurance and they found lumps in her breast and under her arm.
She needs healing, and money for treatment. Her name is Geneal and her daughter is Samara. Thanks.
February 10, 2010 at 6:57 pm
I am very sorry to hear about your sad situation, Annie, and glad that it is getting better. I agree with the others, cheesy though it may be, that children will be lucky to be adopted into your family. I have also dealt with a lot of doubt, especially in the last few years, and felt like an outsider a lot. There are certain things I’ve seen I can’t explain without God being real and loving, and certain things I can’t seem to reconcile with Him being real and loving. It can be really tiring (understatement) to grapple with. It’s nice to have a few places to talk about it openly.
Anyway, I’m glad you’re here and I like your posts!
February 10, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Annie C.,
{{HUGS}}… born of sincere admiration.
February 10, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Titus Two Mentoring ~ Part Two ~ The Marks of the Titus Two Woman
“But this story teaches us something else about serving the Lord. God isn’t looking to come into the life of only the woman who neatly fits into a perfect paradigm, a woman who is “normative”, as they say, a married with children woman who is building His kingdom according to a list of man made rules. Instead, Jesus comes to those who recognize their own needs and beg for mercy, those who are broken and in need of a Savior, those who are so aware of their own lowliness before him that they can only offer enough faith to touch the hem of His garment.”
http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3804
February 10, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Annie, so much I would love to say to you right now. Maybe tomorrow will give me more time. For now, {{{{{}}}}}.
February 11, 2010 at 12:35 am
{{Annie}} I have that ~ PCOS with all its unfeminine glory. Hugs to you.
February 11, 2010 at 12:39 am
In my latest blog post I review a book and mention infertility ~ I don’t talk about it much but the pain is still there.
Thanks for sharing, Annie.
http://quiveringdaughters.blogspot.com/
February 11, 2010 at 3:32 am
Great big hugs to Annie, and prayers for Geneal..
February 11, 2010 at 9:25 am
“And I believe that is all He asking of me in those moments: “Lord, I believe – help thou my unbelief!”
Annie,
I’m going to “ditto” Savanah here as she quoted Mark 9:24 – one of my favorite verses. Also adding that most of the times I’ve felt disappointed by God was because I was expecting Him to answer my prayer in a certain way at a certain time, but His answer was different and took longer than *I* planned for it come. I’ve prayed for a physical miracle and been answered with surgery as well, but it became a catalyst in my life and opened new doors that I hadn’t even imagined.
I think most of us would prefer to jump right to the “happy ending”, but sooner or later we realize that the journey itself adds so much to the “happy ending.” I hope that makes sense.
February 11, 2010 at 9:43 am
Annie C.,
If you ever want to contact me, I am at to_shadowspring@yahoo.com.
Thanks for the prayers for Geneal. She has an amazing personal story of courage in the face of extreme hardship already. I am NOT happy that she has to face this too. Please do continue to pray, internet friends.
February 11, 2010 at 10:16 am
“Some people are led to one conclusion and some to another, and many of us flounder around, isolated, ashamed, and occasionally frightened – somewhere in the middle.
I have experienced much doubt, especially as I have grown older.”
Savannah,
Thanks for “rambling”. I can totally relate to a lot of what you said about doubt and disillusionment within the Church. It was encouraging to read that.
I am in a season of doubt and it can be quite frightening.
February 11, 2010 at 10:25 am
Okay, finally got all the way through the Reb Bradley article, though I admit I skimmed through a lot of it, yet I do not see anywhere that he repents of kicking out his 18 year old son and using scripture to justify the decision.
He seems proud of doing so in the opening paragraph, if you ask me. Relating how much he and his wife cried about it just shows the serious disconnect between their hearts and their decisions- not a model of healthy living, imho.
Those of you who know my story know that I was kicked out of my home in similar fashion at the age of 17, eventually becoming homeless. Any of you who believe that doing similar is obedience to the gospel are messed up in your theology.
Reading through the rest of the article, I did find things worthy of support. Like children as people, not focusing on outward standards, and specifically “Cultivate a loving relationship with them” and especially “Help them find security in their relationship with you” but it seems out of step with how he actually lives his life. I am not sure he fully believes what he writes.
An eight year old distressed at seeing underwear ads in WalMart? That is an eight year old who is going to have a very hard time in his own marriage someday. You can’t teach that the female body is shameful for someone’s whole life and expect that to magically disappear once the marriage vows are spoken.
I think lecturing young children about modesty at a young age IS exposing them to thinking about sexuality long before they are ready to so so and it is dumping on them truckloads of shame that is not theirs to bear. Terrible parenting, imo.
I know that many of you ladies on her actually live a similar lifestyle to Reb Bradley’s. I never did. We were the family that you all stuck your noses in the air as you passed us by. We were not perfect by any means, but we did not operate under the delusion that we were above any one else. That delusion belongs to you “movement” home schoolers.
It sounds like Reb is starting to come the conclusion that he was wrong in many ways, but isn’t clearly able to let go of his standards yet. This is as close as he comes, imho:
“While I’ve seen sheltered children grow up and turn away from their parents’ standards, conversely, I’ve known some Christian young people who went to public school, watched TV, attended youth groups, and dated, yet they walk in purity, have respectful, loving relationships with their parents, and now enjoy good marriages. Their parents broke the all the “rules of sheltering,” yet these kids grew up close to their families and resilient in their walks with Christ.”
What does he mean “they walk in purity”? That they have a sincere devotion to Jesus? That they live unselfish lives? Or does it mean that they live up to his standards of dress and behavior? I can’t help but wonder.
Sorry to step on toes. I know I have. I have attempted to do so honestly and respectfully. I hope I succeeded in that, and I apologize in advance to anyone who feels I fell short of that goal.
February 11, 2010 at 10:48 am
There is a common and insidious notion that is sweeping through the church and society at large that faith is the opposite of doubt and that doubt is the opposite of faith. This is because faith is often misdefined as “belief,” when an accurate definition would be “loyal to a friend.” Faith and doubt are not mutually exclusive; in fact, doubt is a part of faith and plays an important role in strengthening faith.
For example, suppose that a man suspects his wife of adultery. Is this man entitled to commit his own sexual immorality? Not at all. Even if he doubts his wife, he is obligated to keep faithful to her until she either proves that is faithful or that she is unfaithful. If she proves herself faithful, the faith that he has in her is strengthened. If she proves unfaithful, he will become unfaithful as well.
The same rule applies to Christians; we may doubt God, but we must stay faithful until God becomes unfaithful. Since God is holy, He will always be faithful, so Christians have no excuse to lose faith in Him, even when plumbing the depths of doubt.
February 11, 2010 at 11:11 am
I just can’t get over the twistedness of an eight-year old being distressed by underwear models in WalMart!
My husband as an MK grew up around topless women as a matter of course. What would the “modesty” people do with that?
Reminds me of the clueless church that sent Marilyn Lazlo a crate of bras for the Papau New Guinea tribal people Marilyn, as a Wycliffe Bible Translator, lived among.
She amusedly passed the gift along. The tribal women found bras totally impractical for their lives, in which they were continually nursing their infants while they worked. Most of them were thrown away, but some wore the around the waist using the cups as belt and in that way at least got some use out of them. =)
February 11, 2010 at 11:13 am
*should read “some wore them around the waist as a belt using the cups as pockets”- sorry! I really should edit before I post, but life is going on all around me and I rarely take the time. Another sorry.
February 11, 2010 at 12:51 pm
A Chinese Christian posted, “The same rule applies to Christians; we may doubt God, but we must stay faithful until God becomes unfaithful. Since God is holy, He will always be faithful, so Christians have no excuse to lose faith in Him, even when plumbing the depths of doubt.”
Thank you for taking the time to post this; however, it is not as simple as one may think. It is a complex ball of wax, and to be told things like “Christians have no excuse. . .” is not particularly helpful. Those of us who struggle with doubt or who are in a season of doubt already know that, at least intellectually.
We also know that our honesty about this issue makes many other Christians uncomfortable (and I have my own theory as to why they are so uncomfortable) and that is why it is a scary thing to talk about or admit to oftentimes.
I know Christians who de-converted, and they did not talk to those in their church or in their Bible study group about their doubts before they made that decision. They were isolated in their struggle because judgments are passed upon Christians who admit to doubt, and they knew it, so it is just better to keep quiet, which only served to isolate them further and this isolation is what pushes them over the edge, so to speak.
I have been the most lifted up and encouraged by reading and speaking to others who weathered a season of doubt. Michael Spencer comes to mind (the Internet Monk). He has written so many beautiful essays, many of which deal with his raw, unfiltered struggle in this area. He has ministered to me like no one other than my own immediate family, and I credit his writings with helping me to hang on in tough moments. I know many others in the Internetmonk community who have been ministered to in this way by Michael’s writings.
BTW, for those of you who may have come across Michael’s blog in the past but not recently, he is dealing with brain cancer/brain tumor. His post as of yesterday did not sound good in terms of prognosis, so please pray for Michael and Denise and their family.
February 11, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I am in the enviable position of never having doubted God’s love for me.
However, I also do not believe in the “SAW-ven-tree of Ga-awd” as many people actually apply it.
In other words, I do not blame God for my having chronic asthma. I do not credit God with my having chronic asthma. I do not believe he “gave” it to me to teach me any lesson of any kind.
I do believe He could heal me miraculously but I gave up the silly doctrine that he must if I “believe” hard enough (is that even possible?) a la my charismatic stint. I trust in His word that we will all be made perfect together one day at His second coming and I am content with that.
What I do believe about asthma, my inherited condition (along with bunions and crooked teeth, but I digress *sigh*) is that once God set in motion the amazing process of recombinant DNA, the possibility that *I* would someday exist was set in motion.
I believed that as *I* was being formed in my mother’s womb, He rejoiced and welcomed me into existence and gave me life.
The very DNA that makes me *I* is also what cursed me with asthma, yet God will not do without me in the universe. If in order to get the unique recombinant DNA person that is *I*, there is some asthma, bunions and crooked teeth in the mix, oh well. He can take care of that later. (I believe He will someday heal the asthma when the entire church is glorified.)
In the meantime, I have albuterol, Singulair, and Symbicort, the technology of braces and possible foot surgeries/corrective footwear.
Oh yeah, and I know that I know that I know that I am loved (adored!) by God including my gimpiness and less-than-glamorous appearance!
I don’t want to attempt to influence Annie C. in any way personally, because I fear that it is intrusive but MY theology is:
GOD LOVES ANNIE C.! I’m talking cartwheels of delight over every breath she takes, and in the entirety of everything she is and feels and thinks. In this way I believe that she is fearfully and wonderfully made- not biologically perfect but 100% adorable to our Heavenly Father!
And that’s all I have to say about that.
February 11, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Stacy McDonald wrote a blog post about a line of children’s clothing, yesterday, and also was interviewed on the G. Gordon Liddy show concerning her opinions on modesty.
While I am certainly appalled by the slutty clothing lines for young girls, I am equally appalled by the “Stacked and Packed” calendar that G. Gordon Liddy puts out every year.
http://www.moviebadgirls.com/liddy2_page1.html
This calendar is named for the women who appear on it who have huge, fake (most of them are fake) breasts holding guns and they are barely clothed and in very suggestive poses.
Stacy talks about the poses of the girls in the ads. She speaks about the immodesty of the girls’ clothing line and how her 19 year old daughter wouldn’t wear clothing like that. That some of the outfits are right below the panty-line. But, the calendar put out by the G. Gordon Liddy show shows bare breasts (barely hiding the nipples) and bare rearends and YOUNG women with their legs spread open covered by a little thong/g-string.
The interviewer talks about Stacy’s statements about how you can judge a woman/girl by what she wears. Now, if that is true, what does the G. Gordon Liddy “Stacked and Packed” calendar say about those women and about the men who promote that calendar? The men who have this calendar like to brag about how it “pisses” off the feminists because women posing barely dressed is politically incorrect and that this calendar is doubly-politically incorrect because it shows women, barely dressed with big guns.
Is it okay to objectify women? What is the difference between the Hannah Montana clothing line and the calendar?
I cannot for the life of me understand the outrage concerning Sports Illustrated and the slutty clothing line for little girls but ignore the fact about the men on this show who promote this calendar? Sports Illustrated is NOTHING compared to the calendar that G. Gordon Liddy puts out. I also found a picture of him in a patriotic speedo.
Obviously modesty is not a huge issue concerning this show. And objectifying women is perfectly fine, especially when the women are “stacked” and “packed”.
February 11, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Shadowspring, my toes weren’t stepped on because of your objection to Reb Bradley. I was not aware of him in the homeschooling world when he was first teaching, and only last year heard of his remorse, if not repentance, in how he had raised his children and led others to do so.
I know many people have been affected positively and had breakthroughs in their family life when they have read and heard of his more gracious parenting decisions. Hearing speakers like him who lean toward grace rather than those who are often featured who preach standard-based parenting is refreshing, so I passed on the links for others to listen and glean from.
Thankfully I did not have to go through major family crises based on spiritually oppressive teachers and churches, so I am not intimately aware of all of this as others are. Our church is healthy, our family is pretty healthy (thanks to God’s grace, not our doing), and I follow Jesus Christ, not any particular teacher, author or speaker. I’m certainly not leaning on Reb Bradley, but in the big spectrum of teachings, I think he has quite a bit more to offer than some others warned against here.
The forum is for sharing opinions, and I certainly appreciate yours, Shadowspring. I’m so thankful this is an open place to share and examine views in light of the Word, to guide us into God’s truth. So don’t worry about stepping on toes here.
I have barely had time to read here, let alone interact much, since dealing with my mom’s increasing dementia and recent TIA. When the rubber meets the road (is that a good metaphor?), essential time priorities make themselves known pretty clearly at this new stage of life.
Don’t mean to come across grouchy, but am fighting a migraine from having to call an ambulance for the first time yesterday, and listening to a DVD of Bill Gothard c*** to try to figure out what family members see in him. Done rambling now…Grace and peace to all here.
February 11, 2010 at 3:06 pm
“I just can’t get over the twistedness of an eight-year old being distressed by underwear models in WalMart!”
Me, neither. I can’t imagine my 8 year old asking me why I take him to WalMart because there are underwear models. First, I am at Walmart a lot and I don’t even know what underwear models he is referring to. He said they were all around the store? I don’t think so. Second, my kids don’t even notice such things because I refuse to make a big deal about them.
If we look for things we will find them. It is like getting a new car and then suddenly noticing how many cars are on the road just like the one we just bought.
It is the same with people who are obsessed with women and the clothing they wear. They will see it because they are constantly looking for it.
February 11, 2010 at 3:07 pm
If you want to hear Stacy’s interview, you need to go to iTunes and listen to the very last G. Gordon Liddy show interview from 2/10/10.
February 11, 2010 at 3:21 pm
To me, it is like Sports Illustrated Magazine interviewing Stacy concerning the immodesty of the new Montana clothing line. Both the show that she appeared on and Sports Illustrated put out a yearly publication where women are showed barely clothed. Except that “Stacked and Packed” is much worse in suggestive pose and nudity than Sports Illustrated, imho.
Stacy has had a campaign against Costco/Sams because of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.
http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2008/03/soft-core-porn-in-our-family-friendly.html
“Recently, we discussed on my blog the difficulties some women face regarding intimacy in marriage. The results were alarming. Our poll, private emails to me, and our discussion, revealed that pornography played a huge part in harming marriages – and families. Women felt insecure, compared, rejected, and devalued. And why not? Pornography not only harms women and the way they view their bodies, it desensitizes men and fills them with an insatiable lust that can’t be quenched by godly intimacy. What do you think happens to the children?
Pornography, even the sugar coated kind, attacks marriage. And in the process, it devastates families. Ultimately, it gets to the core—it destroys godly seed. Children are either themselves harmed by abuse or the damaged marriage of their parents; or they never come to be—a destroyed marriage means no (more) children born from that union.”
Does this also apply to the “Stacked and Packed” calendar in which the link to the new calendar is prominently displayed on the G Gordon Liddy site and on the page where you can go to listen to the interviews?
So, when I go to listen to the interview, as well as all the men who will go listen to Doug Phillips speak about Haiti and Stacy speak about modesty, they will get to see the link to the “Stacked and Packed” calendar!?
February 11, 2010 at 3:29 pm
http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/liddy.php
“Hawkins: Is there anything else you would like to say or promote before we finish up?
G. Gordon Liddy: Well, there’s the calender that has caused so much upset.
John Hawkins: The Stacked and Packed calender.
G. Gordon Liddy: The Stacked and Packed calender. There is actually a website that has been established called BoycottLiddyCalender.com and there’s a lot of hysterical stuff in there. I might give a plug to my own website which is LiddyShow.com. StackedandPacked.com is devoted to the calender and how you can get it there. You can also get it by calling 1-800-737-1808. The calender is in its 10th year. On the cover this year, I appear with my Harley Davidson that I rode to Sturgis this past summer, 1846 miles, and the lovely lady sitting behind me is the executive producer of the show and she happens to be naked as a jaybird.
John Hawkins: Mr. Liddy, it was an honor. “
February 11, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Once again, I am completely confused.
For the past several days, Stacy’s blog has had numerous comments in response to a survey about husband’s media viewing habits, which she says she is taking so that James can address husbands, letting them know how they may be offending their wives when they watch TV or movies.
Then yesterday her blog had information about a new line of immodest clothing for little girls with a link to an interview she did that aired live yesterday on the G. Gordon Liddy show. She also posted a link to her called-for boycott of Sam’s Club last year because they sold the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition.
Sorry, but the first thing I thought of when I saw that link to Liddy’s show was his Stacked and Packed calendar. He has published it for years and met with a lot of consternation on the part of both the secular feminists and conservative Christian women who are appalled by it.
Why are Liddy’s naked women ok to pedal but Sam’s Club’s Sports Illustrated magazine not? Where is the boycott of the G. Gordon Liddy show?
And real kicker is that Doug Phillips was also a featured guest on the Liddy show yesterday. What am I missing here?
I hope no one tried to spin it that it was really the Adam McManus show. It was the G. Gordon Liddy show Stacy announced she was a guest on and that both she and Phillips were, indeed, on. I haven’t looked to see if he linked to that website where we hope husbands don’t go.
I am confused. Once again I don’t understand the patriocentrist rules.
February 11, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Oh my, you are all so wonderful. {{hugs}} back to all of you, seriously!
Now, am I the only one who’s never heard of the Stacked and Packed calender? Is this a real thing?
February 11, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Liddy also refers to the naked women on his calendars as “America at its best.” Hhhhmmmm.
February 11, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Annie, glad to know I’m not the only one who had never heard of this calendar. Kind of wish I had still never heard of it! Unbelievable.
February 11, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Kathy,
So glad your toes are okay! LOL
And I actually wasn’t thinking of any one person in particular. There are so many women who post here and even more who read here. So I was covering all my bases.
Listening to Bill Gothard? Yikes! Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! *waves tubular robot arms up and down in an excited manner*
I think you’d do better to google “what attracts people to cults” than listen to Bill Gothard if you want to know why your relatives are attracted to Gothard.
February 11, 2010 at 5:04 pm
“I have barely had time to read here, let alone interact much, since dealing with my mom’s increasing dementia and recent TIA”
Kathy,
I missed that on my first read. I am so sorry you are having to deal with all that. I will add you and your mother to my prayers tonight.
And for those praying for Geneal, I have just hooked her up with a sympathetic and informed ear at the county health department. Thanks for your prayers! I’ll let you all know what comes of that.
February 11, 2010 at 5:08 pm
emr Says:
February 11, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Annie, glad to know I’m not the only one who had never heard of this calendar. Kind of wish I had still never heard of it! Unbelievable.
Ditto that!
February 11, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Kathy, continuing to pray for you and your parents. Such a difficult season of life, I know. {{{{{}}}}}
February 11, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Corrie, I’m just appalled by the apparent double-standard as well. After looking at the picture she posted of the two little girls, I was shocked–NOT my daughter! Never, at least while she’s living under my roof. I’m just as disgusted as anyone that this is considered “appropriate clothing” for young ladies.
I went further down the blog–and on an unrelated note I found a post about feminists and abortion, which not only disturbed me, but made me realize the lack of grace and understanding about feminism (at least its earliest forms) and the “history” which Stacey and the likes so pine for. She has no idea what the 19th century was like for women, and if she did, I seriously doubt she would disagree with the women who fought for HER rights. I’m personally, deeply offended by her lack of understanding of what women have really gone through in history.
February 11, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Does she home school? If so, her ignorance is DOUBLY shocking!
How can you teach American history without studying American history?
February 11, 2010 at 8:40 pm
The funny thing about the “Stacked and Packed” calendar is that the people who peddle this pornographic calendar are the ones who mock the “feminists” of having a problem with it. Yes, it seems that the only ones with a problem with the Big Boobs and Gun Toting Babes calendar are the feminists. You know..the bitter women who have no sense of humor?
So, it is okay to go on and on about Sports Illustrated and be outraged about other things such as tight t-shirts and tight pants and the like but as long as that criticism is aimed at the not-so-right-wing-conservatives.
I never heard about the calendar until I went to the website to listen to the interview.
While following the link from her blog, I got an eyeful of “Stacked and Packed”. I was shocked. Truly. Then I Googled “Stacked and Packed” and found out it was very popular among the right-wing conservative men.
Don’t miss the part where Liddy brags about being on the cover of one of his calendars with his executive producer straddling right behind him on the bike and he describes her as being “as naked as a jaybird”.
There are also pictures on the website of interviews he does with the Stacked women in his studio; lots of cleavage and intimate closeness.
It seems that conservatives can oppress women, objectify women and brag about how they “piss off” the feminists by doing so and it is okay. And if you dare to have a problem with that calendar you are an evil feminist.
How would these same conservative women view me, a fellow pro-life conservative, if I would happen to pose for that calendar? They applaud the men but would they applaud me?
I think the clothing line for girls is disgusting but for a program to speak against that clothing line while at the same time peddling their own proud porn is to be quite inconsistent to say the least.
Also, as I listened to that interview I was stunned by some of the snarky comments about Hollywood moms who are against that same clothing line. Brooke Shields, says Stacy, is against the clothing line but then she points out that it was Brooke Shields who posed naked when she was 13. Well, motherhood has a way of causing us to see things differently, doesn’t it, and I am not at all surprised that Hollywood moms would have a problem with dressing their own daughters like sluts from hell.
And, then lets talk about Helen Andelin. She is the one who is highly promoted by Jenny Chancey and she is also the one that writes about how women should visit little girl clothing stores and observe the clothing made for little girls and then seek to dress like little girls (pantaloons and frilly frocks, etc) because this sexually excites men.
I find this JUST AS DISGUSTING as the Montana clothing line. It is even more disgusting because if innocent little girl clothing supposedly excites men then that is a huge problem for Christian women to be promoting adult women dress up as little girls.
After watching the Mormon video that Virginia posted, it was noted in that video that the reason why many FDLS fathers molest/rape their own daughters is because the line has been blurred and these old men are marrying all these little girls anyways. These men already have so many wives but they are molesting their own daughters because their perversion is never satiated.
“She has no idea what the 19th century was like for women, and if she did, I seriously doubt she would disagree with the women who fought for HER rights. I’m personally, deeply offended by her lack of understanding of what women have really gone through in history.”
I am too. I am sick of the white-washing of history the patrios do when it comes to the treatment of women.
Hello? Polygamy? For most of the history of this world it has NOT been one man and one woman! It has been one man and many women. Or women being sold off for the sake of riches and more power where they had no choice in the matter because they were considered PROPERTY.
February 11, 2010 at 9:22 pm
“She has no idea what the 19th century was like for women, and if she did, I seriously doubt she would disagree with the women who fought for HER rights. I’m personally, deeply offended by her lack of understanding of what women have really gone through in history.”
Abby,
I really have to agree with you – she’s missing a lot of facts or so it seems. I believe that must be the case. I’ve seen it with many others who only read “conservative Christian” books and materials…sad but true. Hate to say it, but they get filtered information. But, otherwise her stance makes no sense unless she’s self-destructive.
And count me in – never heard of that calendar. Thankfully.
February 11, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Living under a rock over here too.
February 11, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Thanks for the hugs and prayers, all–much appreciated!
I decided my time wasn’t worth weeding through the video of Gothard. Trying to reason logically and attempting to prove his faulty exegesis probably isn’t going to help as much as praying and loving in this case. My headache miraculously went away when I turned the stuff off–lol!
February 11, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Concerning Liddy and the “stacked and packed” calendar, that just goes to show you that wolves can only wear sheep’s clothing for so long before their masks begin to slip.
For years Conservative politicians have billed themselves as being Christian and family-friendly, in order to get our votes. They have given lipservice to the Pro-Life movement, but have never really done anything to get rid of abortion, and with the election of pro-choice nude model Scott Brown, the mask has fallen away completely, revealing them for the Mammon-worshipping politicians they really are.
February 12, 2010 at 9:48 am
Well put, Cynthia. The “religious right” is only being manipulated by politicians.
I attended HSLDAs “Rally at the Capital” (1999?) ostensibly to put a face on home schooling to our Senators and Representatives.
When we got there it was obvious the real reason was to push a program called “A+” that HSLDA was telling the politicians that home schoolers wanted. I think it was to give us some kind of tax break?
Pffft. Home schoolers wanted to just be left alone to do our thing, actually. At least that was how I felt. And I told our Congressman just that, and he responded that my answer only confirmed his personal assessment of the situation.
So at the Rally, politician after politician spoke about supporting the “A+” drive, to lukewarm applause. Then came a politician (don’t know who) that actually WAS a home school Dad. And he expressed my feelings well, that home schoolers just want the freedom to do our thing without intrusive government regulation. The crowd went wild.
The “A+” initiative died. I think Michael Farris was hoping to show that if a politician could get the home school community behind him/her, they would have a massive and hard-working volunteer base.
I think instead it showed that the home school community is not that easily manipulated, and what we really are at heart is Libertarians, at least when it comes to nanny government telling US what to do.
Our family did have a great time in DC though! Our congressman’s aide gave us a tour of the Capitol, and we went to all the big monuments and musuems plus the zoo and Mount Vernon. Good times.
February 12, 2010 at 11:07 am
“And, then let’s talk about Helen Andelin. She is the one who is highly promoted by Jenny Chancey and she is also the one that writes about how women should visit little girl clothing stores and observe the clothing made for little girls and then seek to dress like little girls (pantaloons and frilly frocks, etc) because this sexually excites men.
I find this JUST AS DISGUSTING as the Montana clothing line. It is even more disgusting because if innocent little girl clothing supposedly excites men then that is a huge problem for Christian women to be promoting adult women dress up as little girls.”
Corrie, this is exactly how I responded to this stuff. Aren’t these both fulfilling the lustful desires of men rather than encouraging a mature mutually satisfying sexual relationship between a husband and a wife? And why in the world would any mature, Christian man be attracted to his wife dressing like a child? Granted, it can be argued that adult women are not the innocents that little girls are but then what of the young woman who goes straight from her father’s home to her husband’s, the entire time being taught to be completely dependent on a man? Does she know what a grown up woman is supposed to be like if her mom read and followed Andelin?
Here is a quote from Helen Andelin in Fascinating Womanhood. Jennie Chancey loves this book and highly recommends it to the women who frequent Ladies Against Feminism. While Jennie acknowledges that she disagrees with Andelin’s Mormonism, she claims the book is “biblical.”
“To achieve a youthful appearance, avoid matronly styles or styles worn by older women. Also avoid styles which are out of date, dresses, hairstyles, shoes, and make-up that were in vogue ten or more years ago. There’s a tendency for women to hang on to styles that were popular when they were young. To look youthful, avoid doing this….if you want to create some youthful styles of your own, especially housedresses, visit a little girls’ shop. There you will see buttons and bows, checks, plaids, pleats, stripes, jumpers, daisies, and even satin, lace, and velvet. All of their clothes are pretty….Little girls wear ribbons, bows, barrettes, and flowers in their hair. They wear cute little hats.”
Just one more thought….I tend to agree with Andelin that some women go matronly at a young age. I had a classmate from high school who looked to be in her late 60’s when she ws 30 because of her style choices. It was awful. And then there is a homeschooling mom I know who turned 40 and started dressing like her teenagers. It was appalling and since she was such a tin woman she could dress in the junior department and did!
February 12, 2010 at 11:11 am
On the subject of fashion, I just wanted to mention that a while back my daughter-in-law and I were talking about dresses for my son’s upcoming wedding this summer. I really do not want to go the traditional mother of the groom route. Talk about matronly and way too over the top formal for me, even for a wedding. We pulled a book off my shelf that I bought 5 years ago when I saw the Jackie Kennedy Onassis museum exhibit in Chicago. Page after page of lovely clothes, simple and modest and feminine. There are a few bows but there are no big flounces, little lace, and the hats are elegant and sophisticated. Not one thing smacks of little girl dressing. I love all the covered buttons, three strands of pearls, and how everything is understated. Why can’t this be the look for womanhood (when we aren’t in jeans and t-shirts, of course!)
February 12, 2010 at 11:16 am
Annie, I just wanted to share with you that I think adoption is a wonderful thing. I was adopted. (here my the story if you haven’t heard it) http://www.thatmom.com/?p=123
Annie, I believe that God has no plan B, only a plan A and that adoption will be His good gift to you! I can’t wait to hear how your story unfolds!
February 12, 2010 at 11:20 am
Re: 141 (Andelin Quotation):
Where exactly does she say to wear pantaloons, etc.? Is there another quotation in the book?
For the record, to say I dislike the book would be putting it charitably. However, I don’t think Andelin is (in the quotation ThatMom cited above, anyway), advocating dressing like a little girl. She’s only saying to not give up feminine clothing *in general*, and (to prove her point) to look at how feminine girls’ clothing is.
At least, I think that’s what she means. She’s a horrible writer. I have to re-write sentences and paragraphs in my mind while I’m reading her just to make sense of what she’s trying to say.
Then I throw the book across the room.
February 12, 2010 at 11:22 am
Sorry, I meant to reply to comment 414 not 141!
February 12, 2010 at 11:27 am
Shadowspring posted, “How can you teach American history without studying American history?”
This is a very good question, although these folks seem to have absolutely no problem with it, beginning with the lies they tell about the founding fathers, the lie that our constitution does not provide for separation of church and state, and it goes on and on. You apparently do not necessarily need to know history to revise it.
February 12, 2010 at 12:30 pm
I think that what honestly happened is that Stacey read Karen’s blog post and checked out the Feminists for Life website through there. Then she saw some quotes and ran with it, without really understanding the historical background. And the other commenters bugged me too, because they basically made blanket statements based on their own skewed perspective and opinions, not based in FACT. And then I showed it to my mom. Who called it bs (But she used the actual words), and told me that in fact they have no facts to back up their statements about abortion today. I don’t know how I’m going to approach the subject, but if she sends me internet links, I will most certainly post them for Stacey to see.
The fact that my mom is one of the most avid feminist women I’ve ever known, and is also a stauch pro-lifer (for lack of a better term), just really flies in the face of feminism being the cause of abortion! It’s truly amazing to me that feminism has become the scapegoat, when it is such a broad brush, there are so many different ways to “be” a feminist, and to say that all feminism is evil kind of like they do, it just says to me that they have already formed their opinion of anyone outside of the little patriarchy bubble. Some of the comments about women and voting, and women being educated, just made me shake my head in disbelief. (And these comments came from women who VOTE AND HAVE EDUCATIONS!)
It’s funny, you know. We can sit in our living rooms and write till our fingers fall off, but the people who are out there in the real world doing the work (not saying people HERE aren’t) are the ones whose opinions don’t seem to hold weight with bloggers like Stacey.
On a somewhat related note, I have checked out Doug Phillips’ blog reports, and from what I can really see on the blog, I think that he has, at least temporarily, begun to see that other Christians ARE doing good work. His personal opinions on certain issues are still a little wacky, but overall, his reporting (though limited to specific issues) is not untruthful. Our missions pastor was at the very same field hospital for the last 3 weeks–their teams actually helped run the hospital and took over logistics for a while, and I am glad to see that Doug reported on the good being done there in the hospital. I may not agree with his religious and political opinions, but at least his reporting is not clashing with what I’m hearing from other sources in the exact same place. His reporting somewhat lacks the arrogance I was expecting.
February 12, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Do they teach that our Constitution does not provide for separation of church and state?
I thought they taught that the Constitution was irrelevant, that is if by “these folds” you mean theonomists.
Could you elaborate a little more, Savannah, so we can all be on the same page?
February 12, 2010 at 12:50 pm
“these folds” = “these folKs” *shakes head at own typing*
February 12, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Well said, Savannah.
A lie must contain only enough truth to make it believable beyond that, the liar (or historical revisionist, they are the same thing) can give free rein to his imagination.
February 12, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Savannah, are you talking about the fact the the phrase itself “separation of church and state” is NOT in fact found in the Constitution?
The wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” clearly supports Jefferson’s idea expressed in his personal letter that religion and government are to remain separate spheres of society.
Politicians may practice (or abstain from practicing) religion in their private lives, and religions may continue to carry on their religious activities no matter who is in office.
It is not revisionist history to admit that the phrase “separation of church and state” os not in the Constitution.
Theonomists plainly declare that the Constitution doesn’t matter, the Bible is sufficient for all things, including the government. I pulled out my theonominst propaganda “Biblical Economics in Comics” by Vic Lockman and right there on page 75, “antinomians and liberals” are ruining our government and it should be reformed on the basis of the given scripture references. The Constitution isn’t even mentioned.
February 12, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Not just self-identified theonomists. There seems to be a growing segment of the religious right who claim that the founding fathers did not intend for church and state to be separated, commonly known as the establishment clause of the first amendment of the US Constitution. More accurately, they seem to claim that it is only a one-way street that was intended, that the church should be involved in state business, but not the other way around.
The words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the constitution although the establishment clause is pretty well spelled out. Thomas Jefferson later wrote what is known as the Danbury letter in which he used words to that effect.
Of course, most of you already know this, as many of you homeschool your children and this is pretty basic civics. But the important thing is that there are people that want to take this precious freedom away from all Americans, so that they can push their view of theology/theocracy on our country.
They also want to conflate faith and politics even more by insisting that churches should defy the IRS statutes about how churches (not individuals – I am not even remotely suggesting that individuals should not be involved) should involve themselves in the political arena.
I developed a much deeper understanding of this situation by reading Michael Babcock’s “Unchristian America: Living with Faith in a Nation that Never was Under God”. Babcock is a Liberty Univeristy professor and this is an excellent book regarding the history of the situation and also challenges Christians on how to approach the issue.
February 12, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Re: #414 and #415
In my opinion, nothing makes a woman look older than trying to dress too young. For backup on this, watch almost any episode of “What Not To Wear”!
Karen, my mother has worked at many weddings. She informs me (I have two sons) that the mother of the groom has two responsibilities: wear beige and keep her mouth shut. Unfortunately, I’m really bad at both of those!
February 12, 2010 at 3:42 pm
“Karen, my mother has worked at many weddings. She informs me (I have two sons) that the mother of the groom has two responsibilities: wear beige and keep her mouth shut. Unfortunately, I’m really bad at both of those!”
Yes, I have my own list of what I think the groom’s mom is supposed to do. Here it is in its entirety: 1.) wear a pretty dress 2.) smile a lot 3.) have no opinion whatsoever
For the record, I won’t be wearing beige. Its a dreadful color on me!
February 12, 2010 at 3:45 pm
By the way, this is my third time to star in this role. I am getting pretty good at it!
February 12, 2010 at 4:04 pm
I’m always way behind on my reading here. Every time I do some catching up, I’m struck by how well-read and intelligent everybody is, and by how much love and grace I find here, but without sugarcoating. This blog is a God-send for so many reasons! Thanks, thatmom, for keeping it going.
I can’t wear beige, either. But I can learn to keep my mouth shut when necessary.
February 12, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Savannah Says:
February 12, 2010 at 2:54 pm
…I developed a much deeper understanding of this situation by reading Michael Babcock’s “Unchristian America: Living with Faith in a Nation that Never was Under God”. Babcock is a Liberty Univeristy professor and this is an excellent book regarding the history of the situation and also challenges Christians on how to approach the issue.
Savannah,
Thanks for the book recommendation. I’m always looking for new books.
February 12, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Shadowspring posted, “It is not revisionist history to admit that the phrase “separation of church and state” os not in the Constitution.”
Yes, I realize that. I was referring to the concept in shorthand, not the actual words. Those specific words do not appear in the establishment clause, but are commonly referred to as a concept as such. That’s all I meant. Clearly they are not in the constitution itself, so it’s not a matter of admitting or not admitting anything.
They appear in Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, where he refers to the “wall of separation between church and state”.
February 12, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Yeah, I got that you knew that. I was just trying to figure out “who” was calling for ending the establishment clause, if you were specifically posting about theonomists.
Because my understanding of theonomy, is that the Constitution is irrelevant. That to me is way scarier than Christians complaining about what preachers can and cannot preach from the pulpit about moral issues that also affect the political scene.
February 12, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Another great book along the lines of Michael Babcock’s is Dr. Gregory Boyd’s “The Myth of A Christian Nation.” It is one of my all-time favorites. There’s a link to his website on my blog. He’s got some great stuff there!
February 12, 2010 at 11:07 pm
About young boys objecting to signs in WalMart…
I was shopping there tonight with my 10 year old son, and he saw the big sign “Love is… CANDY!” He smirked and said, “That is SO wrong! We’ll just have to TALK to those people!”
I couldn’t help but laugh remembering the earlier comments on this post.
February 13, 2010 at 12:50 am
Karen, I get to be mother of the bride this summer–look forward to seeing your photos! Don’t think I will be wearing beige, either.
February 13, 2010 at 10:42 am
“Annie, I just wanted to share with you that I think adoption is a wonderful thing. I was adopted. (here my the story if you haven’t heard it) http://www.thatmom.com/?p=123
Annie, I believe that God has no plan B, only a plan A and that adoption will be His good gift to you! I can’t wait to hear how your story unfolds!”
That’s wonderful! And I’m with you “no plan B” – were the ones with A,B,C’s.
February 14, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Darcy posted, “Another great book along the lines of Michael Babcock’s is Dr. Gregory Boyd’s “The Myth of A Christian Nation.” It is one of my all-time favorites. There’s a link to his website on my blog. He’s got some great stuff there!”
Actually, that was the first book I had read dealing with this subject. I was pretty much a full-fledged “culture warrior” before that, at least in some ways. Greg Boyd’s book made me look at my life, and hard. It’s a shame that he’s painted with the dreaded “evil librul” brush, and because of that, many fundamentalist Christians don’t read his book, as his thesis is transformative.
Shadowspring posted, “Because my understanding of theonomy, is that the Constitution is irrelevant. That to me is way scarier than Christians complaining about what preachers can and cannot preach from the pulpit about moral issues that also affect the political scene.”
About your first point, I don’t really see a substantial difference between lying about or trying to distort what the constituion says or claiming that its irrelevant. To me, they’re are both kind of the same thing, and both are frightening.
On your second point, I was not referring to pastors being able to talk about, from the pulpit, issues of morality. They have always done so, and arguably, that is a big part of their job. I am talking about pastors who say, from the pulpit, “You must vote for Candidate X, and if you do vote for Candidate Y, you ARE NOT a Christian, and you’re on a fast toboggan to hell”.
Two totally different things.
February 14, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Haha, all this talk of wearing beige has effectively killed the thread.
February 15, 2010 at 12:58 am
Hopefully the dead thread means everyone is celebrating big time with their valentines!
February 15, 2010 at 8:55 am
Bringing us back from beige…
Abby’s comments about the women’s suffrage/abolition movement and the vitriol that seems to come out against these women on the part of patriocentic women today sparked some good discussion in my house over the weekend, in part because we went to see The Blind Side. This was my second time to see it and I love the movie, on a number of levels.
Sandra Bullock’s portrayal of real life 21st century southern woman Leigh Anne Teughy, whose life was so drastically changed as she was challenged to put wheels on her faith as a Christian and as she was confronted by her “friends” for doing so, really pictures the contradictions we all have seen ourselves. While Teughy is the strong, outspoken, mover and shaker woman, her friends, in contrast, are stereotypical women who are more concerned about shopping and having lunch and “charity work” than they are about real relationships with real people. Somehow they reflect, I think, the two types of women who came out of the pre-Civil War south….the belles and the suffragettes, to paint broadly.
One of the appropriate word pictures often used to describe the white women who were mistresses of their plantations is the notion that they were to be “placed on a pedestal.” If you read commentary on life at that time, this phrase comes up often. The idea is that women (white upper crust women) were to be fragile and objects of beauty to be admired, like a lovely vase on a mantle, to be taken down by the man for his amusement at his whim. I believe that many of those who disdain the woman’s suffrage movement do so because they believe it was an assault on women’s lives, at least the “image” or “myth” of life for white women at that time.
Here is an interesting quote from Daniel Hundley in his book Social Relations in Our Southern states:
“A Southern matron is ever idolized and almost worshipped by her dependents, and beloved by her children, to whom no word ever sounds half so sweet as mother and for whom no place possesses one half the charms of home.”
February 15, 2010 at 8:56 am
Here is another interesting quote that talks about the myth of the southern woman from that era, this time from historian Anne Scott:
“If talking could make it so, antebellum southern women of the upper class would have been the most perfect example of womankind yet seen on earth. If praise could satisfy all of woman’s needs, they would have been the happiest. Literary journals sermons, novels, commencement addresses, wherever men spoke, there was praise of Woman and exhortation to further perfection.
This marvelous creation was described as a submissive wife whose reason for being was to love, honor, obey and occasionally amuse her husband, to bring up his children and manage his household. Physically weak and “formed for the less laborious occupations,” she depended upon male protection. To secure this protection she was to “create a magic spell” over any man in her vicinity.” She was timid and modest, beautiful and graceful, the most fascinating being in creation, the delight and charm of every circle she moves in.
Part of her charm lay in her innocence. The less a woman knew of life, the better she was supposed to be able to deal with it. Her mind was not logical, but in the absence of reasoning capacity her sensibility and intuition were highly developed. It was, indeed, to her advantage that the play of instincts and of the feelings is not cramped by the controlling influence of logic and reason. It was her nature to be self-denying and she was given to suffering in silence, a characteristic said to endear her to men.”
February 15, 2010 at 9:07 am
And these thoughts from a man only identified as “President of the oldest college in Virginia” to his newly married daughter and found in one of the early issues of the Southern Literary Messenger (again, Anne Scott):
“The wife’s conduct alone, he asserted, determined the happiness or misery of a marriage. She must resolve at the onset never to oppose her husband, never to show displeasure, no matter what he might do. A man had a right to expect his wife to place perfect confidence in his judgment and to believe that he always knew best. “A difference with your husband ought to be considered the greatest calamity” wrote the father, adding that a woman who permitted differences to occur could expect to lose her husband’s love and all hope of happiness.”
February 15, 2010 at 9:10 am
And of course, the archetypical Southern belle, Scarlett O’Hara, is a memorable character because although this is what is expected of her as a woman, and on a certain level she wishes she could be this kind of woman (like her mother), she *knows* that she is stronger and smarter than almost every man around her. (With the notable exception of Rhett Butler.)
February 15, 2010 at 9:14 am
And these thoughts from a man only identified as “President of the oldest college in Virginia” to his newly married daughter and found in one of the early issues of the Southern Literary Messenger (again, Anne Scott):
“The wife’s conduct alone, he asserted, determined the happiness or misery of a marriage. She must resolve at the onset never to oppose her husband, never to show displeasure, no matter what he might do. A man had a right to expect his wife to place perfect confidence in his judgment and to believe that he always knew best. “A difference with your husband ought to be considered the greatest calamity” wrote the father, adding that a woman who permitted differences to occur could expect to lose her husband’s love and all hope of happiness.”
Another commentator, John Daniel Wade, who researched the life of middle Georgia, pre-Civil War, assessed it this way, “Men found intelligence in women a quality that in general distressed more than it pleased. When they did not openly condemn they treated it with insulting condescension. The women proved themselves marvelously adaptable.” (This one hit too close to home. Sounds like some of my own family integrated church experiences!)
February 15, 2010 at 9:24 am
One of the leading characters in a Nathaniel Beverly Tucker novel once discussed the way he proposed to educate his daughter: She must be raised, he said, to take for granted her husband’s superiority, to rely on his wisdom, to take pride in his distinction. Even should her faculties be superior to his, he cannot raise her so high but that she will still feel herself a creature of his hands.”
February 15, 2010 at 9:28 am
Here is an interesting definition for hegemony I recently came across:
“A concept of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) which refers to the way that the political and social domination of the bourgeois class in capitalist society is pervasively expressed not only in ideologies but in all realms of culture and social organization. The comprehensive expression of the values of class divided society in social life lends this form of society an appearance of naturalness and inevitability that removes it from examination, criticism and challenge. While arising in the analysis of a class divided society the term is also used in discussion of a patriarchal society or a colonial society.”
Perhaps this is why any discussion of equality of any sort, whether it be among the sexes or classes, or whatever, is labeled “Marxism.”
Interesting to ponder, especially the notion that hegemony is free from criticism or challenge or examination by its very nature. This really opened my eyes to some of my own experiences with patriocentrists.
February 15, 2010 at 10:03 am
Here is another interesting quote. Before I share it, I certainly want to say that I do not desire to belittle or malign any Southern woman who reads here. I am also not assigning all these traits to all women. So if I offend any of my southern friends, please hear this in the spirit in which I share it.
I have long realized that many of the patriocentric ideals for women that are passed off as the “godly” or “biblical” way of doing things are really and truly just antebellum southern cultural ideals for women with a few passages of Scripture used as “support.” While obviously there are some praiseworthy ideals, as such because they are truly Biblical, many of them are not required for all women.
I think this quote from a research study on southern stereotypes by John Lynxwiler and Michele Wilson is so good so please hear me out:
“The term “Southern woman” conjures up a specific cultural image. Southern womanhood is essentially white and relatively well to do. From journalistic satire to scholarly writings, a consistent, dominant image of the Southern woman emerges. Southern by “the grace of God,” she is a lady in her innocence, including the absence of knowledge of vulgar topics and language. She is modest in her concerns, dress, and demeanor. Her timidity, never marred by assertiveness or anger, is complemented by her submissiveness to her parents, husband, spiritual counselor, and God. All of these protect her from the harsh realities of money, the world of work, and rapists…Immortalized in popular fiction and Hollywood cinema, the Southern belle, as a stereotype, dates back to the antebellum South. Her popular mystique is organized around youth, physical attractiveness, sensuality, and a command of social proprieties….As with other female stereotypes in our society, cultural images of Southern women generally are considered more childlike and of less value than their male counterparts.
Some critics have argued that female stereotypes have little grounding in reality, that the squealing, mindless girl and the lady with her chaste morality and groveling deference are merely parodies with little validity. However, cultural stereotypes do have an impact on our lives. They function as controls in the sense that individuals internalize them, monitor their own behavior, and restrict their presentations in a manner approaching the ideal. In turn, others react to us in ways that encourage mutual acceptance of the stereotype as a norm.
Along with their restrictive nature, stereotypes have other functions. They contribute to role expectations which serve as guides for behavior. As guides to appropriate behaviors, personalities, and attitudes, one can see the expectations positively and call the result role performance.”
More…
February 15, 2010 at 10:13 am
One of aspects of the Lunxwiler/Wilson research focused on the code of the New Southern Belle (NSB). Here are some of the highlights of their research:
“Status consciousness permeates the life of the NSB. It directs her decisions about where to go, what to do, and with whom. It also dictates how she will interact with those of higher and lower status. In short, NSBs are masters of place in the social structure. This attention to status indicators is a form of boundary maintenance and includes, among other things, material goods, knowledge of social rituals, deference and demeanor ceremonies….
Reliance on traditional sex roles is one of the ways in which Southern women of most types differ from the women of other parts of the country. The NSB does this in a more obvious way than other women from her region. Not only are men to be adored, theya re to be deferred to in decision-making and conversation. The role-taking ability of the NSB is well hones. She, more than any other group of women, recognized that men have power, that they control the system of awards in society. Rather than opting for achievement on her own, she achieves through affiliations with men.
The ability to achieve is dependent on being male oriented. There is a quid pro quo, not just in deference but in ego building and face-saving for males….”
More
February 15, 2010 at 11:31 am
Wonderful info.
Thanks
February 15, 2010 at 12:00 pm
“She, more than any other group of women, recognized that men have power, that they control the system of awards in society.”
This is key. Percentage wise, men have more power socially than women. But that does not suggest that women should encourage men to take power from women, nor does it suggest that women shouldn’t have social power as well. And believe me, women are part of the problem when they let men take power from women. We’ve done that in the past. Now it is time to seek fair treatment.
February 15, 2010 at 12:17 pm
“About your first point, I don’t really see a substantial difference between lying about or trying to distort what the constituion says or claiming that its irrelevant. To me, they’re are both kind of the same thing, and both are frightening.
On your second point, I was not referring to pastors being able to talk about, from the pulpit, issues of morality. They have always done so, and arguably, that is a big part of their job. I am talking about pastors who say, from the pulpit, “You must vote for Candidate X, and if you do vote for Candidate Y, you ARE NOT a Christian, and you’re on a fast toboggan to hell”.
Savannah, I am still trying to figure out WHO you are talking about? Who does this? Who is “lying about or trying to distort what the constituion says” and what pastor is telling people that if they don’t vote for a particular candidate they are going to hell?
That’s all I am trying to get you to indentify is who you are talking about. I have never experienced these things, so I am very confused.
I thought you were talking about theonomists but now it is clear you mean someone/some organization that is clearly “Two totally different things.” but you still have not identified who/what that is.
I am not trying to start a fight. I just want to understand who/what you are talking about. I am a staunch defender of freedom for both religious and non-religious Americans!
February 15, 2010 at 12:42 pm
http://www.paradisepost.com/news/ci_14378467
We just talked about using glue sticks a few days ago. Now this article appears and it sounds like the parents used a similar “rod.” This is just horrifying.
February 15, 2010 at 1:18 pm
“One of the leading characters in a Nathaniel Beverly Tucker novel once discussed the way he proposed to educate his daughter: She must be raised, he said, to take for granted her husband’s superiority, to rely on his wisdom, to take pride in his distinction. Even should her faculties be superior to his, he cannot raise her so high but that she will still feel herself a creature of his hands.”
This author certainly does seem to have the hierarchial process of manipulation nailed down. It’s almost too much to read…
February 15, 2010 at 1:49 pm
The parents are facing life in prison.
It seems to me that whichever child “discipline” guru they were following — Michael Pearl and “pastor” Ron Williams come to mind as possible culprits — ought to also get a prison sentence, for aiding and abetting child torture.
February 15, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Just read the story about the Schatz family. That is so horrifying. I will definitely say something about this in my next Hope Chest e-magazine. It reminds me so much of the Forder family and the murder charges against them in the death of one of their adopted children. He wasn’t from Liberia, but they had adopted triplets from there after he died.
BTW, did anyone notice that today is Susan B. Anthony Day? It is her 190th birthday. Cheers for the right to vote — and SO MUCH MORE!
February 15, 2010 at 2:08 pm
And, it looks as though Michael Pearl was the guru behind this child’s death.
From the archives of KRCR TV News , in California:
Investigators Look Into Murder Suspects’ Punishment Techniques
Fri, 02/12/2010 – 16:32
The Paradise couple accused of killing one of their children and severely injuring another might have been following advice from the internet.
The Butte County District Attorney’s Office is investigating a possible connection between Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz and a website that endorses corporal punishment using the same quarter-inch pipe the Schatz’s allegedly used to discipline Lydia and Zariah.
Prosecutors say Lydia was being disciplined for mispronouncing a word while reading during a home school lesson the day she died. Zariah is still in critical condition in a Sacramento hospital, but he is starting to recover.
Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz are due back in court February 25th.
February 15, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Karen,
The story about the Schatz family is horrific.
February 15, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Also google the names Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz.
February 15, 2010 at 3:49 pm
“Part of her charm lay in her innocence. The less a woman knew of life, the better she was supposed to be able to deal with it. Her mind was not logical, but in the absence of reasoning capacity her sensibility and intuition were highly developed. It was, indeed, to her advantage that the play of instincts and of the feelings is not cramped by the controlling influence of logic and reason. It was her nature to be self-denying and she was given to suffering in silence, a characteristic said to endear her to men.”
LOL!
Great stuff!
God forbid that I should be cramped and controlled by logic and reason! LOL
I must be a defective female, born with defective female genes. And I see that much of patriocentric teachings concerning the “biblical woman” actually come from the Southern Belle playbook.
On another note, I read a great article in the St. Louis paper about women and how they handle anger and how that relates to the “mean girl/woman” syndrome. Since women aren’t allowed to be angry and their anger is trivialized by society they resort to passive/aggressive and mean behavior.
A woman who deals with issues in an assertive, forthright manner is considered to be a b*&%$ so women have had to adapt and become sneaky and underhanded in order to deal with anger.
It talks about how women also have a double standard when it comes to dealing with bad treatment. When bad treatment comes from a man, we tend to rationalize and make excuses for them and easily and quickly forget and forgive such behavior. But, when the same treatment or behavior comes from a woman we hold that woman to a much higher standard and we hold grudges against the woman.
February 15, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Mary,
I will get the quote from Andelin about going to a little girls’ store and observing the fashions. But, it is most certainly not about dressing in a feminine manner since Andelin reiterates her opinion in other parts of the book that men are aroused by a woman who behaves like a little girl. Dressing like one only goes to further the fantasy in the male mind.
Andelin’s point isn’t about acting “feminine” or dressing feminine but about manipulating and pouting and stomping and shaking our curls like a little girl. Basically, we are to act the part of a little girl because men allegedly like this quality in a woman.
February 15, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Happy birthday, Susan B. Anthony. I think you would enjoy this:
http://www.iberkshires.com/story/33977/Anthony-Museum-Opening-Sparks-Debate-on-Abortion.html
February 15, 2010 at 7:01 pm
I am sick, sick, sick of the Church tolerating abuse.
February 15, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Karen, I have to say that the Southern woman you describe in #447 bears no resemblance to the Southern women I grew up with. My great-grandmother and both my grandmothers were working women throughout their adult lives — some with, some without the benefit of higher education. They were smart, strong, humble, dedicated to their God and their families.
My mother went to college (as her mother did) and although she did not work outside the home, she encouraged her daughters to pursue higher education and has expressed only pride in our jobs.
“All of these protect her from the harsh realities of money, the world of work, and rapists…”
As if these somehow go together! No, thank goodness, my mother is/was always the treasurer in our home and kept detailed financial records — necessary for a minister’s unique financial issues. All of the women in my family were/are quite aware of the realities of money and were raised to be so. It would have been considered negligent not to be!
February 15, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Shadowspring, I was not deliberately trying to obscure anything. I didn’t realize you were asking for specific names of organizations or people that were advocating that the establishment clause does not protect Americans from any religion imposed upon them by the government, i.e., a civil religion.
As far as pastors and pulpits and politics, one only need to look at the national organized effort by the Alliance Defense Fund’s “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” on September 28, 2008 that encouraged pastors to defy the IRS statutes and speak out against the democratic candidate and for the republican candidate for president. Not for/against issues, not about morality, but actually for/against specific candidates.
This was a big deal in my small town, as many far-right evangelicals wanted their churches to participate in this, but most churches would not, most notably our mega church. Some people drove more than an hour to to find a church that Sunday morning which supported this national effort put on by the ADF.
One of our friends drove to Dayton to one of these church, just to kind of investigate what was going on with this effort. This Christian man reported to us that that congregation had been told, from the pulpit, by the head pastor, that Christians could not support certain candidates, and if one voted for certain candidates, one could not possibly be a Christian.
Now I don’t know about everybody else, but where I come from, if somebody tells you that you can’t possibly be a Christian, that means that they believe you are bound for hell.
As far as the constitution, one only need google “no separation of church and state” to be presented with all stripes and colors of folks who believe that there is no separation of church and state in this country, and that Christianity, or at least their preferred form of it, should be the declared the “civil religion” of this country. Take your pick. Maybe you can start here: http://www.noseparationDOTorg/ (note use of DOT).
These people are short-sighted, refusing to see that the wall of separation which most Americans hold so dear protects ALL of us, Christians and non-Christians alike. If the government can force one religion down people’s throats, they can certainly change their minds later and force another.
Faith and relationship with God are something that we freely enter into, because God Himself has equipped us with free will, and does not seek to force us into relationship with Him. Why would we ever allow the government to do so?
February 15, 2010 at 11:06 pm
It must be something in the water – here’s another homeschooling/child abuse case in the news. This girl lived, though….
February 15, 2010 at 11:13 pm
More on that Arizona child abuse case….
February 16, 2010 at 12:52 am
Hey, friends… would you mind lifting my husband and me up in prayer tomorrow?
We are both getting medical tests done, for some pretty worrisome symptoms.
Thanks.
February 16, 2010 at 3:34 am
I think anyone who promotes the “NSB” should read The Age of Innocence. I think it gives a great perspective on what a man actually gets out of a naive “pure” wife.
Men are told that that’s what they want in a woman, but it truly doesn’t satisfy. I wonder how many turn to affairs or to controlling their wives because they assume the problem is with her, rather than questioning their beleifs.
February 16, 2010 at 8:05 am
food for thoughts:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/fundiewords.htm
February 16, 2010 at 9:31 am
I read about the Schatz little girls. How awful! It makes me sick that parents would do that to their children.
It also makes me sick that “ministries” that promote such methods of discipline would be left off the hook time and time again.
On the NGJ site (which I am almost sure is the internet site that promotes the use of plumbing supply to spank children with) there is an article where Michael Pearls says to “give the child 10 or 15 licks” ( I can’t find the article, but it’s there somewhere).
In another article, they are giving advice whose children are running away or pouting when they are going to be spaked or told off.
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/2003/july/01/different-techniques-to-control-parents/
Here’s the advice for te mom of a 4 year-old little runaway.
When she screams or flees, calmly follow through by physically subduing her. Sit on her, if you have to, and slowly explain that you will not tolerate this resistance. Explain in a normal tone (She will eventually stop screaming and listen) that you are going to give her, say, five licks for the original offense and an additional two licks for the fit. Slowly apply the five licks, counting out loud. When I say slowly, I mean with a thirty second gap between each lick and a calm explanation to the screaming child that you are not the least impressed except that you are going to spank harder and she still gets the additional two licks plus one more for her ongoing screaming. When you have finally arrived at five well- anticipated and carefully counted licks, say, “OK, your spanking is over; that is the five licks you got for hitting your brother, but now I must give you two more for trying to run away.” Give her one lick and say, “Now, that is one of the licks for running away; you have one more coming.” Give the second lick, and then calmly and slowly explain that all her licks are over now, except for the one additional lick she incurred for continuing to scream during the spanking. After you have finished, tell her that you are going to let her up now, if she stops screaming, otherwise you are going to give her one additional lick. If she stops, or at least makes a great effort to, then you have won. You may never have to go through this horrible time again. But, if she is continuing to scream in defiance, you have the option of continuing to warn and spank, or of ceasing here with a parting warning: “Next time you better not run and throw a fit; for if you do, you will only get more licks and harder ones.”
Finally, if you are not going to be consistent, give up now; don’t trouble yourself or torment the child by spanking her nine times and then giving in on the tenth time. Children are amazing in the memory and ability to endure spankings, waiting for that one moment of weakness to show through again. If you occasionally allow their fits to win the prize, like a gambler they will play the game all night, even when they are losing, because they know winning is possible.
It’s worth it. After about three days of absolute consistency on your part, you can initially conform a child to your will. They just have to be convinced that you are not the old negotiator. You are Iron Woman; The Indomitable. It’s the loving thing to do.
So. When would they tell a parent to stop spanking a screaming child and maybe try letting the child calm down?
I think the book should go off the market and Christians should stand up against these people’s teachings.
February 16, 2010 at 10:14 am
If you don’t vote and if you don’t vote against ALL Republicans then you are voting and you are voting for this.
So clearly the ADF is not the only people damning the opposition.
I believe that tactic is called “guilty be association” and thinking people shouldn’t fall for it.
As a person who had those very scriptures pronounced over me by church leadership, I am incensed that this person would pretend to have compassion for those of us in that situation, when all his is really doing is further exploiting us victims in order to promote his own political agenda.
I am too angry for words right now.
I am sure this is not the response you thought you would stir up, Karen. But how dare this person pretend to care when all he is really doing is using our suffering to villify his political opponents?
That is every bit as bad as a preacher saying that you can’t be saved if you DON’T vote Republican! This guy is claiming you must be a child-abusing woman hating fundamentalist if you DO vote Repblublican and not only that, if you don’t vote at all you share the same label! Wth?
February 16, 2010 at 10:20 am
For the record, the same elders who pronounced the curse over my sister and me and “exiled us from the camp” also organized the church watch party for Jimmy Carter!
You all do remember that Jimmy Carter was/is a Democrat, right?
February 16, 2010 at 11:56 am
Cynthia, I am praying for peace for you and your husband, wisdom for the physicians and for God’s mercies to touch your lives.
February 16, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Shadowspring posted, “So clearly the ADF is not the only people damning the opposition.”
I don’t recall anyone suggesting that they were. I only hope you find it equally repugnant from both sides.
February 16, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Ladies, I read this goofy stuff people are preaching and teaching today and all I can think of is “come quickly Lord Jesus”. Surely these are the last days, there seem to be so many deceivers out there leading not only the lost astray but believers as well. I feel these wolves in sheeps clothing are highjacking Christianity and stealing away the beauty of the Gospel, replacing it with a false gospel that brings darkness instead of light. I fear for my grown children and grandchildren for what they will be exposed to and wonder what being a Christian will cost them as the world begins to associate Christians with these kooks out there.
February 16, 2010 at 5:58 pm
“When she screams or flees, calmly follow through by physically subduing her. Sit on her, if you have to, and slowly explain that you will not tolerate this resistance….”
I really am being to think that parents who abuse their children like this are raising the nest generation of atheists, for why would their children want to believe or follow a God who demanded parents treat their children in such a manner. It just makes me shudder to hear and read about parents who explain to their children that they are obeying God by disciplining so harshly.
February 16, 2010 at 9:20 pm
“Ladies, I read this goofy stuff people are preaching and teaching today and all I can think of is “come quickly Lord Jesus”. Surely these are the last days, there seem to be so many deceivers out there leading not only the lost astray but believers as well.”
You may be right, but history tells us that things in the Middle Ages were even worse than today.
Google “Cathar beliefs” or “Munster rebellion” and you’ll see what I mean.
February 17, 2010 at 1:26 am
My Valentines Day was spent…at our son’s wedding!
http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs126.snc3/17376_1362931198336_1383288095_31001432_1354956_n.jpg
oh, I wore dk purple. I hope it was okay!
February 17, 2010 at 8:56 am
You all look so happy, Momgodin,
Congratulations!
February 17, 2010 at 9:52 am
Karen–I looked at that site about the words of reconstructionists, and I was a little confused about the thing about patriotism that was written by Francis Schaeffer. It didn’t line up with the other stuff for me, because I happen to agree with him. I wonder who put this site together? Schaeffer wasn’t saying that we should Subdue the government, but that it is basically okay for Christians to have “civil disobedience” when it comes to serious issues regarding things like abortion or the rights of all human beings. This is exactly what Martin Luther King did. He’s not talking about majority rule, but the fact that the Kingdom of God supersedes (for the Christian) the kingdoms of man. Our main loyalty as Christians is to God, not to man, and we absolutely SHOULD fight for our Christian beliefs, particularly when justice clashes with the laws of the land. Justice for ALL is in the constitution, and in our pledge to the American flag. Not only that, but we serve a God who is concerned with Justice, which is far more important than any pledge we make as citizens of any given country. If I were a citizen of a country that were not concerned with justice, but still a Christian, it would always still be my duty to fight for justice there as well, because I belong to GOD’s Kingdom, not simply to man’s. And it’s not through domination and control, but through the message of the Gospel that we will change the world–change–not take over.
There’s a lot on that site I found disturbing, but this, I have to say, was something I agreed with Schaeffer on.
February 17, 2010 at 10:36 am
Child abuse in the name of Jesus
http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3843
Pretty powerful stuff when you look at the list.
February 17, 2010 at 10:37 am
Momgodin, you look lovely in that purple! And all so happy and cheery. Congratulations!!!
February 17, 2010 at 10:37 am
Cynthia, continuing to pray for you and your husband. Keep us posted.
February 17, 2010 at 10:40 am
I agree, Abby. In fact, I have been reading Schaeffer this week in the process of writing about some of the embarrassing lack of consciousness or awareness of the culture, even coming out of the mouths of those who are purported “teachers” of worldview! Astounding. Schaeffer has to been on rotisserie in his grave!!!
February 17, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Savannah,
Since I dumped Concerned Women for America back in ’88 I have given no time nor attention to political groups claiming to be advocating for God.
God is quite big enough to advocate for Himself, thank you very much.
I am a big advocate of standing up for what’s right in the political arena, every man according to his own conscience. When people bring God into their arguments, I turn a deaf ear and close the checkbook.
My repugnance at people claiming that their politics are God’s chosen point of view probably stems from having to sit at that watch party and then finding out what was really in the hearts of those “men of Gawd”. >:[
February 17, 2010 at 12:37 pm
momogodin,
You are beautiful! And so was the bride. Your son must be very proud of the lovely ladies in his life.
February 17, 2010 at 1:53 pm
To all, my friend Geneal just called. The local health department is covering all her tests and her MRI is scheduled for the 24th. Thanks for the prayers!
February 17, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Here’s a question for all you ladies: Why do you think that the churches are *not* speaking out against child abuse?
And I mean in general, including everything from not condemning the Pearls and the Ezzos to the Vatican refusing to cooperate with the child abuse inquiry in Dublin to the silence from the Christian leadership as a whole over the fairly large numbers of pastors and youth ministers who keep being convicted for abuse issues.
February 17, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Re: Southern Belles — that’s funny; when I think of Southern women, I usually think of Scarlett O’Hara or Flannery O’Connor.
February 17, 2010 at 9:28 pm
“…to the Vatican refusing to cooperate with the child abuse inquiry in Dublin…”
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=35437
February 17, 2010 at 9:31 pm
I found this article while I was looking for the one on the Irish sex abuse story.
IMO, it is SUPERB:
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=35424
February 18, 2010 at 11:20 am
Annie C.,
Good question.
I often wondered that when I was dealing with a sexual abuse issue (not me, personally, but on behalf of a child) and why NO one want to address the problem and just wanted it (and the victims) to go away. To me, it was logical that we should just talk about this openly and make sure that this happened to no other child and that the perp got the help he so needed (obviously he was abused because a sheltered, homeschooled child would NEVER know to do the things and say the things he did to his victim).
A friend of mine, who was sexually abused as a child, told me that she thinks it is because much of the leadership (in any church) either was sexually abused themselves and never wanted to talk about it because then their abuse would become reality or that they “experimented” sexually with other males in their pre-teens and teens and that would mean they would have to, again, face reality. She was repeatedly raped by her own deacon father and when she went to the leadership of her church for help they told her that she was a liar, a gossip and that she should be ashamed for slandering such a good man (her father). Her own mother refused to believe her, too.
We all have so-called “skeletons” in our closets and if we haven’t dealt with the reality of those “skeletons” we will be defensive and react instead of address those issues.
As far as child abuse, I think that it is not addressed because either people think it is a non-issue or they think that by calling attention to it that their “right” to spank will be taken away from them.
It seems to really bother a lot of people when the issue of children’s rights come up and the topic goes immediately to spanking and how the government has no business regulating whether they can spank or not.
Also, when we talk about abuse or the techniques of spanking it always sounds worse to our own ears than when we are actually personally doing the action. In order to talk about abuse, we might actually have to admit that we have been or are currently guilty of exactly what we are condemning.
I will never forget when I was on a popular patriarchal wives list and the topic of slapping children in the face came up and how that was such a wonderful discipline tool. I was appalled and said so PUBLICLY. In fact, I was the only one, if I remember right. I got a lot of mail thanking me for doing so but everyone was to afraid to say something publicly. I couldn’t understand that either but I think corporal punishment and supreme authority over one’s children is so important in the patriarchal circles that these other women knew they would be outed as “not one of them” if they said something. I didn’t care since I was not one of them and I no longer wanted to pretend I was one of them in order to belong to their club.
I was written, privately, by the moderators and told that I shouldn’t “judge” these ladies and that slapping faces was just one of “many different tools” in our discipline toolbox. Well, I didn’t judge them. I told them that there was no excuse for slapping a child in the face.
The whole conversation started when a woman wrote in about her parents and how they reported her husband to the authorities for slapping their child across the face at a family gathering. The ladies wrote her back and told her that since she was a woman she didn’t know any better and that her husband knew better and that if she told her husband that it was unacceptable to slap her children across the face then she would be putting herself in a position where she thought she knew better than her husband.
Well, she DID know better than her husband in this particular instance and so did her family!
That devolved into posts that supported this husband’s choice of “discipline”.
What really made me mad was that NONE of the moderators, as so-called Titus 2 women and “leaders” and “authors”, rebuked these women and stated that slapping a child across the face is never okay
So, maybe that experience tells us one of the reasons why abuse is not addressed in the Church? Because there are many people who abuse their own children and to point a finger at abuse is to point a finger at their own selves.
Just think of the amount of church leaders who admit, in various studies, that they spend a lot of time looking at porn! And they are the ones who have admitted to the practice, what about the ones that haven’t? They are leading our churches.
I have found that many leaders use the pulpit to hide their own sins, too. They rail against porn, for instance, but they have a huge problem with it. Kind of like a stink bomb in order to throw people off the trail of their own secret dabblings.
February 18, 2010 at 11:23 am
Shadowspring,
re. #485
I totally agree!
And great news on your friend! Thanks for sharing.
February 18, 2010 at 11:30 am
Momgodin,
Beautiful! Absolutely beautiful! Congratulations!
Moara,
“I think anyone who promotes the “NSB” should read The Age of Innocence. I think it gives a great perspective on what a man actually gets out of a naive “pure” wife.”
What is the “NSB”? And is the “Age of Innocence” a book? What is the author’s name?
February 18, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Annie C. said “Here’s a question for all you ladies: Why do you think that the churches are *not* speaking out against child abuse?”
Because they’re commiting it?
I don’t know! I’m wondering. Where is the biblical justification for Baptist Boot Camps for girls with rebellious spirits?
Baptist Pastors are too reluctant to condemn the abusive Hephzibah House for girls. Are they afraid? Or do they believe in a biblical mandate for men to dominate by force, keep property by force, and hold slaves by force, and if necessary, abuse?
February 18, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Annie–that’s a really good question. I wish I knew an answer, but I think the reality is that the church has been destabilized by the corruption from within. I don’t think that it’s going to tear the church apart for good, no, I just think that there is a lot of work to be done.
I have been reading a book of articles written by C.S. Lewis called Present Concerns, and one of the articles I just read deals with “tolerance” or at least the idea that we should just let everyone go on doing what they want and not bother with anyone else. I think we all agree that the consequences can be disastrous when we say “mind your own business” when it comes to things like abuse.
I believe, personally, that churches ought to take a hard and direct stand on abuse, any kind of abuse, and that any church group that opposes this stance will be left to themselves. This is kind of what Lewis said. He was talking about a man who wrote for tabloids, or that kind of “news” and how everyone says the man and his job are deplorable, yet continue to associate with him and pay to buy his news. He suggests a boycott, not because anyone is actually better than that man, but because his kind of “news” is destructive to the well-being of society as a whole. It boils down to: if you don’t like gossip, don’t be around a gossip, and don’t listen to gossip. If you don’t like child abuse, speak against child abuse and do not associate with anyone who doesn’t take a hard stance on child abuse. Of course, in our world, it’s not so simple, but it also doesn’t mean we have to seclude ourselves. It means that we don’t tolerate that kind of lawbreaking.
Sorry for the rambling! I do think that this explains why Jesus spent time with “sinners” rather than the religious people. They were honest about their sin, and they wanted to change, while the Pharisees were outwardly “perfect” but inwardly vile. Jesus only spent time with people who admitted their own weakness and wanted to change, not those who saw themselves as perfect, but were far less in reality. Some people are smug like the Pharisees, seeing themselves as “above” others or the law, and those people aren’t worth being around. Anyone who says that beating your child with a metal rod is acceptable doesn’t deserve to be listened to or associated with, no matter what “good things” they might say in other matters.
I have friends who’ve read Debbie Pearl’s book (Created to be His Helpmeet), and they have all said “well, there’s some good stuff” in spite of the bad advice. Well, here’s what I think: If you have to sift through the bad to get to the good, it’s not worth it, and the author certainly doesn’t deserve praise for any good things she might say. We all have some degree of sense, and I can bet that most of the “good” things in that book are things we all could have figured out on our own, or gotten from a book that had a better overall feeling. I will not ever pay to read a book like that.
February 18, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Annie C posted, “Here’s a question for all you ladies: Why do you think that the churches are *not* speaking out against child abuse?”
I think it’s appalling. The church should be the first to speak up about injustice, not be too busy protecting their own and sweeping things under the rug to care about the innocent victims.
Some of the stuff I have read around the blogs over the last few days has been pretty disturbing. Despite these documented cases of abuse (and even deaths) related to people using the teachings of the Pearls and their ilk, many Christians are still reluctant to speak out against those practices. We should be the first ones speaking out.
I don’t get it.
February 19, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Okay, so we all agree it’s appalling, and there are few who will speak out. So we really should be more vocal about it. Jesus was a trouble-maker, wasn’t he? He called out the religious leaders for their abuse of the people, so why shouldn’t we do the same? Paul called out the Judaizers for trying to get everyone to follow the Jewish customs, and opposed another Apostle to his face (Peter), why can’t we do the same?
It is interesting to me that the suffragettes suffered so publicly for OUR FREEDOM specifically as women, and yet we can sit back and just enjoy that freedom while there are others who are still under the same hands of abuse that were around 100 years ago. I know that making trouble makes a lot of enemies–but if these enemies are opposing justice for the abused, then they are essentially enemies of God. They are opposing his justice. We can do what is right, even if it means we make people more than just a little uncomfortable.
Okay, I’m done with my speech!
February 19, 2010 at 6:15 pm
In my opinion (and that’s all it is), the church is somewhat silent on the abuse of children, especially non-sexual abuse, because of this verse and others like it in Proverbs: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” (Prov. 13:24) The Bible here seems to advocate the practice of hitting children to discipline them, and using a rod to do it. Once you can advocate for using a tool like a rod to hit children, it is difficult to speak out against those that take this practice too far, because they’ll throw this verse back at you. And, how far is too far? Who determines that, and how? What is too far for me might not seem too far for another person. I think what the Pearls are doing is “too far” from the get go, but they can always point to that verse and just move on past any objections that I might have.
So, ladies, how do you argue against the Proverbs Biblical defense for hitting children with a rod? How do we answer those who use it as a justification for abuse?
February 20, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Virginia, I checked out your blog(s)–you are busy, girl! Am praying my dear family member will read your post on child discipline vs. abuse, as she is a subscriber and what you have there is so good. Think they have gotten the glue sticks out again recently.
February 20, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Pam, here is a great resource for starters:
http://parentingfreedom.com/
More forthcoming…
February 20, 2010 at 3:45 pm
The ‘rod’ in the Bible was NOT the rod like is used by these child abusing Morons that I will work to pass legislation to SEE THEM IN JAIL WHERE THEY BELONG…for child abuse AND accessory to Child Abuse.
The ‘rod’ was a staff, that was used by Sheep herders to slap the buttocks of sheep to keep them from Running off–not some big iron rod to Beat them till bloody or broken spirit.
These child abusers Are Idiots, COWARDS, nothing more than COWARDS who have not the Sense to know HOW to ‘admonish in the Lord’ children,
hell I wouldn’t trust them with Dog obedience, we don’t even train dogs that way.
Look, these types of people are
E.V.I.L.
forget trying to understand them, I don’t care HOW much Jesus they plaster on their lips,
workers of Satan. And I have no qualms in saying so—Zero Tolerance for abusing children
and those women who are aiding in the raping of kids [by the warped submission garbage]
Trust me, I will do ALL in my power, to see legislation passed, holding teachers, ministries, Accountable, to the FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW, that profit, encourage, lead and manipulate Environments that are Conducive to child abuse and child sexual abuse.
As for those men and women who have preached these Lies, what they have Really done is open the door to every child pervert/abuser and wife abuser out there, and made their Churches Refuges, for Criminals.
They make me sick–and WE, really need to Stop, feeling sorry for them, and stand Opposed to the Evil, the Iniquity that these False Prophets are peddling.
In solidarity,
Jane
February 20, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Pam, see above reply,
to this: So, ladies, how do you argue against the Proverbs Biblical defense for hitting children with a rod? How do we answer those who use it as a justification for abuse?
Easy, New Testament Pam, Jesus said, if you Hurt one of these little ones who believe in me better you had millstone around your neck and tossed into see, see NOT that you offend one of these little ones, their Angels are always before the face of God, etc.,
numerous scriptures in OT about NOT passing your children through the Fire [sexual abuse and would include other abuses as unto God the way the pagans did to their children to Moleck/Marduk, Dagon, etc],
NT, Father’s do NOT provoke your children to wrath
NT, do not cause one to Stumble or be Offended in Christ, that would include beating a child…
CHILD ABUSE IS A SIN. No ands, ifs, ors, buts about it. God hates it and if those who abuse children do NOT repent, they will go to hell, all there is to is.
WE, however Pam, as Christians, do have a RESPONSIBILITY to protect and advocate for the weak, oppressed, children, widows [hundreds of scriptures in OT do NOT oppress widows and fatherless/weak/immigrants/poor], not just a responsibility but A COMMAND. The reason the church today is Silent is because 95% of them are apostate as hell, more like the pulpit pimps of Babylon,
that is Why you don’t hear much–because like domestic violence they’d lose
ka ching, money money money…
CAN’T GET A LOT OF TITHES FROM POOR SINGLE MOTHER HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS
and not only that, oh my Gosh they’d lose that right wing fascist leaning white privilege Capitalist VOTE.
Common sense really–to Stand up against the mainstream makes you immediately a target to be hated, shunned, etc., well, Pam,
many just won’t [like many feminists who in their cultural relativism would rather save their white privilege asses than stand opposed to the horrors of abuses to women in Islam--far left is the Worst about this betrayal to women's rights]. Many Won’t stand Alone–if need be,
because Then they’d have a price to pay–and well, it ain’t pretty.
There are many who, in Christ though Pam who Do stand up and who pay a dear price but they keep standing and fighting, because that is what True Love does. Real Love will pay the Price, to reach down to save someone else Especially those, who have no voice, who have no power, who have no way to defend themselves against
MONSTERS
and Pearls and their like are nothing more than MONSTERS…who are faux religious. I won’t dignify labeling them with Christianity, not even as a Religion. They do sell iron type rods, even have [from what I read] discipline-abuse classes where they instruct parents to beat till the child can’t breathe…
just the Thought of them spouting Christ is downright Laughable–
no, more like Nero’s army–spirit of Saul–Sorcery,
I’m convinced, there are workers of Satan, in many Pulpits.
What angers me however, is that there are true Christians, who still will NOT separate from these false prophets–and wipe the dust off their feet. We are to love our enemy, Yes,
but we aren’t to love the evil, or be Partakers in it either. By deed or word or Silence.
There are many more of us Pam, than you think…just we don’t have the $$$$ BLOOD MONEY OFF CHILDREN’S BACKS AND WOMEN’S BACKS to pay for the mega books, tapes, c.d.s and media,
to get the message out.
That’s more of Herod’s style…the whole blood money from misery and sex/child abuse.
And well, many so called Churches today–are nothing more, than Herod’s lot.
Jane
February 20, 2010 at 5:48 pm
that should be tossed into the Sea…sorry, laptop here, recycled and well, missing about five keys…hard to type on when in hurry.
Jane
February 20, 2010 at 6:12 pm
” The Bible here seems to advocate the practice of hitting children to discipline them, and using a rod to do it. Once you can advocate for using a tool like a rod to hit children, it is difficult to speak out against those that take this practice too far, because they’ll throw this verse back at you. And, how far is too far? Who determines that, and how? What is too far for me might not seem too far for another person. I think what the Pearls are doing is “too far” from the get go, but they can always point to that verse and just move on past any objections that I might have.
So, ladies, how do you argue against the Proverbs Biblical defense for hitting children with a rod? How do we answer those who use it as a justification for abuse?”
Pam,
Excellent question. I am stumped. But, I will think about it because I think your questions need to be answered.
February 20, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Thank you for the link, Karen!
February 20, 2010 at 6:51 pm
“It is interesting to me that the suffragettes suffered so publicly for OUR FREEDOM specifically as women, and yet we can sit back and just enjoy that freedom while there are others who are still under the same hands of abuse that were around 100 years ago. I know that making trouble makes a lot of enemies–but if these enemies are opposing justice for the abused, then they are essentially enemies of God. They are opposing his justice. We can do what is right, even if it means we make people more than just a little uncomfortable.
Okay, I’m done with my speech!
No, no! You go, sister!
In fact, the patriocentric women are taking advantage of the freedoms they have because of feminism and acting like those early feminists by staging march-ins to Walmart and Sams and other business where Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition is sold.
They are very detailed about their mission and they want a woman with a loud but “gracious” voice to speak to the manager. But they will be going in enmasse with children and all and they will be making a big scene on behalf of modesty.
I have to wonder why the MEN are not leading this movement? Is it the same reason why many won’t speak out against child abuse?
February 20, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Corrie,
let me say for starters, this ISSUE HITS HOME, because I grew, knowing what REAL abuse is, ok…sexual, physical [including some forms of torture] and emotional/psychological–the latter lasting until adulthood when I finally cut ties] from a Parent–so did my brother,
Both of us, are Still, in our forties mind you, somewhat Screwed up, OK. I am also a believer in Christ–hate Religion to the Core, but I do believe in Christ, read the Bible, and I have had to Walk, through all well, so much, not just dealing with abuse from parents but from men because in my life [ran away from home at 16] the abuse, the internalizations, were deep and I still, Still, struggle with them,
my brother Never married–very successful man, was once in youth ministry but left the church–spiritual abuse and he’s not gotten back to the Faith–there is Too much, when one Knows what real abuse is, and not this oh yea I was abused and now I’m yippee fine crap come buy my book nonsense we see a lot today [and God I hate them, I really do],
but the Dynamics, especially dealing with God, ok, with the Father and the whole He’s love bit and the submission [huge triggers there, to the point where its hand me a Shotgun] and well, it’s a Miracle really Corrie that I’m not a full blown atheist or a Satanist.
I had to dig, a lot, in the Bible to find out, really where God stood on this–it helped a ‘little’ to know a bit about Judaism [Orthodoxy] and to know that how the Bible was translated, misses a lot about the Judaic law [how it's translated from Hebrew/Aramaic to English] and so what is described as the ‘rod’ then, and how it’s preached today, are two totally different things.
I was ‘spanked’ as a kid, alright, and I can tell you, there is a Huge difference between That and Abuse. If I know the difference, then there is a difference, there is a Difference between being spanked on the bottom for stealing and then having someone shut you in a room for days, with no food and water [before age six] and to know what Hunger is, where your Hair is falling out on top of your head…in the First grade from Malnutrition. You see, there is Difference,
between being spanked, on the bottom, with a hand, for smarting off, and then having someone grabbing your hair and shoving meat down your throat while you gag and they are calling you every name in the book [age 10],
there is a Difference, between being spanked on the bottom for kicking your brother and then having someone kick you in the ribs, beat you with a belt, while screaming and calling you ‘devil’ because you looked at them wrong. Because you were Born…
not Once, have the spankings ever triggered me…not Once Corrie,
but at 47 today, the beatings do, the memories of the beatings, the torture, the Words, any little thing, that reminds me of something [including rape] and I am ready to kill–there are Those times, I have That level of rage that I battle with, a darkness that many give into and are now in prison because of…I KNOW what that anger is.
Our abuser had [so they claimed] the right of God to do what they did–the support of the Church [and their silence AND support], both Catholic and Protestant. I lived in a children’s orphanage at 14, [for a year when our abuser decided it was just too much to raise me, easier to dump me off, by that time the damage was done and even the orphanage couldn't handle me--so I KNOW the juvenile system, though I didn't break any laws I ran with many who did by the time I was 15, I know how the foster system works, the other side of 'abusers, long story I won't go into but I detest that system as much] and I know the Streets, most of all, inner city, low income, including drugs, prostitution, you name it.
Am I hard, you betcha, it has been a slow, Long road, to get to where I am at today. Why I Don’t have a lot of respect or trust whatsoever of the majority of so called Christianity in this nation because well, hard to say really but maybe it has something to do with seeing evil from the bottom, from not having anyone to defend nor care and you just see people, through the bullsh*t if I may be blunt.
So, well anyway, so IS this an issue between me and God? Every Single Day, I still, day in and day out, cannot ‘believe’ in Love, like how many say what love is and so I’ve had to find ways to relate to that, such as focusing on Who Jesus was and What He did while on Earth, to see God for who God is.
Being a parent myself and one who did NOT practice spanking [I went the other extreme, due to triggers, bad triggers] I know that NO discipline is just as bad, it wouldn’t be until my youngest that I would see that sometimes, yes, spankings ARE necessary or you wind up with teens who are not afraid whatsoever of You, then you have some real problems on your hands. I also know that Each child is different and that no one formula works with kids, they are not cookie cutter humans, but unique individuals with different personalities, one daughter I hardly have problems with, my oldest, is hell on wheels and strong willed and it probably would Have been better IF she had of gotten a few spankings when younger. We have had to work through a lot with her, because of the liberal parenting She felt Entitled and guess what,
she became like my abusive parent…a bully to her younger siblings, a bully to other peers, violent towards me when she didn’t get ‘her way’, and it got to the point where I felt I was raising my abuser parent. What did I do wrong, I asked,
and see dysfunction works like that. I have spent a lifetime [adult] in and out of counselors, some good, some not worth a damn, and still working through because abuse from young age [and ours, was from toddler maybe infant, wouldn't surprise me] it does So much damage to self image, boundaries [I had none for years], fear, FEAR, that’s the worst, and distortions.
The Bible in no way, supports nor condones treating children in any of the ways I was treated NOR does the Bible anywhere support beating a child…Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child means,
spare discipline and that child will grow up to think they are entitled and the world centers around Them–maybe even become a sociopath. It doesn’t mean, to Beat a child, spoil the child.
And the best Example of the true meaning is looking at God’s treatment of His children when They sin…Old Testament, HOW many times did Israel offend? And time and time and time God still forgave and blessed them, intervened on their behalf, pleaded with them, instructed them to Choose Life. There are times that God, will and Did allow those who rebel against Him [and esp really for abusing/hurting others in His name] to be delivered over to affliction, but even Then, He says, He is always there, to save them and that He only wants Them to Stop being cruel, selfish, heartless, etc., to others AND to themselves.
It isn’t the Bible, Corrie that is the problem it’s the Lens of those who have hard hearts when Reading the Bible, who take it literally to support their own selfish, cruel, mean agendas, that are the problem. The Bible has murder in it too, does that mean we go out and murder?
The Bible has the story of the flood [though so many take That and forget what comes Prior, the Violence that is through out the Entire earth to the point the Earth even was corrupted and God cried, repenting of creating humans]…do we go out and drown others?
Or the Plagues on Egypt when freeing Israel, kind of harsh, right? But, we forget, over 400 Years of brutal slavery including sexual slavery and slavery of Children–God is also Justice, Egypt had Plenty of time to Repent, and did not. And even After Israel was delivered and in the wilderness, Pharaoh and his thugs went a chasing and God told Moses, I will now show Egypt, who is God…not Israel mind you but Egypt, Why? Because Egypt too was held in bondage to the despots, living in fear and thinking abuse and cruelty were the way to be…because that was how the ‘gods’ were then, they required abuse, fear, pyramid hierarchies, resources [some reading about the Nephalim, is interesting there...those giants, theory is half fallen angels and half humans, maybe???? I tend to think strong possibility, look at the statutes in Egypt of the so called 'gods' they worshiped]
There is a huge difference between discipline and abuse, and between ages of Accountability & Ignorance and flat out rebellion, when one Knows…and God does make that distinction Numerous times, He is slow and slow to anger, kind, patient, instructing,
not this bully of a God who just wipes out civilizations and abuses women/sets them up as property and all this other blaspheming crap spewed from many today. They don’t KNOW God because if one really reads the Bible, with a heart that is broken, they’ll see it,
God got angry at Abusers, power mongers, war dogs…those who Shed blood, innocent blood. The first Sin out of the Garden of Eden was Bloodshed, murder…the blood cries out from the Ground God said, the blood of Abel.
Humanity is the one with the abuse-discipline problem, not God. God deals with humans the way that Humans are–not the way God is. And when God sets us apart unto Him He then instructs us to be like Him, not like humanity,
the thing is, we All have a natural ‘law’ inside us, that right and wrong, we All know, it’s Wrong to abuse children, to beat them, don’t matter how much someone may say God thus saith, they know, deep down inside, that is total bunk. IF they don’t, their conscience is seared completely and I would go as far to say they are controlled/possessed by demons.
There are Enough scriptures in the Bible that counter with the ‘literal selfish interpretations of man/humans’, the Problem is, we don’t Hear them, the Problem is Corrie, and I’ll just say it,s though it’s not popular,
too many Don’t really read the Bible, outside of the same verses over and over because the Indoctrinations in churches, has taught people How to read through a certain type of lens, and they will completely gloss over thousands of scriptures and Only see those few ones over and over and over.
It’s like a nose on a face Corrie, if I look only at my nose it’s huge, and I can focus on that nose and focus and eventually I won’t see my face in it’s fullness because my lens is distorted, and I’ll think I’m ugly because I have a big nose. But if I look at my entire face, and keep looking and NOT focus just on my nose,
I have a whole new perspective.
The language of the Bible was written in B.C., another thing we have to take into consideration was that people then were yes, Barbaric [history studies show us this], human Nature…God, is the one, who reached down and instructed humanity, how to act towards one another, Within the context of the times then AND with the understanding that evolution takes time–Jesus said, Moses allowed some things because of the Hardness of their Hearts. They weren’t the only ones who were heartless to women, for example, the Entire world was…any study on patriarchy clearly shows this as fact. Though there are things that appear cruel, the one thing, to see how God was working is to look at other laws He set forth [the slavery laws are good here because they show a lot of 'loopholes' and so many miss it], then through out the Chronicles, Judges [when there was no rule and anarchy was the life and that was when the gang rape of the concubine occurred] then the Kings we see a dialectic at work–a slow Enlightenment, through out we see God telling us, Human Rights, about Love, about Justice, doing what is Right, towards one another and towards the weak, oppressed, poor, immigrant, etc.,
then the New Testament, Jesus. Prior to that, we see God deliver the prophets [false] the complacent rich and abusers over to Babylon–because He’s cruel? No, because that was the Only way to save a Remnant so that Humanity would and could be Saved, that is why….because Israel, [book of Isaiah] who had been rescued, delivered, shown How to love, How to act, became spoiled, selfish, cruel, Patriarchal [oh yea] and materialist and in bed with despotic nations who sacrificed and abused children and God said, fine, you want this, I’ll let you have it [that thing called Free Will],
but I’ll save a Remnant of those who have NOT BOWED to Babylon.
And He did…and He’ll do it again, in these last days [the times of the Gentiles Jesus said].
God is NOT a Child Abuser, Wife Beater, Rapist, Misogynist, nor does He ever, condone such…He hates it in fact. And those who take HIS Holy Word, His Holy Name, and do those things,
the abuse I had, as a child/teen/young adult, won’t be anything, near to the Fear they will have to deal with, in facing a Holy God, who is Love…Love does NOT abuse, Period. Love also is Justice…and there Will be Justice.
IF there is no Justice there is really no Love. Tolerance, is not the same as Forgiveness and Grace.
There is a way to discipline, and spanking should be Last resort and Appropriate to the offense–out of Love, to save a child from self harm or from harming others….but there are Other duties parents have, one is Leadership BY EXAMPLE, if no example forget it, one is Devotion, Time, Giving, Sacrifice, and Attention. Instruction, Patient Instruction, with Understanding, knowledge of where the child is at in Development…
even God does this with His children.
The Same Proverbs that says spare the rod also says do NOT shed innocent blood, do not be angry, do not provoke to wrath, do not scold and so forth–the Entire book, not just ONE scripture.
Proverbs, the book of Wisdom, is also referred to as SHE.
The mother part, of God…She,
instructing Her children, on how to be and live with wisdom…common sense, [in the good way],
not, abuse.
IF I can see it, then, there really is NO EXCUSE for others not to.
My abuser [child] chose to act on mental illness, selfishness, whatever reason, it was NOT of God, nor of the Bible, no matter how many Screwed up folks may claim so…Satan though, does lie, kill, steal, destroy, abuse. Satan hates women. Satan also hates children.
And Satan knows how to use the Word of God, he knows how to transform into angel of light to deceive and to get other’s to do his dirty work.
The problem is, there is lack of real discernment today, between good, evil, God and Satan. Because Too many, rely on Preachers and Peddlers of Quackery, religious that is, rather than get in the Word and seek themselves–prayer, find out Truth,
to find Truth, one must face the darkness in themselves and it IS there…that same Nature, that beast. It’s easier for many to hide behind the hedge of Religion, than face that, and come to the light, as they ARE, naked, in that nature…and let God see them [He does already anyway],
the good and honest heart, Jesus said, not the lying, religious, phony pretense say what you Think He wants you to say, but the honest heart…That heart, will bear fruit in time.
The being Real—that is why, Jesus hung with harlots and publicans, they were Real, the religious, were not. We all are rotten to the core, that nature,
not God. But does God abuse? No, He, instead, reconciled us, on the Cross…
that ain’t abuse, nor a rod.
That, is what Love is…and That, really, is the Gospel in a nutshell.
these folks who are preaching otherwise, need to go to the Cross and see who the Heavenly Father really is…the same Father who took back the Prodigal Son [and Daughter] when they came to their senses and returned, the Heavenly Father took them, With open, loving arms…
not with a Rod.
In solidarity,
Jane
February 20, 2010 at 8:02 pm
While you are at it, please explain Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Judges 5:30, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, and especially Zechariah 14:1-2..
And before you go saying “Oh, that’s OT, not NT”, please then explain Matthew 5:18, and how that applies to those verses in Deuteronomy, and vise versa. As well as how it applies to the Spare the Rod verse.
February 20, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Let me say too Corrie, God has worked, so patiently with me, through So much anger and rage…I still struggle, I have days where it’s dark, I’ve had days where I feel frozen and want to jump off a bridge, literally, God has been there,
it has been Hell, coming into the rain so to speak to be cleansed through the internalizations, distortions, lies, to be healed,
but healing is not Denial nor a not getting Furious at abuse that is especially done with utter Impunity due to false and blatant heretical teachings in the church. For years I was told,
oh you Can’t be angry, etc., which only worked to get me More angry [esp when I stuffed] and it took finding who God really was to see that God gets Furious at abusers and at abuse.
When I said I hate them, those how sell for profit Lies and Myths about abuse, I don’t like Hate them but I hate the misery profiteers because there really ARE no quick fix Formulas, standing on the Word, forgive and forget and all will be Poof, like the Magic Dragon well on the whole Disney World Merry Go Round Christianity bunk peddled today,
and so Yea I am very vocal and I do get, really angry and I voice it, there are times I would love to just slam these child abusers up against the wall, I do have them.
IT’s only by the Grace of God and that is NO understatement that I am not in prison today or worse, dead,
it is NOT easy, no way, I have good days where I really see the Love of God and then I have days where I’m ready to join in with the revolutionary lot–and I did, for many years, was in that whole movement.
I also don’t come from a life of privilege or comfort so that might have a lot to do with how I see things, from that class lens but I do know, that God forgives, that Love holds no record of wrongs,
but that doesn’t mean we are to just be tolerant and this oh let sleeping dogs lie and not fight for the weak, or plead the cause of the poor, etc., Love acts, I don’t always act in the right ways, and God yes, does get on me about that,
but I do know, God understands too, and He knows, He knows, better than any of us, what it is to be abused, after loving and reaching out, to be spit upon, to be mocked, stripped naked, beat, whipped, nailed, stabbed, He knows,
and like a child, HE DID NO WRONG.
He knows…and He forgave, BUT, there is still a Judgment, there is Still a Duty to Repent, of evil. To stop Doing Evil, that includes being a partaker in, to be Silent in the face of…to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, [and there are various types of prisons] and to comfort the AFFLICTED.
We may not be able to change the world but we still have a Duty to speak up, to Defend when we are able…and in THIS nation, we have an Extra duty,
that is the duty of Government to NOT oppress, and people forget, in America, we are NOT under a Monarchy,
WE, THE PEOPLE, ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
Therefore, yes, WE, the People, have a God commanded Duty to Defend the weak, poor, and to do all in our power to End the Abuses and Oppression, that includes towards Children,
not, controlling lives of women and their sexuality and shoving a theocracy down people’s throats. Huge difference there,
and that is why the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel are important because they tell what God told, the prophets then, who were NOT doing, NOT defending, and NOT warning…they too, were in bed with politics.
We have a Duty, to stand against Child Abuse, against Domestic Violence, against slavery/sex slavery [what they term trafficking to sugar coat the reality of SLAVERY] and to stand opposed to the stratifications that oppress/AND CREATE poverty.
And we will be held Accountable, as Citizens, as WE THE PEOPLE for those things, foreign policy included [raping other lands/paying police terror in South America, so forth]
oh yes…
God isn’t the despot, misogynist, bigot, nationalist, no, the We the People, many of them are…
IF people don’t see God for who HE really is, it’s NOT because of the Bible, it’s because of US.
something to ponder on…but again, like I said before, unfortunately we don’t have the $$ blood money off of the backs of abused women, children, families to get the message out.
But we can do what we can, and live differently…and speak up when we can and Separate from those, who abuse God’s Word, the Herod lot. [a little leaven leavens the entire lump, leaven of Herod, leaven of Pharisees]
In solidarity,
Jane
February 20, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Jane,
From one survivor to another.
Breathe. It’s gonna be okay.
February 20, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Annie–Just want you to know that I’m going to get to this, but I wanted to answer you about those Bible verses, I just can’t do it today (maybe tomorrow evening). If someone else gets there first, go for it, but I’d also like to share some insight, at least, my perspective.
February 20, 2010 at 11:31 pm
I see on the NCFIC blog that recently, at the retreat on “Our Marriages and the Marriages of our Sons and Daughters,” one of the topics presented was (I kid you not), “Marriage Preparation for Two-Year-Olds.” I have to wonder, what if God’s plan for your child does not include marriage? What if they don’t marry until later in life? It just seems like setting everybody up for unrealistic expectations and the potential for some serious disappointment.
I have prayed for my sons for years that God would provide for each of them a godly wife — the right person, at the right time — if that was His plan for them. And that if marriage was not His plan for them, that both they and I would be content with that.
February 20, 2010 at 11:35 pm
While you are at it, please explain Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Judges 5:30, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, and especially Zechariah 14:1-2..
And before you go saying “Oh, that’s OT, not NT”, please then explain Matthew 5:18, and how that applies to those verses in Deuteronomy, and vise versa. As well as how it applies to the Spare the Rod verse
[will try to make this brief, but I can try my best to Answer every Single one of these, and what Matthew 5:18 means as well--which, start from there, that means the OT being 'fulfilled' in the Dialectic sense..look at the whole OT to NT as a Dialectic, [you know, Hegel, Engels], an evolution of sorts with a ‘thread’ or ‘threads’ actually, going all the way back to Genesis–where it says, Let us make man in our image and Then it goes, to begin telling, they made man in their image, male and female they made them, etc etc etc…I can answer every single one–and they are NOT what you think, or what many claim–there is a lot of hidden meaning behind each case you give here, and that is Why it really is so necessary to really Read the Entire Bible and then re-read and re-read to Get what it IS saying, and not just the Bible, read Ancient Mesopotamia and the LAWS then that were FAR worse than Judaic OT, esp for women/slaves, and you might be surprised at how many of those ‘beliefs’ are Still going on today [spiritually esp, oh yea] and I would suggest, [though I know many debate it and not saying it's true or not true but I think it sheds some light, esp if you read entire OT] read the Book of Enoch, because there is a LOT in OT that sheds a lot of light, as well as Jude [NT] and, well, a lot of scientific findings, today, I do believe that this world, that there is another dimension/a third Heaven, that there are fallen angels [who claim to be 'gods' and 'goddesses'] a Warfare going on and so it might help to understand warfare and that yes, there was a time when the ‘sons of God’ like Bible says [in Hebrew that means angels] had relations with human women and giants were born, Moses referred to this, numerous times and well, lets just say, I’m not for Sure, nor will I say, thus saith the Lord here, but I do have theories, things I go, hmmm and the more I research the more I find that actually backs up the theories, and I do believe it ties into the whole purpose as to Why humanity was created, what the purpose for humanity is, and well, I think there is far more to it, I don’t have the ‘answers’ no, but I do think we should open our minds a bit and well, don’t exclude the possibilities.
lets start with Judges 21:10-24– again, one has to read Entire dialectic, what does it say at End of book: In those days there was no king in Israel: EVERY ‘MAN’ DID WHAT THAT WHICH IS ‘RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES’,
REPEAT, DID WHAT IS RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES, not God’s eyes…
so, that’s for Starters, Judges is about a period in time when Israel was taking things from God’s commands, what they wanted, not what God intended, and doing pretty much what they darn well pleased…[and GOD SAID THEY WOULD, EARLIER TO MOSES] IN those times, [in All of Mesopotamia, all Cultures] women were property, Lerner, Creation of Patriarchy good explanation of this era on women/property/patriarchy and slavery, same with studies by Levi], now we have to Remember, people then warred over land/food Resources for TRIBES, it was Tribal Patriarchy, the rule applied, those with the biggest and powerful tribes got the power [those with the biggest guns so to speak] and women, being the ones who birthed children were sad to say, yes, a commodity. However, lets not forget, in THAT era, ok., in WAR women with children would NOT have fared very well living in the Wild [and even the Bible talks about the beasts who devoured, lions were notorious then in population and in eating people, fact--why those societies killed them, not just for sport but for survival] with children…they couldn’t have hunted because the cries of children would have scared off prey, they could have farmed but their rates of survival were slim to none, with children especially, now this does in NO way Justify how women were treated, and that is NOT what I am saying here, [so don't anyone go oh but how dare you] but to Explain to look at THAT ERA, the barbarism [and you can do some reading of ancient Mesopotamia in that period] and the warfare that was going on between peoples…
Israel, was one huge tribal patriarchy, though not near as large or powerful as other tribal patriarchies, with several ‘sub tribes’ that were, not very well liked and were not that powerful, in weaponry, etc compared to other tribes/lands therefore, when the tribes of Israel-Judah went to war/and widows were left, those Widows would, factually, been taken By other tribes [and treated far worse if you know how slavery worked then] so peace treaties, sad to say, not pretty no, were signed by oath/in exchanging of daughters for wives. Do I like this, NO, of course not, but again, taking in the climate of THAT ERA, THAT time, it’s not like those women could go work at JC Penny, there was no Economic jobs for women OTHER THAN PROSTITUTION/CONCUBINAGE, and SLAVERY/SEX SLAVERY. At the ‘exchange’ of daughters in this section of the Bible, remember the ones who raped/and supported that rape [and I'm sure the ones who God allowed to die in battle probably weren't that kind to their own women] were gone,
those left, were the ones who then Feared the Lord, so to speak. To ‘heal’ the rift, within Israel and Judah so that Israel would not be taken over by other far worse and far more brutal tribal patriarchies they agreed to rebuild the tribe so to speak, the way they did then, by marriage-childbirth.
Women didn’t have a lot of Autonomy then, [there was a hierarchy among women as well/nobles, married, married based on birth of son/inheritance laws, concubines then slaves] they Did in Judaic law, as far as Consent–but men didn’t go By that, of course, just like we have laws on the books today against DV but men still abuse their wives. IF you look at Judges [and the OT and NT too due to Roman/Greek Empire] you must sometimes look at the evil of political necessity for Human Survival, the big picture, NOT THAT IT EXCUSES THE INJUSTICES but in looking at History, and the Bible is a record of History, one must do that, it does NOT mean that God was in FAVOR of this and that is why it says, again, end of chapter, Men did as they saw what was right in Their eyes, not in God’s eyes.
Numbers 31:7-18 about the Midianites, yea, looks pretty nasty doesn’t it. Again, one must look at that Era, how just that entire epoch and HOW other nations/tribes were doing the same and in fact Worse [and they were, there is enough documentation and artifacts to prove this] now IF you take this Literally no doubt, it would appear that God is a genocidal nationalist maniac–who commands the taking and raping of women/virgins, etc., slewing boys and so forth–and this, this is where it is really imperative to really know the entire OT and also those ancient tribal societies AND other ‘cultic’ religions of that day–now for the Midianites you need to go back a bit further into the book–to Numbers 25–go back and read from there, then you’ll see more into the story of the Midianites. You also need to do some reading about the norms/laws under Baalpeor, then you get a better glean a better understanding at why God allowed the taking of virgins/killing of the people of Midianites. Midian tribe that is [the tribes end with 'ites].
Also, you need to go back to early Genesis, again, about the Nephalim, it doesn’t say they were all wiped out, they are still around, read about the ‘giants’ that Moses/and tribe saw and what they said, what those ‘giant’ tribes DID to people, women and children especially, and by giants I’m not talking ‘tall folks’ but real giants [Numbers 13]–question is, WHO WERE THESE GIANTS? A lot of theories here, I have my own suspicions but don’t want to say, a.k.a. fact because I don’t know, wasn’t there, so would be presumptious for me but I do have my suspicions…anyway it has a LOT to do with why God said to slay the men and women/spare the virgins,
now, I do wrestle with this, many times I prayed, God this justifies genocide, any loon could take this to ‘demonize’ others and that is Exactly what they do in genocide–IF I stop there, that would be the Conclusion I would get–but one has to keep Going, to see the Entire picture…though yes, many Have taken those types of justifications, Hitler being one of them, his whole Eugenics ‘tree’ that well, yea, this is where it gets into I think spiritual Warfare, which if one doesn’t Believe in that realm they just won’t get it…I do believe in that realm, and I believe THIS realm is a mirror image of That one., ok, next–I will come back to this later if any want me to,
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 ok, to spare the women/children but kill the men, IF they do not want peace, ok, you have to know a bit about Who God is, and let me say, what shocked me when I started researching THESE SAME SCRIPTURES is that God is a protector of Women, I know that sounds like bat sh*t crazy here, OK, but when I studied the ancient tribes in that day [and looked into artifacts still in Iraq, for example] of the laws of those tribes over women, you sort of get an understanding of just how Deplorable it was for women in those other nations, many who were, taken as captives, from other tribes during WAR, war was like a daily thing then–to build tribal empire, for land and for food, for survival–it was bloody brutal, those MEN who refused Peace were Violent men and were Violent to their women–and God spared the women–and children. They would be taken yes, as slaves and concubines, now This is where one needs to go back and learn what the Judaic laws on Slavery were, it says, or God said, IF one hits a slave and knocks out a tooth then that slave is entitled to justice, do NOT forget your slavery in Egypt God said, IF you maim a slave you Must set that slave free, they are called Eved laws, and they are a bit complex, but if you Know those laws, while slavery [for women esp] was no Picnic, hardly, compared to Slavery/and their status in Other tribes it was by far better…even liberating [in that context of THAT ERA then], that is Why many ‘slaves’ would nail their ear [earings] to the door, to NOT leave once the Year of Jubilee arrived because they preferred to live in Israel-Judah tribes than back where they came–though again, life was no picnic, in the Judaic laws they had more human rights, compared to the The Code of Hammurabi and other laws of that day.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29, about Rape, again, look at it in the Context of THAT era, rape was rampant in all tribes, even Protected and Sanctioned for the ‘gods’ in other tribes, and women had no protections from. If they were not virgins [in other tribes as well] they were cast off into prostitution, esp in temple shrines…the ‘monies’ paid in Judaic law were not a payment for a bride, but a payment against slander–for her ‘worth’ and yes, it sure looks like women were property and in many ways they were, but they were also protected in the Context/Climate of That era, under Judaic law, no woman wants to marry her rapist, but Economically if she was NOT married she had NO choice but to prostitute and that is why it also says he can never divorce her. Economically if a man raped a woman he was responsible for her care until her death. It wasn’t a good situ for women in Any case, but IF there wasn’t economic provision, even if the man was killed, that woman would be prostituted [and it was horrid then] or enslaved or starve to death. We look at that as horrid, then, it was in a horrid way, a means of protecting a woman’s life. Rape without that, was a Death sentence. Because rape carried a high degree of shame [much like in some societies today and many women in those societies commit suicide because of and many in parts of Africa, are forced to prostitute and it's not Glamorous like the pro-sex lot likes to paint in the West].
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 OK, again, the adultery -rape and how that was handled, one thing too that most don’t get, the whole ‘in against the brother’ bit, if you Take it that way, literally, it comes across as women are men’s property and so if you touch her, she goes, he goes, but no, that isn’t what God is saying…if you go back, to woman is one flesh with man, and then the Ten Commandments, where it says, thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife [not property], but one flesh joining, etc., IF men could just rape and take women from ‘brothers’ at will, that Would make women nothing but sex commodities, and That was what God was against…now, remember, hardness of Hearts here, what Jesus said about laws of Moses and those Laws were After the Hammorubi Code that went further back AND what they knew then–were a step Above those laws, for women, so anyway That is why that part is put in there, about the ‘betrothed’, it was to show that women will eventually become joined with another man and men, hard hearted as they were, didn’t Care about women, but they cared about the brothers, so to Protect women, a little God worked through reaching men about men..does that make sense? We have to remember God was working to reach men on the level that Men thought–and believed and knew according to Their free will AND their Dominion, and the enemy’s dominion [Satan] on earth–so to Us, those laws look hideous and barbaric, but in that Era, they were the way to pave for a LATER evolution to more understanding and more rights/restoration to women, ending of slavery, etc., IF you look at the entire Dialectic of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelations,
Zechariah 14:1-2 OK, now that is about the End Days, and Again, this is where you need to read all of Daniel, Revelations, and all of Zech, go further and read verse 12–what God does to the Enemy of Israel [talk about something out of an 2012 Alien flick--something to Think about],
anyway, this is in regards to judgment, the rising up [and it's happening Today] of a people, one mind, who will destroy Babylon and go against those who have profaned/mislead/lead many astray] as the Judgment–against complacency, greed, selfishness, not caring about Other women who were ravished/genocide in wars, etc and even Benefiting from that [read book of Amos if you're going to take that one out of Zech] and then you’ll see,
God uses the Destroyer, for judgment/justice, in our lives, [see also Job], to do several things,
1. to get us to pay attention and to Repent so our Souls will be saved in Eternity [far more than 70 years]
2. to repay wrongs we’ve done to others/nations included and yes innocent people do pay, sadly–because while God is Mercy God is also Justice–Retribution, and this, you need to go back to early OT again,
what does it say in Genesis, when Blood is shed in land that land will do vomit it out eventually [there is an Environmental retribution too] and there will be Retribution IN that land for the blood it sheds, like,
here in America, we’ve benefited from numerous nations being plundered/police terror, their Cries to God ARE HEARD—eventually retribution will be due, all there is too it.
Because that is how the blood shed works–whether we Like it or not, it’s how it works and THAT Is why God says to the Nation of Israel do NOT do these things, do NOT mix with those tribes that do, etc. Choose life, not death–go back and read how the dialectics of those curses work–God is very patient, He gives Years for Us to repay wealth unjustly taken, to avenge the wrong–if we do not, God then, will.
IF HE didn’t HE would NOT be a Just God nor a God of Love, because we are ALL HIS CHILDREN…
this is Also why God commands Mercy, If we are Merciful HE will be Merciful–if not, we get justice…
there is just a lot more to it than OT God says this, that, this and well literally then God is a monster,
no, you have to take the Entire book, understand it from a Spiritual point, see the whole picture, AND face that truth that we are All of that sinful nature, hard to grasp unless God shows you [and you are willing to see] and then, you kind of get the understanding,
and we really have NOT ‘evolved today’ as humanity, really? I mean, look at Rwanda, the Congo, do you think those children there will grow up to be functional adults without intervention?, Yugoslavia, we might be illuminated but we still are Savages. And lets not forget the minerals, resources, and consumption of Blood products, that yes, we buy here AND in Israel and other developed nations, so who is the real Evil here?
God?
No, and WE chose it–back in the Garden, not just Adam and Eve we All chose it, good, evil, what side are we on, oh we aren’t as bad as Them but we are good, but oh how can God do this, Why Why Why? But What did Jesus [the Word made Flesh] DO when He was here?
He healed, He turned water into wine [to give joy], He healed women, He rescued a woman from being stoned for adultery, He rose up the dead [Lazarus], He drove out the greed from the Temples, He rebuked the ‘religious’ and Forgave the sinners, and then,
He died for us.
To say, you don’t Have to die in that tree of good and evil–their is Something more, there is LIFE, eternal LIFE, choose That, btw, it’s really about Love,
something you humans never grasped because you were all wrapped up in judgment, good, evil, being ‘gods’ [serpent told Eve you'll be like the 'gods', not God, think about that one] and refusing Forgiveness…
we choose, Grace or Judgment. It’s really about that–Mercy, or Judgment.
Law or Grace–OT is Law [eye for an eye] and judgment and when Jesus said the Fulfilling of the Law HE was referring to the sins against God and that judgment would be and that would be the Cross and then we choose, Life and the Cross [Mercy] or to go on with our own righteousness and Judgment,
which is it?
and then one day the Books [not Tree, think about the dialectic of That one--if one is Eco not to hard to figure out], the Book of LIFE
and the BOOKS [plural] of all man’s Knowledge of good/evil–
which one adds up, the Sum of all things?
Which one, is righteous, on the level God is?
And that, well, kind of might shed some light–
maybe,
Jane
February 21, 2010 at 12:05 am
OH, something too about Midianites and the dialectic [and a few other examples], those were Gentiles,
when God said He would drive out those lands/people of and the ‘gods’ they worshiped, those ‘giants’, btw, IF not for the Sparing of women, of Gentile race [go back and read Three sons of Noah and where they dispersed],
we would NOT be here today. Because of how the ‘gods’ Consumed humanity, the land, the animals even…Sodom and Gomorrah,
everyone thinks it was destroyed because of gays, no,
look Again, at that–they came to take the angels to ‘know’ them–now IF you look at the size of Angels [go back and read about the donkey, Balaam I think, and the Size of that Angel with the Sword] and well,
uh, kind of some tough brutes to be threatening to rape Angels [who then came in the form of Man] and then, it says, YOUNG, YOUNG now AND OLD, came to ‘gang rape them’,
YOU KNOW, that Level of Violence, that is Community based, now also go back and read What else it says,
the Cries of them rose UP to the Lord–cries of Who?
Maybe women, children were were brutally gang raped/tortured, Lord knows what else, rose up to the Heavens and then God said, ENOUGH.
Lot was Vexed, that means tormented, tormented with sin, he offered his daughters, now go back and read about the history of Lot and what HE knew–about God, He feared God and He knew the price if he let those angels be raped–he chose the lesser of two evils in His eyes, out of FEAR–being ‘vexed’ and I’m sure maybe some other things–go back and read Why Lot chose the land, where Abraham did not, gives you sort of a clue there,
anyhooo God literally wiped out that entire region, with hail fire from the Heavens [meteorites??? or something else???]
In Every single Case in OT where there was God saying, ENOUGH, there was a history of brutal Violence without Any remorse going on–prior to, bloodshed, with NO mercy, NO Mercy to Women, no Mercy to Children, No mercy to Infants,
none.
It wasn’t like these nice little peaceful communities just minding their own business and mean ole Israel and their mean ole God just coming in and wiping out–unless one takes scripture out of Context and Makes it appear that way,
and it’s easy to do, but IF one really wants to KNOW who God is, look hard, and Ask Him, Show me, Who are You? Are you a genocidal maniac? Are you a Misogynist?
and keep asking, read and He will show you–if you Really want to know Truth…want to know who He is. He will show you, anyone, in the Book of Job, Job questions God. He is answered, Elihu [little clue there too, Who Is El ihu? Funny many don't discuss this] Anyway, he tells Job why there is affliction,
good explanation then God answers Job, the Lord God.
So, going back to Midianites, IF all those tribes had been all wiped out, women, there would be no Gentile race nor Salvation, for the Gentiles,
that is where that ‘thread’ runs through, look at the Bible like a Quilt. Pieces, but with the same threads running through, to get the finished product. He does the same with our lives…
but we have choice, to meet Him half way, or to not–that is up to us. He has done His part, in reconciliation, in Jesus, on the Cross,
the rest is up to us. AS for humanity, if you really look at it, it’s not God who does the horrors, it’s humanity,
we alone, have done Enough to kill-wipe out humanity through Sowing death, murder, genocide, greed, indifference, apathy, pillaging the earth, water, land, filling her with blood, killing animals, more will die as a result of our pillaging the earth for things, idols, things we make with our hands,
and more people will die–so what for?
so WE can be ‘gods’ and ‘goddesses’, good, evil…
and in that, judge God as being the ‘bad guy’,
in all our Knowledge and Wisdom, hell, we can’t even progress without Polluting Space, look at the Satellites and Space Junk and the lead poisoning and the babies dying of that? By God’s hand,
NO, by OURs. Every cell phone we buy we pay for minerals mined, in the Congo, where women/girls are brutally raped–do many care?
NO.
So, who is the real Misogynist? Those OT barbaric folks who had no knowledge like we do today?
OR us, with all our technology and knowledge and morals?
Something, to think about…and many reject Jesus, who said,
Love, one another, as I have loved you…
Love, in Solidarity,
Jane
February 21, 2010 at 12:19 am
[if those answers go through, sorry know they are long--one, I'm not a theologian nor want to be, two, these are answers I have found in reading the Bible/my own research, they may NOT be accurate in all points NOR am I an expert on God or History and I could be Wrong on many points--not here to say Thus Saith the Lord here, I have questioned these same points many times and this is what I've concluded thus far--I still have unanswered questions, I still struggle with sin in my own life, many times I don't think I'm saved--I don't always Do the right thing--hardly,
I am not religious, per se, I am seeking, like many, and feel lost half the time myself, that seeing through a glass darkly, so to speak. I do struggle with these questions--have 'theories' but I have in every case, seen explanations or an understanding in the Bible and in just observing life, myself probably more than anything and my own struggle with MY sins [and they are numerous] and dark nature I battle with, in seeking Truth, seeking Who is God, Is there a God, I went through that, is Jesus/God just some man made invention and there are times I do wonder–because of my years in Marxist study,
it sure can Appear that way, that’s for sure, but I keep going back to some things and things happened in my life that there ARE no scientific explanations for [logic] and well–
this is what I’ve concluded in my search thus far. I don’t believe God is a thug or an abuser or a patriarchal asshole despot–I believe God deals harshly at times for reasons that aren’t always clear to me–
but something I have thought about, a lot lately, we are made in His image–we have emotions, we get angry,
why can’t God?
Well, anyway, I suggest any who may have questions ask Him, don’t rely on what I said, get your Own answers, pray, read the Bible, and ask Him, and just be real with Him.
Wrote enough on here today–why I don’t know, dealing with some things in my life running kind of along these lines–so,
maybe, well, yea, got some answers I needed, just in writing this all today.
Peace,
Jane
February 21, 2010 at 1:23 am
#494 — “The Age of Innocence” is a novel by Edith Wharton. (There’s also a very good Martin Scorcese film based on it.) I recommend it highly, although I would say the situation in it is a little more complex than just “this is what happens with a naive, pure wife.” It’s the husband’s own choices that put him where he is, and his wife, I think, actually has more depth than he gives her credit for. They’re just not suited to each other. But again, it’s a great book and you should give it a try!
February 21, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Annie, and others who may not believe Bible accuracy…
the belief about faith is that it isn’t Logic, that it’s based merely on superstition, writings of MEN, etc. Let me offer a suggestion–prior to my search in Bible, I searched for years for philosophical and political theory, not so much to understand God but to understand Why things are the way they are–I studied/read every thing I could get hands on, from political theory [all of it, right, left, radical, ancient] to Marxist dialectics and varieties of fascism [Weber, 13 kinds, so many Miss that] to science theory/physics [some] to mythology/goddess beliefs and history and historical determinism…just a wide range, foreign lit, you name it…had this addiction to reading/knowledge–books were my Escape as a child, starting with fairy tales [in depth, not just Mother Goose] and by the age 12 I was reading books on Gulags in Soviet–yea, weird kid,
Anyhow, for years I didn’t believe in a lot about God, as far as Him being good, it wasn’t until I came to somewhat of a flustered disgust with the political [and seeing the blatant betrayals to women there in gender studies/working in a poli/party and with some hard core theorists/to the far left], and having spoken Personally with women from the former Communist bloc countries/Middle East, Iran, and seeing more from their lens–more and more, also I had read a lot of Eastern writings including Christian [Watchman Nee, eg] I came to doubt more–Everything. So I went back to the Bible–
and not with a belief but more with all the Knowledge coming up, Questioning–what I didn’t know though was how a lot of prior knowledge from both opposite poles [because I would question Everything, look into indexes and never could accept answers as Absolutes--which I believe was really God's Grace now, His using my rebellion to kind of guide me through darkness] would come up–and I started doubted my faith, see I wasn’t living the walk but I never did not believe, that was just something I couldn’t do–but now, I started to have serious issues about my Faith even…ok is Marx right, is the whole religious basis just an invention to justify the pyramid hierarchy? Are the revised [many ARE revised] beliefs on paganism/goddesses accurate? Was this patriarchal ‘god’ monotheism simply an invention of the time of Empire? Even Euro-centric, was Protestant just the invention of the guilds and the gold–quest for and the genocides of Native Indians?
And ALL OF THEM HAD VALID ARGUMENTS….they cannot be Denied or Dismissed with cliche answers.
What I didn’t suspect though is the reading on science, geography/environment, because I love nature and study a lot there, how that would tie in too–
and so it’s like this puzzle–with all these pieces and fragments, my question was, What IF, you could prove God by Logic alone? I know Hegel attempted–as did a few others, I also know the arguments [that have valid points] against their reasons but I wasn’t ‘content’ with those either–I kept turning over rocks [and still am],
and yea, it became an obsession. Though, spiritually, and if one doesn’t understand this, it was here that I saw, on a level something darker–won’t get into here but well, yea, why I do believe, without any doubt, there IS a God…one thing that I thought of again, last night,
of All the things I could bring up to Question the validity of God, of the Bible included–I would find Other questions, like, was religion invented to calm Fear and Guilt? Of wrong? Then if that be the case, why do we know Wrong? IF it’s relative, then why do we feel Guilt? And fear with that guilt? Can’t reason that one away so easily–why are they There? Why can’t we just rationalize it away and if so–and many do, then look at what happens? Materialists say this is result of an exchange between humans [ethics] but is that really? Because one’s ethics are not another then you get into power again, dynamics–why is it that Animals, don’t have the same power dynamics Within tribes all the same? There is too much–diversity, to sum it up as evolutionary ethics–to many ‘gaps’ that have not been proven [theory/science is hypothesis, that do Change--not FACT, though many claim they are FACT--oddly FACT that is not Agreed upon within the science], so if you look at it that way, then Everything, is based on some level of ‘faith’, to some degree. IF there is question, like within science, there is that backlash–group think–well, LOL, kind of like religion now isn’t it?
So, what if, you tie them all together–see what you come up with, what if, it’s not as illogical as we think? So I did just that–I went back and picked up Marx and read while searching Bible–Marx, in his thesis/anti-thesis on religion, on “The Jewish Question” wrote an analysis that is, yes True–but BUT, he didn’t go far back enough, he zeroed in on Judaism, so then I went to studies on Patriarchy–o.k. they are a bit more past the class/race and many interesting findings there But, oddly, they zero in on OT and NT [after Paul] Middle Ages, not a lot on Jesus, why is that?
There seems to be some gaps there and I would find this a lot–
then, I had to question, what is faith. Bible says, Faith is the substance of things hoped for…
I thought of that in a Religious sense–that Christian sense. But, uh Ha, faith–substance, of what? Things Hoped for…
faith, is what we Hope for–if we Hope for no God we will get no God, if we Hope for God we will get God–it’s what is in US–that decides, so then take that further…
Bible says, a lot about ‘light’ and ‘darkness’, from Genesis, let there be light and then He separated light and darkness, NT, Light came into the world–but they did not come to the light lest their evil deeds be manifest–preferred to hide, Jesus talks about the eye being our lamp, if it’s dark how great is that darkness–the age of EnLIGHTenment, Dark Ages–so, yea, kind of odd there, or Is it?
End days or the Knowledge Age? Coincidence? Maybe it’s right in Front of us and whether we see it or not depends on whether we want too–or whether God shows us, undecided on that one, scriptures can go either way here.
So now, take it to this level, it gets more interesting, knowledge fruit of good/evil, that tree–once Both ate, they immediately realized they were naked [naked in Rev refers to shame with no cover] and they hid–God said, Who told you? You were naked? Funny thing to ask, don’t you think? Then, Eve blamed the serpent, not, I wanted to be ‘like the gods’ etc., Adam blamed her, not I saw her she didn’t die immediately and I wanted to be ? we don’t know, it does not say, so then, we have two things,
blame and lie to cover up the I wanted to.
Nobody wants to say to God, because I just flat out wanted to do it. Oooh, yea we don’t like to Hear that one.
[and it gets Really interesting if you think on this, if there was no sin, in them [like in James, lust then sin comes] then, why did they Want, was the sin After they ate or prior too? the LORD God told Adam, IF you take the fruit of that tree you will Die. Eve said God said…not to eat nor touch, notice, through Genesis, there is God and Lord God. Why not just God and leave it at that?
The death–immediate, what happens, they realize they were naked, they are afraid, they hide, they blame, they lie–Guilt, Fear. [where does Guilt/Fear come from, Knowledge, Knowledge of What and from Who?]
More interesting, after the fact, God says, they know Good and Evil like US–lest they take of the Tree of Life, etc., and of course He puts the guards there [my para] and throws them out of Garden [funny thing too about the trees in the Midst of, another dimension??? Native Indians believe so],
get into some of the other ancient beliefs, from Worlds apart, from Native Indian to Mayans, many similarities, Coincidence? OR, maybe, go back to Noah’s sons, the dispersing, one’s lineage were in shipping/fishing and went off–Somewhere…hmmmmm, another master of armory, went off somewhere, and another, comes the lineage of Hebrews, etc., that thread–funny thing is, History/Science backs that up, to a huge degree,
funny thing is too, the similarities between the Incas and Mayans to the ancient Mesopotamia beliefs and practices, Coincidence? How about Easter Island, more Giants? [stones, etc., Coincidence?]
hmmmm–see, not so easy then to just dismiss it all as mere fantasy, kind of hard to explain evolution from Monkeys on that one. Even big bang–the evolution from the organisms, maybe that could be, but then, that’s LIFE now isn’t it? Funny thing, when you look at some Biblical things there, fire, wind, water…
so, Bible doesn’t refute any of the other ‘theories’ in their entirety, but expands on them more so–IF one sees, there are hints, of bits/fragments, all over the place, so the Bible is written by MEN, ok, so what if it is? IF Life, Tree of Life, God’s Breathe, is in all of us, well then that wouldn’t be too hard to grasp–funny thing is, how the threads, all run, through times and times even with gaps, from men, long dead and gone–that confirm,
but here is where it gets a bit stranger, beliefs that are not from Bible, from antiquity, run along similar threads. They don’t Disprove the Bible–
and neither does materialism–going back to Marx/knowledge-man’s, the hierarchies, pyramids, the all seeing Eye [on that dollar bill] and in Genesis, funny how that all seeing Eye, from Egypt to now, still is there–Coincidence?
This is not even the ‘gist’ of the threads, connectors I have seen, NOT by reading Bible, but by reading everything that Disputes the accuracy of Bible–of Faith, that ‘substance’ of things Hoped for–what does our Heart hope for? The light, or darkness, to hide, from Guilt and Fear.
Bible says, Love casts out all Fear–to know God is to know Love, because God is love.
Those who worship God must do so in Spirit and in Truth–what is truth, funny Pilate asked Jesus [or maybe Herod, don't have Bible here] that same question, Jesus didn’t answer, Why?
Because truth is subjective, faith what one hopes for, truth based on knowledge, good/evil?
OR, absolute?
Is there an absolute outside of US? That is the question that is more than is the Bible real, if there is, an absolute outside of US, do we WANT it? Faith, substance of things hoped for, we Hope for what we Want, Desire.
Just, some things to ponder on–I find taking Bible literally, not only boring but leaves out so much to be desired, really, that the Bible is more than just a literal book, and funny, how it was letters, scrolls, bits here, bits there, from men yes, from different ages–who knew not one another, but of all the books, not a one, I know, speaks of a God that is more than judgment, but a God that says, this is Truth, you can’t obey it due to your nature, so here, I’ll pay the price in your place–you can choose, to take my gift or not, according to your faith…faith, substance.
Maybe the question is what do we really want? What do we prefer? The question, we avoid, Why? [the one we hide from]
Why hide? Ironic, coincidence? Of course, the easiest way to feel comfort from hiding is to rationalize it all away–but can we, really rationalize it all away? If we can, then why in 2010 are we no better in dealing with conflicts? Globally? Between Gender? In Power dynamics? We may have evolved technically, but ethically and morally, we De-evolved, or we are still stuck–no absolutes that will never change, we’ve Proven this, by far–the wheel keeps a going a round and a round and a round.
[funny thing about the wheel and Ezekiel] Coincidence?
With all the philosophy it’s amazing we haven’t found a ‘cure’ for humanity, even With humanism, so—does logic Prove there is no God, or does logic Prove, there is or maybe?
Maybe, the answer, lies in, what we really, hope for–
some things to think about,
Jane
February 21, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Jane, your posts are long, but good.
In response to the challenge from Annie C.:
———
While you are at it, please explain Judges 21:10-24,
———
The Israelites were MERCIFUL in sparing the lives of the virgin girls rather than killing everyone the way that their neighbours would’ve done.
The reason for killing everybody is to prevent an uprising on the part of the conquered people, because they remain loyal to their original leaders long after they’ve been conquered. Men remain loyal to their rulers. Women remain loyal to their husbands, etc.
Even young boys remain loyal to their fathers, and, when they grow up, they will seek to avenge their parents by killing the children of their conquerors.
However, the same rule does not apply to young girls. Girls and boys in the ancient near east had very different upbringings, and very different personalities.
Unlike boys, girls spent their entire unmarried lives shacked away from the world, in their households, and their every move was scrutinized in order to protect their maidenhood so that Daddy could fetch a high bride-price for his daughter’s virginity. The girls had no authority, power, or influence in their households; they were totally passive and obedient to their superiors.
What harm, then, could these girls do to the Israelites? Nothing, because they were totally helpless! They only knew how to obey, and had no will of their own.
If these girls posed no threat to the Israelites, then where is the justification for killing them?
———
Numbers 31:7-18,
———
See above.
———
Judges 5:30,
———
This is what Sisera’s mother wanted for her son. Deborah is mocking her here; she wants evil to come to the Israelites, but she does not know that her tyrant of a son is dead, and killed by a woman too!
———
Deuteronomy 20:10-14,
———
If the city surrenders, everybody will live and will put to work for the Israelites. If it decides to put up a fight instead, it engages in warfare with the Israelites. The consequence of war is that, if the city loses, every man will have to die because the Israelites will not allow the chance of an uprising.
———
Deuteronomy 22:28-29,
———
If a virgin is raped, she loses her virginity. If she is no longer a virgin, no one will want to marry her. Besides being considered unmarriageable, her dignity has been violated. He owes her a compensation for that violation, and there is nothing that will make up for his raping her except marriage without the possibility for him to divorce her. She, as a rape victim, is entitled to lifelong support from him.
———
Deuteronomy 22:23-24,
———
Death is the penalty for adultery. If, a woman does not scream for help when a man who is not her husband or fiance tries to ravish her, she has given her consent to be ravished. Since she has given her consent, she has committed adultery.
———
and especially Zechariah 14:1-2..
———
Yes, this passage describes a tribulation that the Israelites will suffer. The LORD will deliver them from this hardship.
———
And before you go saying “Oh, that’s OT, not NT”, please then explain Matthew 5:18, and how that applies to those verses in Deuteronomy, and vise versa.
———
Let’s place this passage in context:
“17″Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5: 17-20)
This passage says that no letter will disappear from the law until “everything is accomplished.” Who will accomplish this “everything?” Jesus Christ – that’s who! And Jesus Christ did accomplish everything on the cross. That is why he cried out, “It is finished!”
———
As well as how it applies to the Spare the Rod verse
———
First of all, the “spare the rod” verse is a PROVERB. Proverbs are a genre of literature. A proverb is a hyperbolic statement of wisdom, not a literal truth.
For example, the statement, “I’m bored to death,” is an example of a proverb. Am I really dead? No, of course not! I’m only emphasizing the severity of my boredom.
Since the “spare the child” verse was never even a command of the OT law in the first place, why should NT Christians have to obey it?
February 22, 2010 at 9:45 am
Welcome to Jane.
Jane said “The problem is, there is lack of real discernment today, between good, evil, God and Satan. Because Too many, rely on Preachers and Peddlers of Quackery, religious that is, rather than get in the Word and seek themselves–prayer, find out Truth…”
that’s right. the Bible says strong meat belongeth to those who have had their senses exercised to discern good and evil.(Heb 5:14) That doesn’t happen when the preacher processes all your meat your entire spiritual life.
February 22, 2010 at 9:49 am
Jane,
God never once authorized genocide or gendercide (a form of genocide) in the Bible. The Israelites were not aiming to destroy the people who lived in Canaan; they were trying to drive them out, because there was no way that they would tolerate the Israelites – who were native to Canaan – living among them. Today, we call this kind of stuff ethnic cleansing. Back then, it was survival. Two enemy people groups cannot live in the same country and be at peace with each other.
Of course, as history has shown, time after time, genocide and gendercide almost never succeed, and ethnic cleansing is bound to fail because the cleansed people will sooner or later return to their homeland to avenge its ancestors.
As the Bible shows, the children from the tribes that Israel drove away from Canaan returned later to avenge their parents, and this was the will of the LORD, as punishment for Israel’s sins. God is not partial to any people group, and Israel was judged as severely as any of its neighbours.
I guess that makes God an anti-Semitic genocidal monster?
February 22, 2010 at 11:16 am
“funny thing is too, the Books that were taken out, defined by MEN not to be inspired, were several books, about Women, addressing rape, female Empowerment, etc., Ironically the books left in, o.k. by the Protestants were those books that showed women ONLY in passive, sexually passive roles, which I do find interesting. For those who may not read the Bible, I am NOT referring here to the Gnostic texts, I have read many of those,”
Hi Jane,
Could you list those books for me? Thanks!
February 22, 2010 at 11:44 am
What? (Like the moniker, by the way)–
I thought what you said about God being impartial was really interesting. If we took the stuff in the Old Testament, and just took the history out of the religious context, I think we would find that everything that happened there was, as it says in Ecclesiastes “nothing new under the sun.” Would “God’s people” (Israel) really have had it better if they had obeyed the Law, or was this also a little bit of hyperbole? We do not know this, but as someone who does believe in God, I have to think that in the case where he had set his standards out for this specific people, that it’s quite likely that he would also give them special blessing in accordance with their obedience. Of course, they never really did that.
And, I think that’s kind of the real key. We don’t live in that culture, so it’s kind of hard for us to get the right perspective, but a lot of the laws set out that we think are misogynist/patriarchal/elitist are actually favorable to women/children/aliens/poor. If God were really to favor anyone, he favors the weak. And by weak I mean those who have no means to change their own situation, whose lives are dictated by circumstances out of their control, and who are oppressed by those of better means.
Annie, I didn’t want to hash out every text like above, because I think there’s an overarching message, and the reality of some of those texts is that God required obedience by his people, and would have required it of anyone who chose to believe in him. I recently read Joshua and Judges through, and was appalled by the difference between the behaviors in the two books. Yes, Joshua is marked by war and conquest, but Judges is marked by people going their own way, and destroying anything their fathers might have built up for the Israelites. It was clear that the “chosen people” were just like everyone else–there is NOTHING special about being an Israelite, honestly. They were not guaranteed salvation any more than the people around them. They were the ones GIVEN the covenant, but they were also the ones whose inaction convicted them that much more, because they were disobedient to that which they KNEW, unlike the “ignorant” nations around them who did not have a covenant with Yahweh.
February 22, 2010 at 12:29 pm
—
For example, the statement, “I’m bored to death,” is an example of a proverb. Am I really dead? No, of course not! I’m only emphasizing the severity of my boredom.
—
Okay, this was a bad example, because “I’m bored to death” is merely a hyperbole, not a proverb.
Better examples of proverbs are, “Practice makes perfect,” or, “Honesty is the best policy,” because these are actually advisory.
Abby,
God would have indeed blessed the Israelites if they’d followed His laws – perfectly, as they should have. The Law of the OT is not burdensome or overencumbering; many commentators have remarked on how incredibly short, glib, and lacking in detail it is!
The law is both just and holy – just, because it honours the rights of every sinful person, and holy because it honours God, the only one who is holy. If Israel had been just and holy, God would’ve blessed them. They were neither just nor holy, so God cursed them.
And, yes, it is true that the laws that seem to be unjust to modern sensibilities are actually very beneficial to the people whom they concern.
For example, in Biblical law, both adulterous wives AND their male lovers are to brought before a court to be judged, not just wives. The court, then, would do everything in their power to to reconcile the guilty parties (the lovers) to the wronged party (the husband) WITHOUT violence. If neither the husband nor the other man had initiated violence, the solution to the problem would be divorce. If, on the other hand, the either the husband or the other man had turned violent, the woman and her lover would be stoned before the WHOLE COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO STOP THE VIOLENCE.
By contrast, other cultures allowed cuckolded men to kill their wives and their lovers ON THE SPOT, WITHOUT TRIAL, and WITHOUT opportunity to be pardoned. Or, they killed only wives and not the lovers of married women. Either way, the OT law was far preferable to the alternatives.
February 22, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Jane,
Ethnic cleansing is NOT the same as genocide. Ethnic cleansing is the REMOVAL of a people group from an area. Genocide is the DESTRUCTION of a people group.
When Hitler first took power, he wanted to get rid of the Jews via ETHNIC CLEANSING. The Jews were pressured and encouraged to leave, and the lucky ones did. Hitler only instituted GENOCIDE in the later years of World War II, when he was desperate because it was obvious that the Germans were going to lose the war. (In truth, it was the war that caused the Holocaust, and the Allied powers are responsible for the Holocaust, no matter what your high school textbook might say.)
Ethnic cleansing in the ancient near east was not the same as ethnic cleansing in modern Europe. Back then, it was a matter of SURVIVAL for EVERYBODY involved. Two hostile people groups cannot live together in the same land, and be at peace. If they are not at peace, they are at war, at least in their hearts. If they are at war in their hearts, then they will very soon be at war – LITERALLY.
What commonalities did the Israelites and Canaanites have? They worshipped different gods, had different cultures and values, and belonged to different people groups. There was no overarching nation-state to which they both owed allegiance, the way that white Americans and black Americans belong to the same country. There was no hope for peace between the two. The only ethical thing to do was to separate them.
February 22, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Hitler was killing Jews before America ever got into the war.
February 22, 2010 at 9:47 pm
“Enoch, book of, says these half-humans half fallen angels would enslave the humans, eat up all the land, have sex with the animals, consume all animals, demand worship [gods-goddesses] and well, people lived in FEAR, terror actually–”
There is no evidence that the Book of Enoch which Jane is quoting is the same as the one from which Jesus quoted, AND the Book of Enoch that you are quoting is NOT part of Holy Canon:
Titus 1:13 “This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.”
February 23, 2010 at 7:51 am
Hey, just stopped by to post this link.
It’s sad how people pick a teaching, follow it tot he letter, and cause the death of a child.
http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/02/22/lydias-smile-could-have-lit-a-room/
February 23, 2010 at 11:42 am
The Law, given to Moses, was impossible to follow. It was a tutor to lead others to Christ. The Law would was not to bring righteousness to the one who followed it. The Law was death. The Law was added because of transgressions.
Abraham was saved by faith BEFORE the Law. His faith/belief was credited to him as righteousness. That is how every single person from the beginning of time has been made righteous-through faith.
Righteousness and justification do not come through the Law. Yes, God promised blessing for perfect obedience to the Law but the Law was impossible to keep, God knew it and that is why Jesus had to come to this earth in order to keep the Law perfectly in our place.
We receive the Spirit of God through faith that comes by hearing and not by keeping the Law. The Law is not of faith and the just shall live by faith. Everyone who is under the Law is under a curse.
The Law was added because of transgressions UNTIL Christ should come. The Law brings death and not life.
“But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”
The Law was our tutor but after faith has come we are no longer under a tutor. The covenant from Mt. Sinai gave birth to bondage.
The Law is a yoke of bondage and we are commanded to stand fast in our liberty.
The Law was unable to cleanse a guilty conscience. The sacrifice of the blood of bulls and goats were ineffective. It was impossible for those sacrifices to take away sins. In fact, the Bible tells us that sacrifice and burnt offerings God did not require or desire nor did they bring Him pleasure.
So, I would say that the Law of the OT (the Law given to Moses) IS burdensome (the Bible tells us it is a curse, it is bondage, it is death, etc), it was very cumbersome and it was futile to bring about personal righteousness and/or justification in God’s sight.
That law, added because of transgressions, did not nullify the promise made to Abraham and his seed- that believing God is credited to the person as righteousness.
February 23, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Gracesong,
Thanks for linking to that article!
Here is a quote from that link:
” There is no Good News to be found there, just legalism, punishment – salvation by “the rod”. Listen to the powers Michael Pearl ascribes to the rod – powers I’ve only heard elsewhere ascribed to Christ and His Cross:
“When a child is bound in self-blame and low self-esteem, parents are not helpless. God has given them the gift of the rod. The rod can bring repentance, but it goes much deeper than that. The rod in the hands of a righteous authority will supply the child’s soul with that moment of judgment that he feels he so deserves. Properly applied, with instruction, it will absolve the child of guilt, cleanse his soul, and give him a fresh start through a confidence that all indebtedness is paid.” (Emphasis mine)”
and
“*** The soul of your child needs to be punished. “He feels the need to suffer for his misdeeds. What I am telling you is well understood by the most reprobate of modern psychiatrists and psychologists. They call it a “guilt complex.” Children and adults in this state of mind often do harm to themselves. Their anger is turned inward because they hate the bad person they know themselves to be. Their soul is crying out for justice to be done to the self. They don’t know what is happening, and they will not voluntarily seek punishment, but their soul needs judgment. When your child is in the first throes of this debilitating condition, be kind enough to punish him. Care enough and love enough to pay the emotional sacrifice to give him ten to fifteen licks that will satisfy his need to experience payback.
If you do not see the wisdom in what I have said, and you reject these concepts, you are not fit to be a parent. I pity your children. They will never experience the freedom of soul and conscience that mine do.” (emphasis mine; quoted from the Pearl’s website)”
And these are perfect illustrations of the difference of the Law vs Faith.
Also, the second quote from Michael Pearl is what I have read time and time again in the wife-spanking/discipline literature.
10 to 15 “licks”? What the HECK is wrong with people?
Also, read this link:
http://nolongerquivering.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=ngj&thread=733&page=3#11864
Very informative and eye-opening. Michael Pearl’s (and many other patriocentrist leaders) line is total and immediate and cheerful obedience and nothing less. That is why these parents continue to beat their children until they die. There are many children, especially those who are suffering PTSD and attachment related issues, that will EVER submit cheerfully as a matter of basic survival and protection instincts.
It is time for these authors and leaders to start owning their words and the consequences of people following their teachings.
On a smaller scale, we have heard patriocentrist leaders/authors blame the person who reads their book for following their own teachings and refuses to accept any responsibility. It makes me SICK.
Or we or are we NOT supposed to take their teachings seriously? And if we are not to take them seriously then why the heck are we buying their books and going to their stupid “teas” and conferences and flocking after them when they have speaking engagements?
February 23, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Jane, I’m sorry to say, but your posts are largely incoherent. I will read just about anything, but I’m finding it very difficult to get through your page long posts, especially because they do not always seem to have any cohesiveness.
What I have gotten through, though, I’ve really felt like your theology is very unusual, and that your conclusions about the Bible are mostly based on self-study, not on a general consensus from commentaries throughout the years. Personally, I’ve found that the Holy Spirit’s leading, along with a healthy dose of reading what other people say about a particular scripture generally helps me better to understand. No one person’s statement on this verse or that can be certain, but when lots of people are in agreement, and the Holy Spirit also reveals the same if the occasion happens, I am more confident in the meaning of a verse.
As far as non-canonical texts, I have been out of college for a while now, but I’m fairly certain that the “MEN” who chose the scriptures for the canon of the Bible did so with the full interest of God in mind. I feel strongly that they felt convicted in their hearts and minds that these writings were God-inspired, and these were not. They are certainly still fallible people, but when many agree on something, and all of them are also experts on that (Scripture, in this instance), then the likelihood of getting it wrong is much lower, especially when they are being led by God.
Your assertion that the Bible is filled with examples of (my word) “wimpy” women is downright shocking to me–have you READ the Bible? There are dozens of examples of strong, “unusual” women–and many of these are lauded as the example for us to follow (by most of the Christian world) as women. Sarah, Zipporah, Pharaoh’s daughter, Miriam, Deborah, Abigail, Ruth, Naomi, Esther, etc… Need I go on? Mary (all of them), Martha, Lydia (from the Bible), Tabitha, Priscilla. If the Bible were chosen by men who had *men’s* best interest in mind, the stories of Ruth and Esther would not be in the Bible at all.
Jane, you’ve touched a nerve with me. I don’t know exactly where you are coming from theologically, but I can say it is definitely not “orthodox.”
February 23, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Jane,
You are disgusting. You are cruel. NO ONE has said anything REMOTELY racist. You do not even know the races of the people here. I AM HISPANIC!
What was meant as a clarification of a definition, you took as an endorsement. HOW?
Wishing rape on someone, I do not have words for that.
Get out of here!
February 24, 2010 at 4:26 am
Corrie,
Thanks for that concise analysis of the “role” of the law vs. grace.
February 24, 2010 at 4:33 am
Nicole,
I don’t know Jane to be cruel or disgusting. Her posts are gone now, so I can’t see what you are speaking up against.
Did she wish rape on someone??
I can understand asking her to tone it down, or to shorten her posts, but to kick her out is not on, IMO. Her life and experiences are not mine to share, but from what she has shared elsewhere, she knows pain that most of us can’t even imagine.
Is there no way we can take discussions that are getting too heated off of the board, instead of instantly assuming someone is vile and kicking them off?
February 24, 2010 at 7:24 am
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/02/22/no_greater_joy
http://www.cephas-library.com/evangelical_michael_pearl.html )
Here are a couple good links that I came across yesterday. I was really happy to see such a fair article in a secular publication and such great analysis about Christian homeschoolers and the reasons they might be attracted to teachings like the Pearls’.
The second link discusses the Pearls’
“sinless perfection” theology that I believe is driving their teachings. It is amazing how many people either can’t see it or don’t care, even after the death of this little one.
February 24, 2010 at 7:26 am
Just a note to let you all know that I “unapproved” Jane’s comments until I have a chance to go over them more thoroughly. I received notes from longtime readers here who were truly troubled by them and that I had allowed them to be posted. In all honestly, I have been so busy the past few days that I haven’t read them all as well as I should. Hopefully I will have a chance to do that today.
February 24, 2010 at 9:59 am
Nicole, I have to echo Madame’s words.
Jane shoots from the hip and calls a spade a spade.
She pulls no punches when discribing the ugliness of the world around us that not all of us can see. For those of us who have not had first hand experience with them, they can be overwhelming.
But her voice and voices like hers need to be heard.
She’s been to hell and back, much of it due to patriarchy. Sorry if some of the hell still clinging to her as she continues to get free from it offends you.
I look upon her as one of those who have been snatched from the fire with her clothes still smelling like smoke.
She’s actually a very sensitive and artistic soul. And for this reason what she has gone through has affected her deeply.
So if you don’t understand my friend Jane, please just pray for her. And know Madame and I have seen the beautiful side of her and can attest that it does exist.
And what she proclaims against patriarchy and male privilege needs to be said.
God knows whether or not it needs to be toned down. It’s not my judgement to make.
I only know that I owe no man (or woman) anything except to love them. So that’s what I owe you and her.
Also, I haven’t seen the posts here. But I am familiar with her style and know she says some very strong things.
Blessings to you Nicole.
February 24, 2010 at 10:18 am
Wasn’t it someone called “Jane” that caused trouble on here months ago and made everyone’s posts have to be moderated?
February 24, 2010 at 10:30 am
It seems ‘perennial bestseller’ Passionate Housewives is now being given away for free by Vision Forum:
http://inashoe.com/2010/02/free-copy-passionate-housewives-desperate-god/
February 25, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Godly advice or the language of a Sadist and Masochist?
I am APPALLED at the various things I am reading by “leaders” on child discipline. And where are all the patriocentrist leaders speaking out about these things? (Crickets) It might be hard for them to speak out against things since they promote these ideas and they are all about the control of women and children.
Pastor Kevin Swanson:
:40-5:20
“The world does not consider the rod a blessing. It’s ironic that we’re sitting in a public building talking about this. It just seems strange because it’s not really part of the culture we live in is it?”
15:50-17:00
“There are some children that need to be disciplined, and I’ve heard this from Godly parents, 20-30 times a day. Some children 20-30 times a day, 3,4,5,6 years in a row. It is just overwhelming for some parents.”
19:30-22:45
“God limits the severity and civil magistrate has some very clearly defined pervue in cases of child abuse in the Scripture. This is a very, very important fact because you know the state is clueless on this issue, utterly clueless, in fact, I have a hard time finding a magistrate or legislator who knows what their role is in the family and is very plainly laid out in Leviticus 24:19 ‘If a man cause a blemish to his neighbor as he hath done so shall it be done to him…the use of the rod is very clear, no lasting harm aloud, period…now this should relieve the conscience of every Christian parent here who from time to time leaves a bruise on a child, it’s legitimate, it’s not lasting harm, it’s not lasting harm. You understand some children bruise just like that, some children don’t, but children are very different in this way, but I’m bringing the word of God to bear on your consciences today, the state should not be an issue here when it comes to obeying the word of God. Now granted we do everything we can to agree with our adversary while we’re in the way with him. We don’t want to make a spectacle out of ourselves…” He goes on to say do it in private.
Pastor Nathan Thrice (OPC)
Sermon 2:
3:58-5:22
“Parents spare the rod by beginning to spank too late in a child’s life. Brother’s and Sister’s you are to begin the use of the rod as early as sin is clearly manifested in your children. And how early is that? It’s from infancy…”
7:30-10:30 This section he goes on and on about why you should spank them before their old enough to understand, especially before the age of 2. He goes on to reiterate numerous times it should be done in infancy.
33:50-34:35 “Brothers and sisters you need to recognize that when you spank you are to be bringing that child, DOUG WILSON (emphasis mine) puts it this way, especially for a young child, ‘You need to be bringing that child to a place where at least for the moment in that little child’d mind he firmly believes the world is coming to an end…’” He goes on to repeat this statement for emphasis.
53:00-54:30 This section he says basically not to worry about social services, but to do the “right” thing.
Pastor Harold Chase
21:55- 22:07
“We are to use as many stripes as necessary to bring about the end result of discipline.”
20:30-39:20 “How many whacks is irrelevant. You may only need a word, you may need 100 stripes. A hundred? That’s what the Bible speaks about. A word enters more into the heart of a wise man than a 100 stripes into a fool. And so who knows how many. How much according to the actual number of strokes in any given case is not the issue. However, having stated that, whatever is given should be non-abusive. Whether it is 10 stripes, or 20 stripes, or anything well beyond that. There is to never be in any danger of physical abuse to that child. Ok, no physical abuse to the child. There is all sorts of varying views on what is physical abuse. Let me give you a biblical answer: They should never have their life or limb in danger, ever. They should never be put in danger as to their life, they might think, you might think, remember the Bible says you shall beat him with a rod, dad, he shall not die, you shall not kill him. However, if you use the rod enough to actually endanger his life, then that’s too much, or his limb, by limb that usually means appendages, what I mean by that is physical body must not be actually brought to be abused. Now if you took an inch dowel, a cane, solid oak inch dowel or an half –inch and had that within your wingspan you could hurt, you would hurt your child physically, and had that child bend over you could hurt, you would hurt your child, you could do serious damage. Yet if you took an instrument that was flat sprawled out, if you will, and a thick enough to not particularly break, but if it had a little give to it, you would get the job done…. What you use on your infant I trust you’re not using on your 15-year-old… You would be a great encouragement to your child if you kept all of your rods through the years and the ones that have been well soiled by tears and inflicted by flesh and broken at times and hand them off when he’s an adult and say I want you to know I love you…” He goes on to say when the child gets older he needs something used on him that’s a quarter to a half inch thick. “The blueness of the wound cleanses away evil…but there’s a major difference between a blackened behind and the skin breaking on a child. If you are disciplining your child regularly you will approach the breaking of skin and it will happen perhaps, and you have gone too far.”
These quotes and MORE are found on the following website (referenced by Karen on Thatmom):
http://www.freedomfromabuse.net/
February 25, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Let the little children come? Is the following what Jesus meant when he said those words? Was He really saying that we teach our children about the Gospel/Bible by hitting them when they are only two weeks old?
Pastor Roger Voegtlin
“The best years of your child’s life is when their young. A pastor was teaching a seminar on child rearing to a group of parents and, and ah, a mother raised her hand and said, ‘How old does a child need to be before you teach them a Bible verse?’ And with a straight face he said, ‘I think about two weeks old.’ And he just kept on going and she blurted out, ‘How can you teach a Bible verse when their two weeks old?’ And he went on to give some swats on his hand to the meter, Proverbs 13:5 ‘the way of the transgressor is hard.’ He said ‘they may not get the words, but they’ll get the spirit.’ [Roger is slapping his hand to a beat as he says the last few sentences] And don’t let them turn on the tears and get you to stop. In fact, you ought not let them scream and cry, they ought to get more and I know that’s frustrating. More. Listen, what their trying to do is convince their parent to stop before justice is done…One preacher said his mother used to stand next to his father as he was whippin’ him as a child and say, ‘Dad, he needs some more he’s not sweet yet. Dad give him some more he’s not sweet yet!’ [raised voice] That’s the job of the mother…”
February 25, 2010 at 12:11 pm
More child discipline “wisdom”….
Joey Faust
32:50-33:10
“Seat belts save lives so belt them in the seat.”
33:20-33:55
“My teenagers all received whippings right on up until their senior year when it was needed. They respected us for whippings and later wrote us and told us they appreciated us that we brought them up with discipline. There’s a psychological idea that once a child’s 10 he no longer needs a whippin’. It’s bologna is what it is.”
37:20-38:35
“When you’re getting up to 13, 14, and 15 you’re running out of years, man. You better get a swinging as quick as you can. Deutoronomy talks about whipping an older son. It says if a man has a wicked and rebellious son and will not heed the voice of his mother… it says they whipped him and they did good to whip him and then they stone him with stones. Under church rule today you don’t do that, but God has never abolished the chastening of your teenage boy or girl. That’s never been abolished…”
39:00-39:30
“[speaking of beating you son]…I’m not saying to lose your mind, but I’m saying you ought to take care of his [sons] business…”
45:00-45:45
“Son now don’t you ever, ever, talk to me, your father, in such a way to act like you’re smarter than me. Now I’m gonna bust your behind right now. And then I’m gonna give you a hug and don’t you ever do that again, do you understand that? ‘yes, sir, daddy’ Now you didn’t say ‘yes sir’ quick enough. Now I’m gonna bust your behind again, yes sir? ‘yes sir, daddy.’ Now I love you. It’s over. No more smart mouth. No more eye rolling….”
47:00-49:00
“I’ll tell you this, if by the time a child is a year old and you can’t say ‘no’ and he stops and you can’t say don’t touch that and make it stick…it’s possible at a year old to make a child mind… if you did it like my daddy did you might get better results. Listen, my daddy whipped you until you cried, then whipped you again until you stopped crying and I firmly believe in that… A woman came up to Bob Jones Sr. and said Dr. Bob will you pray for my 14 year old boy who is already drinking and cussing? Dr. Bob says, ‘No maam, I will not… Why should I waste my time praying for a thing you could fix in 10 or 15 minutes with a stitch if you really meant business.’…”
These quotes are all from the freedomfromabuse website.
February 25, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Corrie,
Those quotes in 540 and 541 are sickening.
February 25, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Corrie,
What can we do to stop this type of abuse in the name of “Biblical chastisement or discipline”? It is so entrenced in the Christian community. Where does grace based parenting come in and how do we get through to people that they need not be harsh when dealing with their children? How do we combat the message of Proverbs quoting pasters who seem to think the rod is the answer for everything? And how do we get throught to parents that 2 week olds don’t yet have sin issues that need a swat?
February 25, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Karen,
I read the Cephas library link from comment 435.
I’m glad to see a person who may be listened to by parents who subscribe to the Pearl’s ways point out some of their dangerous teachings. But I’m disappointed that he considers their teaching on marriage and child discipline to be “Godly”.
February 25, 2010 at 3:15 pm
I didn’t get through all of Jane’s posts as they were kind of hard to read, but they reminded me of the basic premise of one of Madeleine L’Engle’s books. I can’t remember what it was called, but it was about the time before the Flood. There are a lot of interesting things in that whole theory to think about, but it gets confusing and depressing for me when I try to think about it too much…. There might be some overlooked things/truths but I don’t think we can just toss out thousands of years of theology that has been hammered out by millions of people led by God. I think Jane is still healing and growing and learning and it sounds like she’s been through a terrible amount of suffering, so we don’t need to be really harsh with her. She did say a couple of inflammatory/cruel sounding things but I don’t personally feel like she was wishing that on people. I hope she continues to heal and feel safe.
February 25, 2010 at 3:19 pm
“33:50-34:35 “Brothers and sisters you need to recognize that when you spank you are to be bringing that child, DOUG WILSON (emphasis mine) puts it this way, especially for a young child, ‘You need to be bringing that child to a place where at least for the moment in that little child’d mind he firmly believes the world is coming to an end…’” He goes on to repeat this statement for emphasis.”
First, all of those quotes are so DISGUSTING. Second, that emphasized statement was interesting to me, because so many of these people are also hyperanxious about politics and constantly think this or that person is the Antichrist and the Last Days are starting, like, tomorrow. I have often been very worried over the state of the world myself, but it just struck me that someone should tell these people that if they really believe punishing involves the punishee being convinced their world is ending, then hmm… Maybe GOD IS PUNISHING THEM and they are not paying attention!
February 25, 2010 at 3:22 pm
I grew up believing spanking was an “almost necessity,” to be used carefully and mainly in the toddler years, but the more of these quotes I read the more I want to see how well I can raise a child without needing to spank at all. Not going to put it completely off limits, but reading these stories makes me really want to avoid spanking.
February 25, 2010 at 3:41 pm
This child discipline “garbage” makes feel sick. I’ll say again – you can’t legislate a change heart and you certainly can’t beat a change of heart into anyone.
I don’t even begin to understand how a person reconciles beating a child to change them with “For God so loved the world, that He gave…” Jesus didn’t pick up His cross and beat us with it…He loved us through it.
O.K., I have to stop there…praying for open doors and opportunities to get the word out about grace based parenting. I had no idea how the Pearls and their ilk had multiplied since we finished homeschooling.
February 25, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Wade Burleson has a post up about this issue on his blog.
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/
February 25, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Corrie, your quotes broke my heart too. I can’t read them they turn my stomach,
As I skimmed through them (not because of casual disregard but because they are so horrendous) I caught preacher Joey Faust bragging about spanking his teen sons.
XP
That speaks volumes about how INEFFECTIVE spanking is as a tool in training for godliness. If indeed his children are so rotten as to need spanked as teenagers, then all those years of “discipline” were useless.
My teen son and I get along swell, and he hasn’t been spanked since he was (not exactly sure, it happened so rarely) 6? I spanked him the day he pounded on the neighbor girl in exasperation after she had pushed his buttons all day. He also had to apologize and take her flowers. And we talked about how it’s okay to tell mom if playtime is not going so well, and it’s okay to send people home until another day. We even came up with a code to use if he was at someone else’s house and wanted to come home. (Great move because it turned out he needed that code one day.)
I didn’t spank my son after that, not even when I found him looking at porn, because I was able to reason with him.
Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”
He is the delight of my heart. I don’t need to spank him.
In fact, he was disrespectful to me today (which was an anomaly!) and I was able to TALK to him about it and see a complete change of heart in him. He was able to TALK to me about the frustrating distraction he was dealing with when he answered me disrespectfully. We were TOGETHER able to come up with a mutually satisfying resolution which included his honoring his mother and my honoring his ability to reason.
I absolutely cannot imagine the indignity to a teen who is being “spanked”. It’s just child abuse with a religious veneer, and it needs to stop.
I will ashamedly admit that when I spanked my son for hitting the neighbor girl, it was to assuage my anger at violence toward a girl. Just seeing how upset I was would have been more than enough to get the gravity of the situation across. I did not need to spank him that day.
The rest of the discipline was the important part: expressing that violence against women is totally unacceptable, listening to why he did it, giving him empathy for all he put up with, coming up with a plan to keep his frustration from escalating in the future, insisting he apologize for his wrong, and taking flowers to show her parents he would treat their daughter gently in the future.
February 25, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Shadow, that is TRUE discipline. What a great mom you are! These abusive parents seem to forget that discipling – which is how you deal with your son – is the root of discipline.
February 26, 2010 at 1:30 am
The Pearls and the Schatz family were the topic of this World magazine blog today, with more links to other bloggers. http://online.worldmag.com/2010/02/25/to-brainwash-a-parent/
February 26, 2010 at 8:46 am
Kathy, such good news! Thanks for posting. I am proud that World mag has spoken out.
February 26, 2010 at 8:47 am
Light, I agree that Shadowspring’s approach is the correct one. Oh my, how many homes would see immediate healing if moms and dads experienced the same sort of desire to repent of wrongs against their children! This is a crucial aspect of “relationship homeschooling!”
February 26, 2010 at 8:51 am
I wanted to let everyone know that I decided not to repost the comments left by Jane. (Not the same Jane, btw, who was posting here a few months ago.) I found, as Abby did, that they were not always coherent and the more we tried to understand what she was saying, it became apparent to me that there was no possibility for real discussion. I am sure some of you will be offended for her and I understand that. But I also know that some of you who are always willing and able to refute wrong teachings barely knew where to begin given the sheer volume of thoughts she was writing. If, perhaps, she decides to submit one thought at a time to discuss, I will post it.
February 26, 2010 at 9:07 am
Corrie,
What can we do to stop this type of abuse in the name of “Biblical chastisement or discipline”? It is so entrenced in the Christian community. Where does grace based parenting come in and how do we get through to people that they need not be harsh when dealing with their children? How do we combat the message of Proverbs quoting pasters who seem to think the rod is the answer for everything? And how do we get throught to parents that 2 week olds don’t yet have sin issues that need a swat?”
I know this was for Corrie and I look forward to what she has to say, but this is my response to this.
We need to start by making an appeal to those who are in leadership in churches and homeschooling groups, letting them know that these teachings DO constitute abuse. And even if they do not believe it is abusive according to Scripture, at the very least they need to know that the state says it is abuse. This is what I found as far as the law is where I live in Illinois:
“Assault is defined as an act that makes another person have reasonable apprehension of battery. Battery means intentionally or knowingly and without legal justification causing bodily harm to another person, or making an insulting or provoking physical contact with a person.”
And then, there is the “witnessing” aspect of it:
Illinois Circumstances That Constitute Witnessing Comp. Stat. Ch. 720 § 5/12-3.2[In criminal law] For purposes of this Section: • ‘’Child’’ means a person under 18 years of age who is the defendant’s or victim’s child or stepchild or who is a minor child residing within or visiting the household of the defendant or victim. • ‘’In the presence of a child’’ means in the physical presence of a child or knowing or having reason to know that a child is present and may see or hear an act constituting one of the offenses listed in the section below. Consequences Comp. Stat. Ch. 720 § 5/12-3.2In addition to any other sentencing alternatives, a defendant who commits, in the presence of a child, a felony domestic battery, aggravated domestic battery, aggravated battery, unlawful restraint, or aggravated unlawful restraint against a family or household member shall be: • Required to serve a mandatory minimum imprisonment of 10 days or perform 300 hours of community service, or both • Liable for the cost of any counseling required for the child at the discretion of the court.”
More and more adult children are now sharing the stories of seeing the siblings or other children receiving the Pearl treatment (Or being “Pearled” as I am now calling it) and have told how traumatized they were.
That is one thing.
Also, I think there needs to be a new battalion of older women who represent grace based mothering who are mentoring in our churches and homeschooling groups. We need to set the example. There are some great books to recommend. Give those as shower gifts….this is my latest thing, to include some cute little outfit or onesies in a bag along with one of the following books:
Grace Based Parenting by Tim Kimmel
Heartfelt Discipline by Clay Clarkson
Families Where Grace is in Place by Jeff VanVonderan
Just like in the patriocentric movement, why should all the voices be those of men and women who don’t embrace grace based relationships in marriages and families? Oh, the top down authoritarians won’t like it. In fact, they may try to shut us up with name calling, threatened lawsuits, or by sending trouble makers to us to divert the true message, but we can withstand it. We already have!!!
February 26, 2010 at 10:20 am
“Oh, the top down authoritarians won’t like it. In fact, they may try to shut us up with name calling, threatened lawsuits, or by sending trouble makers to us to divert the true message, but we can withstand it. We already have!!!”
Karen,
Where do I sign up?!!
February 26, 2010 at 10:23 am
Karen,
Would you consider starting a separate blog for that purpose? I wish you would…
February 26, 2010 at 11:21 am
Just like in the patriocentric movement, why should all the voices be those of men and women who don’t embrace grace based relationships in marriages and families? Oh, the top down authoritarians won’t like it. In fact, they may try to shut us up with name calling, threatened lawsuits, or by sending trouble makers to us to divert the true message, but we can withstand it. We already have!!!
Where I live, in Germany, spanking is illegal. I don’t think we would get in trouble for giving our children the occasional smack, with the hand, to get their attention when nothing else is working, but we are required by law to report people who abuse their children, and that includes hitting them.
Our former pastor, a proponent of Dobson’s methods, challenged me to use Biblical discipline (spanking) and defy the authorities. If it got me into jail, I’d be witnessing! Yay!
Does anyone think about children’s right to not have to hide what their life is really like?
As laws tighten, there are going to be more and more children bearing the burden of secrecy. That isn’t good for a child. IMO, it constitutes abuse in itself.
February 26, 2010 at 12:37 pm
“Grace Based Parenting by Tim Kimmel
Heartfelt Discipline by Clay Clarkson
Families Where Grace is in Place by Jeff VanVonderan”
I’ve read and shared copies of “Families Where Grace is in Place,”
but I’m not familiar with the other two authors. Do they advocate any spanking at all? Or say “hand swatting” of toddlers?
February 26, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Grace Based Parenting by Tim Kimmel if I remember correctly advocated some spanking but in moderation. Nothing that comes close to abuse. It was more of a gentle approach to discipline.
Heartfelt Discipline by Clay Clarkson was also a gentle approach to discipline. Clay Clarkson at one time advocated spanking but not with the harshness of the Pearls or others. I believe Heartfelt Discipline was written after he changed his views on spanking. I remember being impressed with the book and felt it stressed grace and instruction rather than spanking.
February 26, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Of the above mentioned books on grace based parenting, which one would you recommend I buy first?
February 26, 2010 at 3:40 pm
I would start with Heartfelt Discipline by Clarkson…lots of ideas for families with little ones. He also explains why he decided not to spank any longer. Much grace, very warm approach.
February 26, 2010 at 3:41 pm
I don’t remember Kimmel talking about spanking but if he did, it didn’t even hit my radar. He is all about relationships, too, and really stretches your thinking.
February 26, 2010 at 3:42 pm
It was fur years ago that little Sean Paddock died when his mom employed the Pearl methods of “chastisement.”
February 26, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Is anyone familar with:
“Bonding: Relationships in the Image of God” by Donald Joy, Ph.D.
I’ve read the book he and his wife, Robbie, co-authored – “Two Become One, God’s Bluepring for Couples” and I really liked it.
February 26, 2010 at 4:42 pm
I’ve always favored the Love and Logic approach. It worked very well both in the classroom and in my days working for CPS
http://www.loveandlogic.com/
And just so you all know, I do plan to get back to the discussion about rape in the bible, and to finish my blog series but I’m in the middle of helping a good friend move one state north AND helping my Mother move one state south, at the same time. I’ll need a few days to catch up.
February 26, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Debi Pearl has a new book coming out, targeting young women. After Created To Be His Help Meet, I shudder to think what this new book is going to contain. Release date set for April 15.
“Preparing To Be a Help Meet”
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/2010/february/08/preparing-to-be-a-help-meet-new-book/
February 26, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Great post about spanking, Shadowspring. I’m right there with you.
Like many, we bought the Dobson books when our first babies arrived. (We have a funny photo of my husband reading “The Strong-Willed Child” with our toddler looking crazed in the foreground.)
Soon, we discovered that our spankings were less effective than talking, just as Shadowspring said. We eventually abandoned spankings entirely, adopting talk-discipline instead.
This involved pulling the kid aside and having a serious discussion. Why was their behaviour wrong? How had it hurt the other person? How did this play into their spiritual and moral life? How could they do better next time? Did they need to apologize to someone?
Usually this (directed) soul-searching resulted in a few tears, a humbled spirit, changed future behaviour, and restored relationships.
We never got any of that from spanking– except maybe the tears.
Once one of our sons had blown it and got notice of an impending “talk.”
“NO, not the TALK!” he cried. “Ground me, spank me, ANYTHING but the talk!”
We knew we were doing it right.
February 27, 2010 at 9:50 am
Debbie, like you, I realized with my oldest child that the more I spanked, the less it worked. Despite criticism from Ezzo-followers (who gently rebuked me for “not spanking enough” and told me “you can’t reason with a toddler”), I found that my logical-thinking, strong-willed older child was perfectly willing to obey — as long as he understood why it was important. “Because I said so” cut no ice with him, and he would resist me all day long. But if I explained to him why it was important for him to stop when I said “stop” — I remember watching him — you could almost see the wheels turning in his head — and then he said, “okay!” Not a problem after that.
Now my younger one of course was different — I had to be careful of my attitude and tone of voice, because he would just wilt at a harsh word. But that meant that just giving him “the look” was much more effective with him than with his brother!
One of the things I had to learn as a parent is that I knew my child better than anyone else and I had to take them as they were. I never found a book or “method” that understood my children like I did, and I learned to trust my own instincts on how to deal with them. I think that some folks just don’t trust themselves and want an expert to rely on, and while I understand that, I think that “expert” needs to be the Holy Spirit working with parents to help them guide their children.
I’m reminded of Samson’s parents in Judges 13:8 –
Then Manoah prayed to the LORD : “O LORD, I beg you, let the man of God you sent to us come again to teach us how to bring up the boy who is to be born.”
February 27, 2010 at 12:33 pm
emr, I totally agree with you about the childcare books and “experts.”
I’m a big lover of books, but we learned early on that it was much better for us to rely on our natural instincts, the healthy parenting models around us, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit within us.
I guess you could say we wrote our own childcare books–one for each kid, as you said. They may not be on any best-seller list, but we’re so blessed over our own young-adult editions today.
February 27, 2010 at 12:36 pm
I think this might be relevant to the current discussion.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/shepherds_hill_farm_is_a_hell-.php
Granted PZ is not what you might call polite about his beliefs about Christians. But you all might find it interesting to learn about both Shepherd Hill Farm, and what the “other side” thinks of it.
February 27, 2010 at 2:39 pm
With truckloads of respect to you emr, people who grew up in extremely disfunctional families shouldn’t trust their own intstincts to “know” what’s right. I think that’s why so many of them hold on to violence and authoritarianism. It “feels” right to them.
However to the part the “expert needs to be the Holy Spirit” YES YES YES!
I once heard a (female) preacher, I know I will err in life, and when those moments come, I hope to err on the side of love.
Her words have stuck with me, and I have tried to practice them as a life rule- to mostly good results and a few disasters. But the great things about serving a God who loves, heals, and restores, is that the disasters aren’t permanent. Yet the love is one of the things that will endure. <3
February 27, 2010 at 2:40 pm
ps Im sick so don’t judge my typos harshly. ;p
February 27, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Shadowspring, I completely understand what you’re saying. I am blessed to have been raised in a Christian home where I was loved. Although my parents weren’t perfect and I have not modeled every single detail of my parenting after theirs, I was loved and appreciated and valued for my individual gifts and attributes.
I can’t imagine how it would stunt your spiritual and emotional growth to (1) be subjected to the kind of discipline that some of these children are, or to (2) believe that this is necessary to be a Godly parent.
February 28, 2010 at 12:10 am
Shadowspring, I had been thinking for the past few days, “If I’m going to err in disciplining my children, I’d rather err in favor of love.” Then I saw your quote, and it was such a confirmation. Tonight I was at a party, and a friend was saying how much she appreciated hearing Tedd Tripp speak at a recent conference about child training, saying essentially the same thing. Err on the side of mercy, not judgment. We had a situation in our family recently where we could have flipped out but I’m so proud of my husband for staying calm and speaking grace to the child who was having some trouble. His goal was not at all to come against him with punishment, but to come alongside him to see him succeed.
February 28, 2010 at 6:45 am
Virginia, I had been thinking about the Pearl’s suggestion that you wear the “implement of chastisement” around your neck all the time as a warning to the child. And then I read this verse: “Do not let mercy and truth leave you. Fasten them around your neck. Write them on the tablet of your heart.”
Prov. 3:3
Now, perhaps opening another can of worms, but…I would really like some feed back on Tripp’s Shepherding a Child’s Heart. I know there are moms who think it is worse than To Train Up a Child because, they say,it also teaches that you spank to repentance, but does so in a more subtle way. I haven’t read the whole book so I would like to hear from those who have. Any thoughts?
February 28, 2010 at 8:06 am
Shadowspring, I haven’t read Shepherding a Child’s Heart in many years, and I know they have come out with a new edition since then, so I’m not sure what he says about that in the book. I’ll have to check my old copy if I can find it. My friend did note the complete contrast in what she had been taught for years (spank, spank, spank some more) and what she heard at that conference. He does advocate spanking, but I don’t know to what extent. I am not opposed to spanking, but I think its use should be very limited as far as what you spank for and how often/long/hard you do it, etc.
February 28, 2010 at 9:39 am
Karen, I have been in a home where there was a “rod” in every room — even the bathroom —
I can’t imagine what it did to those children but it made me uncomfortable.
February 28, 2010 at 10:44 am
emr, you bring up again the idea that people think that children are really just stupid! Saying you can’t reason with a toddler without ever actually trying to reason with a toddler is really just a blind adherence to an idea that has no basis in fact. Knowing how easy it is to reason with my own children, and they are young, I laugh at the idea. You can’t reason with an infant, of course, but it seems like there are people who think that even though you can’t reason with this child, that they are still capable of being willfully disobedient! You can’t have it both ways! Yes, toddlers can be willfully disobedient, but then, they can also be reasoned with–they are NOT reasonable, of course, but you can talk to them and they can understand that you don’t like what they’ve done! Just yesterday I was having a full blown conversation with my 22 month old about his sister’s being upset over not getting her way. He understood what was going on, and even though he couldn’t communicate it well, he could certainly understand, and even had a sense of compassion and empathy for her frustration.
We learned early on that the best, and really the only, way to stop our daughter from acting out was to take her aside into a quiet, private room and talk with her calmly. This does more wonder for a child’s behavior than beating them every time they do something wrong. We’ve gone back and forth with spanking, and I know that the times we’ve been calm and rational ourselves, she has shown the kind of change we hoped to see, but when we were angry and spanked out of frustration, she showed her own temper just as easily.
Not that the Pearls and their ilk don’t need to be thoroughly discredited, but I would prefer to see more blogs and websites (free, of course) dedicated to loving discipline. I know there are some good ones, but they need to be quadrupled to counteract the horrid effects of “No Greater Joy” and others like it.
In reality, spanking is completely irrational, particularly when it is used in situations where children have to be punished for hitting someone else. It tells children that adults can hit because they are adults, but children cannot hit because they are not. This ultimately leads to a horrible view of childhood, and the idea that the bigger you are, the more control you get to have over other people.
February 28, 2010 at 1:14 pm
From comment 530
*** The soul of your child needs to be punished. “He feels the need to suffer for his misdeeds. What I am telling you is well understood by the most reprobate of modern psychiatrists and psychologists. They call it a “guilt complex.” Children and adults in this state of mind often do harm to themselves. Their anger is turned inward because they hate the bad person they know themselves to be. Their soul is crying out for justice to be done to the self. They don’t know what is happening, and they will not voluntarily seek punishment, but their soul needs judgment. When your child is in the first throes of this debilitating condition, be kind enough to punish him. Care enough and love enough to pay the emotional sacrifice to give him ten to fifteen licks that will satisfy his need to experience payback.
If you do not see the wisdom in what I have said, and you reject these concepts, you are not fit to be a parent. I pity your children. They will never experience the freedom of soul and conscience that mine do.” (emphasis mine; quoted from the Pearl’s website)”
_____________
I was thinking about this quote this morning while I was doing laundry, and I couldn’t help but think of the monks hundreds of years ago that would beat themselves with bundles of sticks to make penance to God. If I remember correctly, Martin Luther also beat himself trying to punish himself so he would feel better about his sin. It was all useless! No matter how much you beat yourself, cut yourself, and hate yourself, you will never be able to make yourself feel better, take away your “guilt complex”. Only JESUS and the HOLY SPIRIT can do that, with GRACE, not with beatings.
What is wrong with these people, thinking they can ease the consciences of their children by BEATING them? It’s absolutely sickening to me. Those children will grow up having no idea of the grace and mercy of God.
February 28, 2010 at 3:19 pm
One of my college friends wrote this on parenting. Since it was timely for our discussion, I thought I’d share it!
http://billnance.org/2010/02/28/gods-parenting-advice/
February 28, 2010 at 8:59 pm
The closest thing I could find to a “guilt complex” in the literature is actually called the Polycrates complex.
From Wikipedia:
It is used by psychoanalyst criminologists to explain crime. During the ages 4-6, (the phallic stage), a male child undergoes what Freud calles the “Oedipus complex”, meaning the desire to kill one’s father and commit incest with one’s mother. This desire is the cause of subconscious guilt which makes the child wish to be punished, thus reaching catharsis.
Of course no one pays much attention to Freud anymore. When the Anthropologist Bronisław Malinowski was working with the Trobriand Islands people he noted that the children were actually raised by the mother’s eldest brother, and not their biological father or their mother’s current partner. As the children reached the 4-6 age range they directed their fear, anger and acting out behavior, in essence the Oedipal Complex, toward the uncles, not the fathers, leading him to conclude that the behavior had nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with power. From his work came the idea that somewhere between the ages of 4 and 6 children realize that they have little to no power over their own lives or within the family structure, and *that’s* what causes the acting out.
If you follow that train of thought then the Polycrates complex, this so-called “guilt complex” would be a child feeling guilty for acting out and taking power for himself from the father. Beating the child for it would then reinforce the idea that taking power for themselves really is bad and something to feel guilty about. Especially i the beatings are continued into adolescence, a time when they really ought to be developing their own power, and deciding the course for their lives.
Of course if you’re a Patriarch the last thing you want your children doing is making their own decisions. You want them dependent and controlled for as long as possible. So I suppose that if that’s the case, then beating them is actually a good idea, it would encourage the brainwashing process.
All of a sudden this is starting to make a twisted, evil kind of sense.
March 1, 2010 at 7:35 am
What one woman would do to please her man:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1246417/Chinese-woman-undergo-extensive-surgery-look-like-actress-Jessica-Alba–win-ex-boyfriend.html
March 1, 2010 at 8:08 am
I’m wondering if anyone here has read or had experience with the book “Lies Woman Believe” by Nancy Leigh DeMoss. I stumbled across it a few years ago, looked over the Table of Contents, and cast it aside for no particular reason.
(I am familiar with her website and radio ministry~she was not an unknown author to me.)
Recently my mom told me that her Bible Study is reading through the book and completing a study guide. So the last time I was at her home she handed the book to me and said “What do you think?”
I skimmed it and read paragraphs hear and there. We began discussing it and both quickly realized that we had strong opinions on this book, but our opinions were opposite! My mother, whom I am very close to, and I decided to just drop it because our discussion was getting a little uncomfortable.
So I thought I’d bring it before this intelligent, thoughtful, and spiritually strong group ~ what are your thoughts on this book, pro and con?
March 1, 2010 at 10:38 am
Heather,
If I recall correctly, I thumbed through DeMoss’ book once and did not purchase it after reading her advice to women in abusive marriages – wives leave only if they have to, but never, under any circumstances, consider divorce. If a separation must take place,she says, then during the separation, an abused wife must maintain an attitude of reverence towards her abusive husband’s God-given position of authority over her—which is not abrogated by the abuse she suffers from her husband.
It sounded like other things I’ve heard from her – just sugar-coated patriachy.
March 1, 2010 at 10:50 am
I read through “Lies Women Believe” and did the Bible study. I couldn’t relate to it; as a woman it was foreign to me. Also, I disagreed with quite a few of her assertions. She has a chapter on birth control and how it is wrong to use methods of family planning.
I didn’t like this book but I liked some of her other Bible studies that directly addressed our relationship to God and developing a spiritual life.
March 1, 2010 at 11:05 am
” you follow that train of thought then the Polycrates complex, this so-called “guilt complex” would be a child feeling guilty for acting out and taking power for himself from the father. Beating the child for it would then reinforce the idea that taking power for themselves really is bad and something to feel guilty about. Especially i the beatings are continued into adolescence, a time when they really ought to be developing their own power, and deciding the course for their lives.”
Annie C,
Interesting.
I wonder how this “guilty” feeling translates to marriage where a woman has no rights or power nor is she to have any aspiration, desires, dreams, goals of her own. A woman feels guilty for having her own dreams and desires and goals and she feels guilty because she desires to be treated as an equal and not a child by the person she is most intimate with. Could this stripping a woman of all these things cause her to act out? Could patriocentrism actually have the opposite effect on a woman than they actually teach?
March 1, 2010 at 12:18 pm
BB,
“I was thinking about this quote this morning while I was doing laundry, and I couldn’t help but think of the monks hundreds of years ago that would beat themselves with bundles of sticks to make penance to God. If I remember correctly, Martin Luther also beat himself trying to punish himself so he would feel better about his sin. It was all useless! No matter how much you beat yourself, cut yourself, and hate yourself, you will never be able to make yourself feel better, take away your “guilt complex”. Only JESUS and the HOLY SPIRIT can do that, with GRACE, not with beatings.”
EXCELLENT point! Yes, it is all USELESS and VANITY to think that we can bring about with the flesh what only God can bring about with the Spirit!
We are exasperating our children when we think this way. We are causing them to be brought under bondage to the flesh and we are not teaching them the freedom that the Spirit brings.
“What is wrong with these people, thinking they can ease the consciences of their children by BEATING them? It’s absolutely sickening to me. Those children will grow up having no idea of the grace and mercy of God.”
I don’t know. I really don’t know. It is sickening and also very sad. I think about these people who are deluded by the traditions of men and how they are also under bondage.
Misery loves company.
March 1, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Corrie –
I would think it would. Especially if they found out that other women were deeply enjoying their lives. Which explains the isolationism, and the anger toward those of us who set a different example, the last thing they would want their wives and daughters to realize is that the grass really is that much greener.
March 1, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Perhaps I ought to clarify, I don’t think the Patriarchs get up in the morning and decide to brainwash and terrorize their women and children today. I think it’s more complicated than that.
I read a series of papers around one of the recent election cycles which I will try to find that discussed human development and how it can relate to how one deals with society. It made a point that at a certain point, about high school age I believe, people start understanding their sense of self only in relation to how they relate to others. I am a husband, I am a son, I am a student, I am a Christian, and so on, and each of those definitions and relationships has to be very rigid and set, or else their sense of self simply cannot hold. It’s another step up in maturity to be able to hold your sense of self regardless of how others relate to you. This stage has an actual name, I just forget what it’s called and now of course I can’t find the link.
I don’t think that these men have matured past that stage.
Which explains a lot of their actions. If they define themselves as a “father” based on how their child relates to them then any change in that relationship is going to affect their own sense of self and being. Starting with the child growing and challenging their authority. Fear causes them to lash out, which then reinforces the child’s guilt and sense of shame over hurting Daddy by taking his power away.
Same thing with wives. Any change in the way they relate causes retaliation as the man’s sense of self is threatened. They fight back. Rinse, repeat.
When you realize that any change in any relationship in the community can start a domino effect you start seeing the Patriarchy movement. If Bob’s wife controls the checkbook in his house, that means that my wife could control the checkbook in mine, and so my power is threatened. I’d better go after Bob and get him to fix that. If Mary’s husband does the cooking in his house then my husband could do the cooking in mine, and my power as the chief nurturer would be threatened. I’d better convince Mary that she needs to keep that job for herself.
Take it one step further and you can see the hatred toward feminists (If that woman can live without the authority of a man, then the women in my life can live without the authority of a man…) homosexuals (If those two men can happily relate to each other like that then someone could expect me to relate to a man like that…) and atheists (If they can live happily without an authority structure than the people around me can live without an authority structure then people can live happily without structure…).
So I think I’m saying that the whole thing comes down to a lack of maturity on their part.
March 1, 2010 at 5:16 pm
I’ve been following the child-training discussion with great interest. And here is where I admit how lost I am regarding this subject. :^) I truly could use some help here.
I grew up getting spanked as a younger child for deliberate wrong-doing. It never damaged me and I’ve never felt resentment towards my parents. They always sat down, told us exactly why they were spanking us, spanked us, then gave us “snuggle time” to ensure us that they loved us very much. I never felt unloved, then or now. Sometimes being sent to our rooms in anticipation of a spanking was worse than the actual spanking. And we always, always knew we deserved it (we were all rather misceivous and strong-willed…don’t know how my mom kept her sanity with 5 of us).
Mom read the Pearl’s books, gleaned some good tips and discarded the rest. I read them before becoming a parent and tried the methods (though without the extreme harshness…I never swatted an infant or kept spanking a crying child) but soon discovered that spanking was not the “end-all” and their methods of training weren’t working. Their promises of perfect 2-yr-olds seemed laughable to me after just a few weeks of having a 2-yr-old.
I threw out the books and just started floundering through discipline, training, and parenting.
My oldest is almost 4, very strong-willed and smart, and probably has ADHD. If I had employed the Pearl’s method of demanding instant obedience she wouldn’t be the sunny, happy girl she is now. Some children get easily disctracted and honestly can’t remember what you told them to do half a second ago. I’m glad I knew enough when she was littler to understand brain development and learning disorders in children. Usually talking things out, taking away privileges, or being sent to bed for extreme crankiness works for her.
My 2nd daughter is 2 and more of a handful than I can take somedays. She has developmental delays, cannot communicate even some basic needs (though we’re working on it and seeing some improvement) and has major behavioral issues (autism has been ruled out; they think she’s just frustrated about not being able to communicate with others in her world. We’re just starting different tests to see how we can help her. Her hearing is fine, and we’ll be getting a speech eval. in a couple weeks so I’m relaly hopeful we can unlock her brain and help her function normally). She often inflicts pain on herself when frustrated or angry and has to be restrained on mine or my hubby’s lap to keep from hurting herself. This, with soothing words spoken, usually works to calm her down til she either forgets why she was upset or calms down enough to communicate her desire (she does pretty good with sign language). But it’s exhasting and we are usually at a loss knowing the right way to handle situations. I don’t like restraining her but don’t know what else to do. Spanking absolutely doesn’t work with her, never has. Taking away privileges doesn’t work because she doesn’t seem to understand that. Putting her in her bed when she throws a fit seems to work as long as she isn’t hurting herself, just screaming. I am constantly wondering if I’m doing anything right.
It’s all fine and dandy to say things like “we need grace in our parenting” but I need practical tips and advice. How do I get my toddlers to listen to me? How do I keep them from throwing fits? How can I punish an act of outright disobedience gracefully while still communicating to a 3-yr-old that they were wrong? I’m tired of floundering and tired of being so stressed out. It’s frustrating to hear people bashing spanking without offering REAL alternatives that actually work. I don’t expect perfection from a 2-yr-old but it would be nice to see some improvement in behavior. Yes, I want them to learn to make good decisions from their heart and am not into behavior modification. But I also could use a little obedience now again whether they understand “why” or not. When I ask older ladies these things all I get is “Spank ‘em into submission” or “just love ‘em”, neither of which is very helpful. Maybe I’m just too worn out and spread thin to be creative in this area (I have 3 kids 3 and under). But I sure could use some practical help here.
And I’m not the only one. I know so many young mothers in my shoes who are all wondering the same things.
March 1, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Darcy -
This might help
http://www.loveandlogic.com/searchresults.aspx
Good luck.
March 1, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Annie, all your link does is bring up an error message.
March 1, 2010 at 9:49 pm
ladies, could you please pray for my family? We are all battling sickness of one kind or another, and I feel like I’m going to lose my mind from it (plus plumbing issues–see my blog). I just want everyone healthy!
March 1, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Darcy–also do a search for Danny Silk and Loving our Kids on Purpose. There is a website called The God Journey, I think, that has a couple pod-cast interviews with the Silks–the first is directed toward parents of younger children, and I’ve already found it helpful. Also, observe your children. What makes them tick? I’ve found it particularly helpful recently to stare down my daughter after making a request and tell her to look at me. Works so far to get her to stop being stubborn. She knows I’m serious and I’m going to follow through till it’s done, and she goes straight to it.
March 2, 2010 at 3:31 am
And here is another issue to consider:
http://www.nospank.net/sexdngr.htm
Not only the topic in general, but I have to point out the quote on that page from the Sacramento Bee on 3/26/95
Police say Michael William Wetton told the girl during her 75-minute ordeal on Feb. 24 that he wanted her to understand corporal punishment, which is used to discipline students at the school… After Wetton’s arrest, some parents directed anger at the police… “The Bible says to use the rod,” [school board member Rosemary] Rice said, adding that the arrest “is an assault on Christian beliefs.”…
March 2, 2010 at 6:02 am
Please read this and forward to all your homeshooling friends:
http://www.