I am really amazed at the number of Pearl supporters who don’t remember some of the outrageous things that are in TTUAC. Is it convenient memory or have they never read the book. Someone left a comment yesterday, insisting that Pearl never talks about 1/4″ plumbing supply line. Someone else insists he only says to spank on the bottom. Here is another quote from Pearl that explains what happened to Lydia Schatz and her sister:
“Where on the body?
The Bible says, “the rod is for the back.” That would include anything that is not the front—the back from the shoulders down to the feet. When training, and not chastening or punishing, any convenient place on the body is effective. When you have told a child not to touch, and he reaches out, you can thump or swat his hand. If he is trying to climb down from his chair after being told not to, you can swat his legs. But when you are engaging the child in serious chastisement, the small of the back down to the thighs is the most effective. You can spank half as hard on the back with a light, stingy switch and be more effective than spanking harder on the bottom or thighs.
“But when you are engaging the child in serious chastisement, the small of the back down to the thighs is the most effective. You can spank half as hard on the back with a light, stingy switch and be more effective than spanking harder on the bottom or thighs.”
Gads! This sounds like something from a sadist.
Engaging one’s child in “serious chastisement”?
And, the small of the back is right where the kidneys are. Isn’t that what killed Lydia Schatz and/or put her sister in ICU?
Bottom, thighs, small of the back down to the thighs……there is a sort of excitement coming through these writings on spanking.
I hope homeschooling groups start distancing themselves from the Pearls’ writings and stop selling their books at the main kiosk of the conference.
As for the Pearl’s kids, I would not be proud of a daughter who married a man who decides to quit his job, give all his money away, and live like he’s poor after a “dream from the Lord” or whatever. He doesn’t need to be begging others for their money, he needs to be earning his own and not giving it away.
They treat their kids like trash too from what I’ve read on 7x.
“To me, it’s much more believable and trustworthy to say, “I yelled at my kids today” or “One of my children has some insecurity issues we’re working through (without naming the child)” or “My living room hasn’t been dusted in a month” or “My spouse really struggles with seasonal depression.” But no, everything is always perfect, perfect, perfect…:(”
Heather,
So true!
More from Michael Pearl:
“Numbered in the millions, these kids become the models of self-control and discipline, highly educated and creative—entrepreneurs that pay the taxes your children will receive in entitlements. When your children finally find an honest mechanic or a trustworthy homebuilder, it will be one of ours.
When your children apply for a job it will be at a company our children founded. When they go to a doctor, it will be one of our Christian children that heals them with cutting edge innovation. When your adult kids go for therapy it will be one of our kids-become-psychologist that directs them to the couch and challenges them to release their self-loathing and embrace hope for a better tomorrow. When your children grow old and realize their mortality and seek to make peace with their Creator, it will be one of our children that shares with them the message of God’s love and forgiveness.”
He must have long arms in order to pat himself on the back like this! Where is any credit given to God? I am quite sure that most of the professionals I go to will NOT have been one of “his”. Most people haven’t even heard of him.
I wonder if he has heard the story of Nebuchadnezzar?
He needs to be on the couch of a psychiatrist for some serious evaluation. He is not a “Commander” type as much as he has narcissistic personality disorder or something along those lines.
Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence. Psalm 73:6
I saw the above quoted on the Well-Trained Mind forum.
Well, I wrote my former support group in Florida and suggested they distance themselves from the Pearls, as they linked directly to the Pearls website in their “why homeschool” tab and links.
They took out the links (ysy!) but replaced them with a link to a site that promotes the Pearls, Nancy Campbell, Ted Tripp, and others.
ps ladies, I have been laid out by pnuemonia. I thought I was getting much better but then had a bad relapse yesterday. Please pray for me. There’s a house to clean, bills to pay, and people coming over today and tomorrow. The kids are pitching in, and hubby is a help in many ways, but it really takes the whole family to keep this household going, and with my sidelined it’s not going well.
Plus it’s no fun to be in constant pain and exhaustion. XP
Darcy, you have my heartfelt empathy! My dh used to travel. Find some sort of mother’s day out program for your sanity’s sake! Seriously!
I even put my little ones in a home care setting one day a week when I couldn’t find a MDO. These days they have MOPS too, which won’t give you time to soak in the tub or run errands but will at least give you some adult companionship and a respite from 24 hour a day child care.
Karen, I sent your open letter (http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3927)and the link to the Pearl’s arrogant blog post to my Hope Chest e-magazine list yesterday. I also gave them the link to our podcast interview on Titus 2 mentoring (http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3917). Thanks again for doing that! I had a lot of fun with it, and I look forward to hearing how segment 2 of it comes out after Clay’s expert editing. There sure were a lot of “take 2″ moments on that one as I tripped over my own tongue.
Thanks for all you do, and the much needed alternative perspective you bring to the home school community.
“s for the Pearl’s kids, I would not be proud of a daughter who married a man who decides to quit his job, give all his money away, and live like he’s poor after a “dream from the Lord” or whatever. He doesn’t need to be begging others for their money, he needs to be earning his own and not giving it away.
They treat their kids like trash too from what I’ve read on 7x.”
Debbie Pearl would say that her daughter’s husband is a “visionary man”…supposedly a trait of God that her daughter’s husband is exhibiting. I have known men like this who constantly move their families around, can’t hold down a job for more than a few months and won’t take responsibility for their irresponsible behavior. Their families live in poverty and many times off of Government aid and the aid of those hardworking, responsible people of their own church. But, Debbie Pearl tells these wives to appreciate and respect this about their husbands.
I call it sin and sloth and say that if a man WON’T provide for his own he is WORSE than an infidel. Or, as the Pearls call unsaved people- rats.
Then there is the so-called “Command Man” which is really another name for a maniacal, meglomaniac, control-freak who has to have his way or else.
Neither of these two types of personalities that Debbie Pearl puts forth in her book in any way represent the Christ who died for His Bride and sacrificed Himself for her and put aside His own preferences, desires, wants and will for her sake.
“However, recently, since February, I have been studying full time. I have not been working anymore. All I’ve been doing is studying the Word. And I did that because I think God told me to. It’s not because I wanted to… it really scared me. And we were really poor for those months. And a handful of people have supported us here and there by giving us a bag of wheat or food a few dollars. And that’s fine… And we’re happy to live poor. We’ve done that our whole married life, Rebekah and I. We’re good at it. And I should say more or less; we haven’t always lived as poor as we are now, we certainly have had more money in the past, but that is not the point, I’m just going through the situation…
We have had significant, or decent, residual income from the vitamin company from selling my share there. And it felt like God said “you need to depend on me for this work” and the implication was “don’t depend on that residual income, give it away too…” And I did.
That puts me in a kind of a crazy place. It puts me in a place where, frankly, I can’t pay for the server, and uh… I can’t pay for my own food. I work 40 – 50 hours a week and I come home and there’s no paycheck. It’s not like I have a small paycheck; I have none. Zero dollars. Hard to live that way.”
Yes, it certainly does put him in a crazy place.
What about the kids?! Its okay for him to choose to live like that but his kids have no choice in the matter and that is what makes it wrong.
To his credit, he goes on to talk about how he needs to provide for his family and that this makes him worse than an infidel.
But, I doubt that God told him to quit his job so he could study the word all day long since that is contrary to the word of God. If he wanted to do that, he should have stayed single. Since he is married he is to be concerned about how he may please his wife. 1 Cor. 7
What really gets me is that Michael Pearl never addressed how wrong it was for the Schatz parents to discipline their child to death and/or to cause such injury in the others. He never made a disclaimer nor did he condemn the discipline the Schatz’s used.
Oh yuck. Debi Pearl’s novel “The Vision” is being turned into a movie. Debi Pearl is also writing a new indoctrination manual called “Preparing to Be a Help Meet”. Ew.
My goodness — Jesus Himself called the unsaved, kynarion, meaning “little dogs”… or, perhaps, “puppy-dogs”:
Mat 15:26 But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw [it] to the little dogs.”
Mat 15:27 And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.
“Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
Off topic: Feeling slightly better and I appreciate all the prayers. =)
Even more off topic:
Rant: Why do young mothers (or is it just my experience) have so little respect for older mothers? A young mother friend of mine assumed that I am protesting the Pearls in ignorance, never having actually read their book.
õ_0
I am sure I was guilty of the same stuff, only hanging out with other women who were knee deep in diapers at the same time that I was, dismissing older moms as compromised or worldly because *we* were the chosen generation truly returning to the Lord with all our hearts, etc. Not like those older women who were not as truly devoted to Christian motherhood as *we* were.
I felt cutting edge by choosing to be a SAHM and especially home schooling! I admit I had no interest in the opinion of those gone before me who bottle fed, whose children were in private or public school, or those women who worked for the love of working instead of only to put food on the table. So I guess I deserve it. LOL
How the tables have turned. Now, since I only have two children and didn’t “trust God” for family planning, all my advice is suspect. I am obviously a compromiser. *sigh* They rightly assume I used disposable diapers. Why would anyone take advice from a mom who used disposable diapers?! What could one such as I possibly know about truly godly parenting?
End of rant. Moving on with my life. Thank you for your time.
Shadowspring, I will be 25 in a few days and have 3 young children, the oldest is 2 1/2. That’s to say, I might be a young mom, but I would take advice from you. I like to ask older moms about stuff.
The only older mom who is suspect to me at first glance is my mother in law, because her opinions are annoying. My mother in law treats me like I’m an imbecile. I’m bad because I didn’t nurse (nursing was more painful than giving birth and my milk was rancid straight from the breast), and because our kids are going to *shock horror* go to public school AND to top that off, we BELIEVE the expert who says our son is special needs. (She thinks it’s just naughtiness and we can spank it out of him).
Also she tells me when she thinks they should be wearing shoes, or coats or whatever else SHE would do with hers. We know (because of my husband) that she is an overprotective helicopter mom lol.
So, I will solicit and take the advice of older moms, so long as they aren’t my mother in law. LOL.
Shadowspring, I think you are mostly right about many young moms. We, in each generation I think, believe that we are going to be the “revolutionaries” in all things, and it’s the same with motherhood.
I’m seeing this with friends who have children a little younger than my daughter, and the fact that some of them are absolutely clueless, yet seem to “know everything” astounds me. I know I was (and am in some ways) the same way. I have seen about 1,000 different opinions about potty-training, but what worked for my daughter is what worked for her! But I have no interest in offering that advice unless it’s asked for, because unless people want to actually TRY to use it, they don’t want it.
I figure, like other things, parenting advice was supposed to be passed down generation to generation BY parents (grandparents), but somewhere along the way one generation got lazy, and the other became stubborn, too stubborn to hear what the “wiser” older people were telling them. Really, to get back some semblance of the “passing the torch” attitude, a change needs to be made in people not to forget what they’ve learned (and to share that), and to not be so stubborn as to not hear what people who have been there, done that, have to say on the subject. Sure, I wouldn’t take advice on breastfeeding from a woman who has never done it, but I would take advice on parenting in general from someone who has raised good kids (even if they used disposable diapers! ).
Karen and I were actually discussing this issue about younger women appreciating the need for older women in our podcast interview at http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3917 One of my thoughts was that it depends on how deeply they are thinking about it since we usually tend to do our own thing. But then if a crisis or problem comes up and they need advice, they start realizing the value of having an older woman to listen and counsel.
Abby, you made a great point that I always take into consideration with the advice given to me from other moms…I listen to the ones with GOOD kids, or at least some that turned out ok even if one or two are wayward. But if they are all bad apples then I don’t tend to pay much attention either.
Last week, my husband and I had a single teenager try to tell us how to raise our kids. HAHA.
I found recently a treasure from my grandmother — a presentation that she gave in the late 1950′s on “The Christian Home.” Here’s an excerpt:
” …there are a few things that I know and one or two about which I have strong feelings.
One is obedience. I do believe in it. I am old-fashioned enough to think that when a two- or three-year-old is given a command he should do as he is told. And I believe he can be so taught without much ado or many spankings. But not by mothers who will not discipline themselves enough to take time and pains to teach him so. A nervous, undisciplined mother will say “Johnny this … ,” “Johnny that …,”
“Susie, sit still; Susie, stop that.” She herself cannot remember all the things she has told Susie to do. (“See what Johnny is doing and tell him to quit.”) Such a mother will give a dozen commands in three minutes, especially if visiting or if she has visitors.
I believe in spankings – the right kind at the right time, but I believe (and have said so many times and for many years) that most of the spankings can be over by the time the child is two or at most three years old. You won’t agree? I have found it to be so. I have seen it work in our own home. Not all – but most. I’m sure of that.”
“Now, there is one other thing I am convinced of in this matter of children and obedience; it is that as children grow up, parents should not tell them everything to do, but the child should be considered an intelligent being and allowed and encouraged to make his own decisions.”
Yes, she raised two children — one son (born 1930) and one daughter — my mother (born 1935). Both children went on to serve in full-time ministry (my uncle as a pastor, my mother as a missionary/pastor’s wife) and both had long and successful marriages (50+ years).
When this was written she was a new grandmother, a pastor’s wife, a public school teacher, and caregiver for her mother who lived with them. She is my spiritual hero!
Personally, I LONG for a true Titus 2 older woman to come alongside me right now in the day to day details of life that the passage goes into. As it is, the many wonderful older Christian women I come into contact with is limited to Bible study and Sunday school, which is nice, but not sufficient to meet the needs that Paul obviously witnessed when he wrote the verse.
So Karen, I think you just need to move close to me. We’d have a grand ol’ time!!
I am trying to work my way through a stack of books I have been wanting to read and review and over the weekend I started Family
Driven Faith. Has anyone read this one? About a third of the way into it, I am really confused. It seems to contradict much of what I have read/heard/picked up from Voddie other places.
Another book on my list that I haven’t heard mentioned much but that sounds like more of the same Michael Pearl perspective…Withhold Not Correction by Bruce Ray. Someone mentioned it to me about 6 months ago and then it hit my radar last week in the midst of the Pearl stuff. What do you know about this book? And how is Shepherd a Child’s Heart different from this book or TTUAC?
““Visionary man,” really, is just a glorified word for, “bum.”
I’ve always thought that…”
Susanne,
LOL! Thanks for delurking!
Yes, that would sum up the “visionary man” very nicely.
Hmmm Not an easy man to live with or deal with. Especially if a woman has been told that she must try to make it work.
I can sort of understand why women will hang on to these labels. They are trying desperately hard not to despair. Life is hard, and they feel helpless. Tell them that God made their man that way, that hanging on to him, and being his help-meet will bring her blessings (even if all they are seeing is hardship, more hardship, and shame), seems to give purpose to her life.
That is, until she wakes up.
Does anyone know if Rebekah Anast has had her 6th baby yet? It’s mentioned on NGJ site that she was due back in January. I know they’ve written in their NGJ newsletter in the past that Rebekah has her babies at home, no doctors, not even with a midwife. I hope she’s ok.
Yes, Rebekah had her 6th baby. Feb. 10, I think. A little girl they name Alitsia (A-leet-see-ah). I have been out of the loop and missed that she has had #4 and #5. So much of her life seems a mystery to me. How they live with no income, etc.
No truer words spoken. And what a painful, painful truth.
As a young woman/wife/mother, I just could not understand why so many older divorced women were so bitter. I am ashamed to admit that I was sure they were at fault in most cases.
Now I am just as sure the opposite is true.
While there may be some divorced woman who quit too easily, I know believe most of them tried for years and years to make a happy life with their uncooperative husbands, until they just gave up.
Or woke up.
I remember feeling guilty once for having only two children, because a pro-life friend of mine kept going on and on with the QF spiel about children being a blessing, and you wouldn’t want to limit any other blessings so why limit children? The argument was that one wouldn’t say, “no thanks God that’s enough prosperity/health/social success for me!” and that it was a sinful lack of faith to not want all the children that the Lord (biology) would provide sans birth control.
That Sunday I was visiting my mother-in-laws church. In comes a middle-aged QF mom, looking like a wrung-out washcloth. She was wearing clothes that looked ridiculous on her (like decades old- should pads,etc.), with a nursing baby in the carrier and all the littlest ones (10 and under) in her care. She was not happy, but super-stressed. You could see it in her whole demeanor.
Her husband, on the other hand, was beaming. He had the two oldest with him up on the platform leading singing. He got to be BMOC while his wife looked like she was being crushed by the burden of caring for that large family.
I knew than that I had made the right decision. It was a leap of faith for me to mother any child, given my past family experiences! Two were more than enough. I knew that I would crack completely under the kind of pressure that QF mom was bearing. Nope, nope, nope, not for me.
I wanted to be strong, healthy, happy, and fully there for every child I *did* bring into this life.
I wonder if that mom will ever “wake up”, or if she just has too much invested to every admit that she might have been wrong. So many Christians accept numb and emotionless life, just getting by, and insist that they have love, joy, peace, etc. because they know they should. They refuse to acknowledge they are angry, depressed, unhappy because they know they shouldn’t feel that way.
Has anyone here heard from Savannah? I have missed her and tried to e-mail her but her e-mail comes back as an invalid address. I am concerned. Her last comment here was about a month ago.
Children are a blessing, yes. But aren’t we also supposed to be a blessing to them, and not burden them unnecessarily with things that are too “grown up” for small ones? I think I was reading the Quivering Daughters website and read that a child at the age of 4 was to change her younger siblings’ diapers! (Correct me if I’m wrong on this one) My daughter is 5 now, and I can’t imagine burdening her with that. If she wants to “help” me, that is great, but I do not hand over that kind of a job to her, because it’s not age appropriate, nor is it okay to “use” her as child labor. She is a tremendous help to me in many ways, but again, there are certain responsibilities that she should not yet have to take on. Children who are forced to care for younger siblings in ways that are not appropriate for children probably grow up thinking “I’m not doing that baby thing, I’ve already done it a dozen times.” It gets old, and there’s no joy in it. When I watched the Duggars’ show, I thought that Jim Bob’s mom seemed out of place in their brood, and that she really didn’t care for their lifestyle very much. Maybe I’m reading into it, but I felt for the poor woman. She must wonder why her son became the symbol of the Quiverfull movement and what purpose it is really serving.
Do any of you read the Domestic Felicity blog written by a Jewish girl named Anna? For years she has been writing talking about how detrimental it is for a woman to work outside the home, and how they shouldn’t do it. Then, a month or so back, she confesses that SHE works part time outside the home, and the very next day put up another post about why women should NOT work outside the home.
I wrote a comment telling her I thought it was hypocritical to bash working outside the home when you do it yourself. It was, of course, never published. The hypocrisy of these people stuns me.
I agree, Abby. Children are not only a blessing, they are a huge responsibility as well.
And unlike the responsibility that comes with wealth, or health, the way we handle THAT responsibility will have lifelong emotional consequences for other people.
Shadowspring, I think that’s why my mother’s doctor told her, after a difficult pregnancy and delivery, “You have four healthy children. They need a healthy mother. Don’t put your health at risk with another pregnancy.”
Abby, exactly. I’ve always thought that brothers and sisters make really good brothers and sisters. They make pretty poor parents. They shouldn’t have to take on the responsibility of raising children while they are still children themselves.
Children are a blessing, yes. But aren’t we also supposed to be a blessing to them, and not burden them unnecessarily with things that are too “grown up” for small ones?
You raise a very good point, Abby.
I had to think about this not so long ago, when our 6 year old’s teachers called my husband and me down for a meeting. One of their concerns was that our 6 year-old is carrying burdens that are too heavy for him.
Parents, in our efforts to tell our children about the world, the things that burden us, like poverty, or disasters (Haiti, for example), can lay burdens on our children that they can’t carry. Our 6 year-old had been in tears days earlier, trying to cope with thoughts of paying the rent, poverty, homeless children, etc… He is very sensitive.
Sometimes we need to let our children be children. Without indulging their every whim, but without sharing our burdens with them.
Children are not only a blessing, they are a huge responsibility as well.
And unlike the responsibility that comes with wealth, or health, the way we handle THAT responsibility will have lifelong emotional consequences for other people.
You are so right, Shadowspring!
Do you all think that some quiverfull parents (unconsciously, I hope) fail to see their children as people in their own right? I mean, they are so focused on how children are a blessing that they view them more like assets, much like material blessings, instead of seeing them as persons in their own right.
Food’s a blessing too. Doesn’t mean I want to eat all I can get. God says a good wife is a blessing. Doens’t mean every man should have as many as he can. He also says that mourning is a blessing. But who wants to mourn as much as possible? I have no problem with desiring to “limit” God’s blessings. That’s a silly argument. Too much of a good thing is still too much.
I think the whole “if God wanted me to stop having babies, He wouldn’t let me get pregnant” argument is dumb too. That’s like jumping off a cliff and saying “if God doens’t want me to fall, He won’t let me”. God has set up many physical laws that He doesn’t often interfere with (i.e., conception and gravity). When He does, we call it a supernatural occurence or miracle. I don’t expect God to supernaturally intervene for me against the law of conception every time I have sex, nor do I expect Him to supernaturally intervene and halt the law of gravity every time I decide to jump off a cliff.
I do not see how anyone could have nineteen children and know each intimately and personally the way children need their parents to know them. (Thinking Duggars here.)
Of course, many parents with less children ignore the budding people their children actually are in favor of pretending they are who they wish them to be. But it seems it would be unavoidable with large numbers of children.
I feel especially sorry for all the Duggar children in the middle. They must crave to be recognized as the unique and wonderful people they are, but being middle of the pack that isn’t likely.
I cringe when I see all those children dressed alike playing the same instrument in the same lessons all at the same time. I know that it is impossible that each one of those kids is a polo-shirt afficianado with a penchant for violin, but the lucky one that fits that role (if there is one) is lucky indeed!
Any other tastes or interests are strangled in the cradle of family efficiency and orderliness. None of the others are allowed to explore the world and decide how they want to dress or if they even like music and what instrument would they choose if they could, etc.
You know, madame, I’ve wondered about that when I’ve known people who desperately wanted whatever gender child they didn’t have. You see people who “keep trying” for a boy or a girl, and I have to wonder how that makes the other kids feel — like they were somehow a disappointment?
Same thing with some QFers. However many you have, it’s somehow not enough, gotta keep getting “more blessings” no matter how much everybody has to suffer for it. It points out to me that part of our sinful nature is that competitive spirit that has to have more and do better than those around us. Christian one-upsmanship, if you will. I’m certainly guilty of it in other ways –
Karen posted, “Has anyone here heard from Savannah? I have missed her and tried to e-mail her but her e-mail comes back as an invalid address. I am concerned. Her last comment here was about a month ago.”
Thanks for thinking of me and asking after me, Karen. Your heart for others always moves me!
I began a viral illness several weeks ago and ended up suffering several complications, culminating with our eldest son finding me unconscious in my walk-in closet last Tuesday morning, which resulted in a trip in the squad and admission to the hospital (it appears I had been unconscious for about an hour, although I have no memory of any event(s) leading up to it). Although I have no history of seizure disorder, it appears I *may* have had a seizure that was probably the result of my viral illness, fever, low blood pressure, and heretofore unknown issues with my thyroid levels. Tests ruled out issues like brain tumors and meningitis. I am still being “worked up” for a couple of things, so hopefully we will have some more concrete answers as to what happened in the near future.
But I am out of the hospital now, resting at home, and hopefully will return to work next week, when I am released to drive again. The men in my life are taking truly excellent care of me! I thank God that our eldest son came home from class when he did and found me and knew what to do. On a lighter note, we are also thankful that the shower did not overflow and cause a huge problem, as apparently I had turned on the shower before I lost consciousness and it had been running for over an hour!
Karen, thank you again for expressing your concern. My email address is savannahrose1963ATliveDOTcom. I don’t know why it did not work for you, but let me know if you have any further problem with it.
Shadowspring, I saw where you have been ill and hope that you are fully recovered. Please continue to take care of yourself.
“I think the whole “if God wanted me to stop having babies, He wouldn’t let me get pregnant” argument is dumb too. That’s like jumping off a cliff and saying “if God doens’t want me to fall, He won’t let me”. God has set up many physical laws that He doesn’t often interfere with (i.e., conception and gravity). When He does, we call it a supernatural occurence or miracle. I don’t expect God to supernaturally intervene for me against the law of conception every time I have sex, nor do I expect Him to supernaturally intervene and halt the law of gravity every time I decide to jump off a cliff.”
Darcy, EXACTLY.
I saw a video the other day of the scene of Jesus’ testing, and it just struck me how Jesus was in no uncertain terms telling us that God gives us free agency in this world that we cannot release liability for. From Luke 4:
9The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here. 10For it is written:
” ‘He will command his angels concerning you
to guard you carefully;
11they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”
12Jesus answered, “It says: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”
Of course, God CAN do anything. But to assume He will is great presumption, which Jesus called putting God to the test and is not to be done. The Law of Physics does not change, nor the Law of Cause and Effect. The mechanisms (Laws) of conception are well known to us. To ignore those Laws is to not live in reality.
I am praising God this morning that you are well and praying that the doctors will be able to determine what happened. I am so thankful that your son was there, too! We will be praying for a quick and full recovery! {{{{{}}}}}
While we are on the militant fecundity topic, here are a couple interesting things.
There is an interesting series of articles in the latest issue of The Economist that talk about the mandatory one child policy in urban areas in China. Though the magazine is self-pro-claimed pro-choice, it really hits the nail on the head in its discussion about the treatment and views of women that has lead to the slaughter of millions of baby girls in there and in India. I am currently reading Half the Sky that discusses these same views all over the world that have led to prostitution, child slavery, etc. Interestingly,one of the key factors that both authors identify to prevent this treatment of women is education.
And here is something else I have been thinking about the past couple of weeks. I am curious if any of you have come to this same conclusion.
I had been in a long discussion with some very pro-choice people regarding over population, Margaret Sanger, etc. I knew there were several resources that talk about the “birth dirth” and some I had seen before. But what struck me this time is that the emphasis is on the “birth dirth” of the white population. It really made me step back and look at the whole militant fecundity movement. Does it seem to you that those people advocating for raising up generations through large families are all white and are promoting this view among white middle class families? Is this really another form of kinism?
One interesting thing…Voddie Baucham promotes large families and encourages adoption even adopting his own children. But I don’t know any other patriocentrist who is promoting adoption….do you? I may have missed it….
I’m just popping in to say something then I’m out of here,
to What If, or the Deconstruct, seven point star, interesting? [yea, the Lord IS good],
anyway, after a lot of prayer I just wanted to say, that what I said, was NOT that I wanted YOU to be raped, I would not want that on Any Woman–anyone who took the Time to read my blog would see how Ridiculous that is,
BUT because I know how the Enemy works, to twist things, including metaphors and yes, strong messages, that I meant to be used as a ‘type of how would YOU feel if the tables were Turned on YOU and how would YOU feel with that whole God is a genocidal pro-ethnic cleansing maniac wink wink, type of thing,
and because I do NOT want to ‘offend’ in a way that Takes away from Jesus Christ,
I am apologizing for THAT comment Alone.
On the rest–that God does NOT wink at Ethnic Cleansing, that in Jeremiah God does WARN complacent Privilege women who care not about women of other races especially who Yes, are massed raped/oppressed in Ethnic Cleansing, partial Genocide [as written by the Holocaust Studies],
on that, I STAND FIRM.
As for being Hispanic, Ethnic cleansing and racism is NOT just a ‘white’ thing, RWANDA, is Black on Black–example,
that does NOT exclude NOR excuse, INDIFFERENCE, to ethnic cleansing, the FACT that in our world today, THOUSANDS OF WOMEN AND GIRLS, YOUNG GIRLS, are yes, being massed raped/and butchered for Ethnic Cleansing/Gendercide, and to Say [and for not Any to even balk at this, says a LOT about just how little Truth, 1 John, there is, God can DEAL with that one],
that God winks at that, well,
is Deplorable. Pathetic and sad, but I suppose, not to be too shocking…
in dedication to my daughter, to her people, Cherokee Nation, many women, who died yes, by Ethnic Cleansing, and to the Christian Native American Indians, who KNOW,
God never, winks or excuses, Ethnic Cleansing, nor takes JOY in it–Love does NOT rejoice, or winks,
Just popping to vent, after hearing this crazy fundy logic again:
“Russ Moore makes the shocking statement that most Christians are feminists and live in ’same-sex’ marriages. The reason? Most men do not exercise Biblical headship for their wives.”
Hi all…. this has been an unusual week. My husband Arnold (who has been diagnosed with Chronic Renal Disease) and I have been in Washington DC, taking part in peaceful protests (google ritz carlton protest) and healthcare reform rallies. Today we met with a group of Senators and Representatives, and tomorrow morning at 6:30 AM, Arnold will appear on CNN news and tell his story….
Oh no! I will add you to my prayers! I am so sorry to read of your devastating illness and trip to the hospital. You have my deepest empathy.
And thanks for asking about my recovery. Slow but steady. Had an awesome one hour massage on Monday that helped so much, even though I was a little timid about being out in public and possibly exposed to new different germs. I wish you a similar experience of kind touch and true compassion. It really helped a lot.
All,
I love all the straight talk about the QF line that you wouldn’t want to limit God’s blessings. Children are a blessing, yes, and a HUGE responsibility! It just goes to show how damaging it is to take verses out of context and make them life commands. And completely illogical.
It makes no more sense than taking the verse where Paul tells Timothy to have a little wine for his stomach’s sake and starting a new doctrine of wine being the divine cure for ulcers, stomach cancers, and heartburn. And if it doesn’t work for you, then you don’t have enough faith or you have compromise in your life somehow.
Prooftexting is a very bad way to build your theology.
Ugh, mostly wish I hadn’t (checked out the above links).
On the other hand, my son is getting a great education in how to spot a con.
First, create a crisis:
Christianity is about to be destroyed! DESTROYED I tell you! Oh noooooooo!
Second, indentify a villian:
Feminist thought, that women should be treated equal to men, is DESTROYING CHRISTIANITY!! Run for the hills!
Third, promise that you alone have the cure:
Quick, get your women under your control, and then get your whole family under the authority of my doctrine! You’ll be safe here, as long as you don’t question me and submit, I’ll take care of everyone.
What a crock of crap. We took the first five minutes of the sermon clip and identified all of the above steps, and then we had a great talk about Christianity.
If building the church is the work of the Holy Spirit, can it be destroyed by any practice of men? If it can be destroyed by a human practice (say women being honored as equals) then how can it be divine in the first place?
I pointed out to my son that what is threatened by “feminism” is not the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, built by the Holy Spirit who blows where He wills (John 3), but the American fundamentalist religious paradigm.
And if it is possible for that paradigm to be destroyed by human actions, then it was a kingdom built by men and not by God. So there is no loss in seeing it ended.
Jesus, may You be glorified over all the doctrines of men, and may Your truth and the reality of You fill our lives today. Draw us all closer to you, and build your church in our nation and our generation. Amen/
The little patriarchy forum guys (Momgodin’s link in 64) call egalitarianism “A satanic revolt against God.”
Paranoid much? Oh, brother.
I did find it interesting to hear them ask each other what the egal’s interpretations of specific verses might be. They offered pretty good answers…before discounting them in ways that made little sense.
Also interesting was that two of the pastors (Baptists, I think) allow women to pray out loud in services (to the apparent shock of the third) but they are careful to keep male voices heard more.
I wonder if they track services with stop-watches to ensure the proper male/female time balance? Would a male preacher be encouraged to extend his sermon to exceed earlier soprano minutes of prayer?
Maybe the elders flash him a signal to fill any boy-voice-voids? Like a newscaster or reality show host who is given instruction to ramble to complete the time-slot?
“Fill two minutes of boy-voice!” they cry, “or else we risk… A SATANIC REVOLT AGAINST GOD!”
They have drifted so far from the gospel of Jesus Christ, adding in all their male privilege rules and preacher dominion regulations.
It would be only comic and none of my business if I didn’t know the damage they are doing to future generations. May the Lord judge between sheep and sheep, and shepherd and sheep, as He foretold in Ezekiel.
And Jesus, be the Good Shepherd to the hurting, bruised and battered sheep, the ones pushed away from the good grass and clean water by the fat and privileged. Lead them in the wilderness and provide them with manna and sweet waters and safety and love. Amen.
The problem with fundamentalists is that they fixate on certain doctrines and neglect others because these doctrines are “fundamental” while the others are merely incidental. In short, fundamentalists are more concerned with the teachings of man and man’s faulty understanding of God’s revelation than with the actual revelation itself. As a result, they chuck at least 95% of the Bible out of the window with regards to doctrine.
We must no confuse orthodoxy with fundamentalism, or else we commit the same crime as the fundamentalists: the neglect of Scripture.
Madame, the link to the sermon is it. But I can see how you might be confused by my use of the word “forum.” They were having what I considered a forum-type discussion.
Here are a few more gems from that tape:
1. When young parents introduce their new babies to the congregation, dads should do the talking. Letting the moms do it would be “a failure of the pastor to prepare the couple.”
2. Referring to male sexual deviants in society today– “You have agressive men; hypermasculinity is dangerous. The Bible takes masculinity and channels it in these (healthy patriarchal) ways.”
3. Several references to the joys their wife’s “QUIET and godly spirit.” “My wife rejoices in my authority!”
So my pastor had another great sermon on Galatians yesterday, and he spent at least 10 minutes on the subject of male/female equality. He raised some good points:
1. the Holy Spirit gives gifts indiscriminantly.
2. Women were ordained and sent out as missionaries in the 19th Century, but our good friends the Fundamentalists put a stop to this around the same time as women got the right to vote. The “Holiness” churches (Pentacostal, etc.) were the biggest proponents of women in ministry at that time. D.L. Moody intentionally trained women in leadership.
3. There is a clear difference between the HUMAN view of “equality” and God’s view of “equality.” God recognizes differences in people, but doesn’t care about them. Humans recognize those same differences and criticize people for being different.
A quote by Nicholas Kristof: “Women and girls aren’t the problem, they are the solution.”
Going further, he talked about socio-economic and racial equality within the church. He talked about the church at Antioch being a multi-ethnic church, and it was also the first church to be called “Christians” because it was recognized as highly unusual for people from so many different backgrounds and classes to come together to worship. Kind of like “They will know we are Christians by our diversity”
He also painted a beautiful picture about our adoption in the family of God as “sons” and explained what was so important about the 1st century imagery of “sonship” (even for women) and how being adopted into God’s family cancels all of our debts (sin), and brings us into the family as if we were blood related. If we would all recognize even just those 2 things, it would be a radical change from most of the judgmental attitudes we see in the church today.
With all areas of equality, he made it clear that there is no reason for us to try to be all the same, or to pretend that we all look the same, but he said that it’s the VALUE we place on people that is important. God values everyone equally, but if the people in the church are not treating one another as equally valuable to God, then (as James (2:1-9) said), we are sinning against God. He then talked a little about the atrocities committed around the world against women, and that part always makes me sad, because here we are, dealing with people in America who want to put the same kinds of restrictions on women as there are in some of these very places, and saying it will cause “freedom” and yet the women in some countries are not free to even leave their homes by themselves or to have an inch of skin to be seen by a man other than their husband. The Law enslaves, but Christ sets us free. If these families who want women to be silent, submissive and obedient would go to those countries, I hope they would be appalled and change their minds about the treatment of their own wives and daughters.
“There is a clear difference between the HUMAN view of “equality” and God’s view of “equality.” God recognizes differences in people, but doesn’t care about them. Humans recognize those same differences and criticize people for being different.”
Ladies, I’m very concerned.
I have seen two of my college friends in the last week on Facebook who are using Baby Wise on their newborns. One has used it with all 3 of her kids, the other I don’t know if she used it on the first or not. What does it tell you to do to get your babies to sleep through the night, because both are saying their babies (less than 2 months) are already sleeping through the night? I can’t say that babies that young would never sleep all night, because my son did without a schedule, but to be PUT on a schedule like that (both are breastfeeding, too, I think), I really wonder what it’s doing to their body clocks and their babies. And how far they’re taking the instructions, too.
I know a family that has used Babywise (moderated with common sense and bottle feeding) successfully, but I share your concerns. Esp about milk supply.
They do know the diaper rule, right? A breast-feeding baby should have a certain number of wet diapers each day. My youngest is 15 so I don’t remember what that number is, but if you can slip that into casual conversation it might help your friends from getting falsely complacent that a weak disheartened baby is really a well-fed content baby.
In all honesty, I used Babywise as a guideline for my babies (simply because I needed to know how many times a day a 6 week/3 month/5 month/etc. baby needed to eat and sleep), and they were both sleeping through the night by 3 months and gained weight very well and appropriately for their age.
I was a bit more structured with my first, and she loved going down for her naps and having predictability to her day. I had to be much less structured with my second, simply because there was also big sister to work around, and I actually missed the more structured routine.
I never one had an issue with milk supply (quite the opposite, in fact). And while I know this is just my experience, the babies I witnessed who were fed on demand honestly looked dangerously close to being malnourished. Now, I TRULY do not like to play the “I did this and the opposite method is evil” game; I simply do not do that. But I’ve seen varied results from both approaches enough to know that there are no one size fits all results here.
Now, I COULDN’T STAND the hyper-structure and performance driven, unreasonable demands placed on little ones in Toddlerwise.
I checked out the Mark Driscoll link and I agree with the blogger on some points. It’s easy to focus too much on Mark’s apparent obsession with the “chickified” church and “chickified” males, and not see the real problem: male chauvinism and misogyny.
I also agree with him that this “macho male” may be more of an economic class thing. I think it’s true that more educated males are less threatened by educated or equal females. Just the use of the terms “chick” “chickified” and “dude” says volumes to me…
Just some of my thoughts. Could it be that these macho men feel uncomfortable in the “feminized church” because they unconsciously feel it’s, in some way, degrading?
Mark Driscoll’s solution is to put women back in the place he thinks they ought to stay in, so the males can take over. Maybe he feels uncomfortable if he isn’t in charge and a woman is!
Those men discussing the evils of feminism (Momgodin’s link from #64) sound like they feel threatened by women being equal to men. they need to keep them down, and they need to feel in control.
Did anyone else notice how they contradict themselves? They say a man should be the leader of his home, yet they have no problem meddling and telling them how they have to lead their homes! If a man should be the leader and hear from God, why does the pastor have to tell him to get another job or move so his wife can stay at home?
It also greatly bugged me how (I think it was Moore) counseled the man with the unhappy wife. Why don’t they tell men to go ask their wives what is going on, instead of suggesting what they think is going wrong, and then offering their solution? You can see their agenda seeping out of that advice.
I can’t listen to complementarian teachers airing their “logic” any more.
Well two of mine slept through the night fairly young but I didn’t try to force them to. They just did because they were lazy lol. But I wasn’t nursing either, I had a lot of difficulties with that. (And please, no nursing nazi’s telling me I didn’t try hard enough. You have no clue what I endured just to go along with the breastfeeding philosophy).
Mrs W.
Mine slept through the night off and on. I did nurse, but I was a lot more into getting them to feed and sleep on schedule with my 1st. My second was a sling baby, and my third still sleeps in our bed. We’re lax.
As for HAVING to nurse, you won’t get that from me.
Abby,
I wouldn’t try to talk your friend out of applying the principles in a book. Not directly. Maybe ask her how it’s going, offer her your perspective if she is open to hear it. I always encourage mothers to listen to their babies and follow their instincts, that babies need to be cuddled and held, but mothers also need a break from cuddling and holding! Both extremes are not good, but parents need to figure out what they feel comfortable doing. (By always, I mean the two or three mothers that have asked me!!!! lol!)
Our babies, on their own, all slept through the night early (the eldest at three weeks; the twins at four weeks). When I say “through the night”, I mean midnight to 6:00 a.m. This was not our doing, but just something that came about naturally. We say they took after my husband’s side of the family, who are all “good sleepers”, who can all sleep anytime, anywhere, in any position. LOL
However, I nursed our babies on demand, whenever they wanted, day or night. The twins needed to nurse nearly constantly, as they were smaller babies due to being born at 35 weeks instead of 40. I would have never, ever considered anything other than nursing them as they indicated that they needed it. They all thrived and grew appropriately and as they got bigger, they needed it less and less. I didn’t introduce solid foods to the twins until 8 1/2 months (not on principle, just didn’t – can’t remember why), so I’m sure they nursed more than their older brother, at least up to that point. But it was not a big deal, honestly.
I suppose the whole point of the babywise nonsense with regard to sleeping and nursing is so that the parents won’t be inconvenienced, that the house will not be a child-centered house, blah, blah. But when you really think about the time you spend intensively caring for an infant and his/her needs, it is a small sliver of your lifetime. I didn’t resent what they needed at the time, and I certainly don’t regret it now, now that they are all healthy young men.
And I can simply not imagine allowing an infant to cry in hunger. I have never heard of or seen a baby who was nursed on demand being malnourished. That’s nearly impossible, unless there is an underlying metabolic disorder.
Mrs. W, you should not feel bad about not nursing. If it didn’t work out, it didn’t work out. For several generations (including when I was born), it was thought that baby formula was superior. Even though I don’t believe that is true, no one can deny that whole generations of people grew up just fine on baby formula.
I’m sorry that other moms make you feel bad about this. When I was having my babies, some of my friends had huge troubles nursing. I don’t know why it is so hard for some and not others, but I would certainly never think it was for “not trying hard enough”.
I have seen you post about this several times over the months, and from that, assume that this is a hurtful thing for you (I can imagine). I feel bad about that, and hope that you will be able to have peace about how things worked out for you and your little one(s).
Madame posted, “I checked out the Mark Driscoll link and I agree with the blogger on some points. It’s easy to focus too much on Mark’s apparent obsession with the “chickified” church and “chickified” males, and not see the real problem: male chauvinism and misogyny.
I also agree with him that this “macho male” may be more of an economic class thing. I think it’s true that more educated males are less threatened by educated or equal females. Just the use of the terms “chick” “chickified” and “dude” says volumes to me…
Just some of my thoughts. Could it be that these macho men feel uncomfortable in the “feminized church” because they unconsciously feel it’s, in some way, degrading?
Mark Driscoll’s solution is to put women back in the place he thinks they ought to stay in, so the males can take over. Maybe he feels uncomfortable if he isn’t in charge and a woman is!”
I couldn’t agree with you more on this, Madame, and think you have hit the nail right on the head, particularly with regard to Mark Driscoll. I have read and heard some very offensive things he has said about women: one example is that he derides married women who are overweight for not “keeping themselves up”, etc. While I agree we should all do the best we can to look our best and be healthy, there is certainly NO shortage of married men who are overweight, but Driscoll acts as if that’s just a women’s concern.
I won’t even go into how obsessed we think he is with things of a sexual nature in marriage, not to mention his abysmal exegesis of the Song of Solomon.
My church had him speak at our summer conference several years ago. Many in our church (we’re a large, home-based-church entity) were disappointed that he was invited, and did not attend (including my husband and I). In fact, we’ve boycotted the summer conference ever since then. The weird thing is that his views are so different (and backward) compared to those of our church leadership. I think they were just kind of celebrity-pastor-awestruck and were not thinking straight.
Anecdotally, it has been very clear to us that educated men *seem* less likely to be threatened by women and their gifts. That’s not to say that there are no men without benefit of higher education who are not threatened by women, but I do believe there is something to the overall theory.
And I think many of us could do without Mark Driscoll’s surfer-boy language style with regard to gender. He’s not a teenager, he’s a grown man in a position of tremendous leadership. I just find many of his choices of words and comments overall to be unseemly.
On Monday, my husband told me that Benny Hinn’s wife, Suzanne, has filed for divorce after 30 years of marriage.
I don’t know if Benny Hinn even registers on all your radars, so for those of you who don’t know about him, he’s known for holding very large and spectacular healing crusades around the world. He’s a Charismatic, Word of Faith, Prosperity Gospel preacher. Google him and you’ll find all sorts of controversy about him.
Anyway, when reading the statement he made concerning his divorce, these paragraphs stood out to me.
- My wife has no biblical grounds for what she has done
This one just bugs me. It’s so typical! Unless he has been sleeping with another woman, his wife has no grounds to divorce him? What if he has neglected her? What if he is committing froud and driving her down with him?
But this statement nails it.
- I want you, as my partner in this ministry, to know
that I am going to continue preaching the Gospel and
praying for the sick as I have for 36 years. I will not
allow anything to slow me down or stop me.
Hum… If a man can’t take time off “ministry” to see to his own home, I don’t know what he is doing in ministry in the first place.
It also sounds like he is blaming his wife for trying to stop him, or maybe, as some commenters on blogs that have covered this bit of news say, Satan is trying to destroy Benny Hinn’s ministry through his wife, meaning that Benny Hinn should keep on, regardless, and let his wife come to her senses or let her go. But this means he is married to his ministry.
That’s what I LOVED about Penelope Leach “Your Baby and Child”. She had a chapter on breast feeding and a chapter on bottle feeding, because ultimately the best way to feed a child is pain-free, nurturing and relaxing for mother and child.
It seems so obvious when you put it that way, right?
I demand nursed and my little ones followed pretty much the same curve- fat butterballs from five months until they started crawling, and then watch out they were on the go! I know every baby is different, but both of mine weaned themselves when they started walking. You can take a sippy cup with you! LOL It all happened so naturally…
The danger with Ezzo’s teaching and breast-feeding is the part about ignoring your child’s cries. Two kinds of babies don’t cry: content babies whose needs are all met, and despondent babies who have been conditioned that no needs will be met except at random intervals over which the child has no control.
I have actually seen an emotionally deprived/depressed baby. It is by far the saddest thing I have ever, ever witnessed.
Madame, excellent points about the “chickified” comments by Mark Driscoll.” Something about his message rubbed me but I couldn’t put my finger on it until you evaluated it so nicely.
As I think over it more, I believe Mark uses Dudes for men in an affectionate manner. I don’t get the same loving vibe from his use of the word Chicks for women. Dudes are awesome, Chicks leave a foul taste in his mouth.
I’ve been reading a little lately about a lady from India named Pandita Ramabai, who lived from 1848-1922. She championed education for women, and protection for young widows and child brides. I think the ladies here would really enjoy knowing more about her. Try a web search on her name, or for starters, watch this slideshow I found. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPSZKcr8d0U.
I found a good story about her in an old book published in the 1940′s. I copied it and gave it to the students in my English class at co-op.
Heads up – Michael Pearl will appear tomorrow morning (Friday the 19th) on the CBS Early Show sometime between 7 and 8am eastern time.
Some bloggers, such as this one, http://whynottrainachild.com/2010/03/16/michael-pearl-on-tv/
are suggesting that people contact CBS to let them know the Pearls are not representative of all Christians, and to share their insights into this abusive practice.
“As I think over it more, I believe Mark uses Dudes for men in an affectionate manner. I don’t get the same loving vibe from his use of the word Chicks for women. Dudes are awesome, Chicks leave a foul taste in his mouth.”
I wonder if Driscoll has a problem with Jesus likening his own behavior to that of a mother hen, rather than a rooster?
“How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn’t let me.” Matt.23:37
Light,
Thanks for the “heads up” – I just sent an email asking CBS to acknowledge that Pearl’s teachings are not representative of all Christians. I also included the fact that I view him as a cult leader whose teaching is dangerous.
The point made on that link regarding the education chasm between “chickified” guys and “dudes” is very interesting. It left me wondering (as cliche as this phrase is, I mean this seriously) if the “dudes” are compensating for something? Specifically, the self confidence and sense of identity that might come with education?
Shadowspring,
# 95
That story breaks my heart every time I read anything about it or think about what those poor kids went through (as far as I can imagine it).
Christians should confess their sins and then God is faithful and will forgive them. But they stil have to pay the consequences. Justice has to be done for the sake of those children and many more who are suffering under the same treatment.
Alisa,
You make a good point and I have to agree. It seems that we humans like to cling to what we see as giving us self-worth or power. It appears this would have a great deal of appeal to men who are being taught that they are “in role” superior to “chicks,” yet know deep inside it’s a ruse. It’s simply the childhood bully’s ploy – if I make light of you, then that means that I am superior because I’m not the same as you.
Apparently, Driscoll’s “just because God says so” approach actually needs backing from certain societal norms, but educated norms don’t make the cut.
It really sad that in using this approach, Driscoll (and those like him) end up making light of many characteristics of God Himself.
“But such distinctions have faded. Since the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, theological liberals of every denomination have found that they have more in common with one another than with the conservatives in their own denominations. Responding to the research of biblical scholars and the ”historical Jesus” movement, they have de-emphasized doctrine.
Meanwhile leaders of the religious right have preached that salvation depends on believing the correct dogma, even as they have succeeded in reducing the considerable doctrinal distinctions that once divided evangelicals, fundamentalists and charismatics.
As a result, American Protestantism is in the midst of a major shift. It is being split into two nearly antithetical religions, both calling themselves Christianity.
These two religions — the Church of Law, based in the South, and the Church of Love, based in the North — differ on almost every big theological point: “
On parenting again, I butted heads twice in the last 24 hours with my father-in-law, who is visiting us. First, basically, he misinterpreted my daughter’s lack of instant obedience as willful disrespect, when in fact, she is one of those kids who has a tendency to ignore a request the first time, but then go back and do what she’s told within 2-3 minutes (tops). He expected immediate obedience (not gonna happen!), and I told him that she is not like that, and that as long as she obeys within that time frame, then I’m good.
Second instance was tonight at the restaurant we stopped at for dinner. He was trying to get my son to hold his hand, and my son ran out into the lot. He tried to stop ME from grabbing my little boy (not yet 2 years old), where I proceeded to grab my son and tell him quickly that it was not okay to run away outside. I didn’t punish my son, but made the danger clear to him as best I could at that moment of fear.
The first incident with my daughter gave me some insight into the fact that, in general, there are people out there who will always and continue to believe that when children are told to do something, they should obey that second, and if not, they will be punished. And then there are those who are more gracious, and realize that children are autonomous human beings with minds of their own, and that they need a good reason to listen sometimes.
The real problem with the Pearls, the Ezzos and even with Mark Driscoll (they all go together) is that they see parents/men as superior beings, and children/women as inferior. It all runs together, and the basic premise is that he who has the bigger guns runs the show. It’s bullying, plain and simple, and we need more people who will stand up for those whose voices cannot be heard. Small children, abused wives, sex-traffic slaves, etc. cannot speak for themselves. They will never be heard until the justice of God comes down, and the only way that this will happen is if the church of God does something about it.
“The real problem with the Pearls, the Ezzos and even with Mark Driscoll (they all go together) is that they see parents/men as superior beings, and children/women as inferior. It all runs together, and the basic premise is that he who has the bigger guns runs the show. It’s bullying, plain and simple, and we need more people who will stand up for those whose voices cannot be heard. Small children, abused wives, sex-traffic slaves, etc. cannot speak for themselves. They will never be heard until the justice of God comes down, and the only way that this will happen is if the church of God does something about it.”
Abby, I’m so sorry you have to go through that. Not fun.
This paragraph you wrote is so true. I find it appalling how we get stuck in our ruts of what we THINK the Bible says verses what it actually says. IMO, Scripture actually tries to level the playing field between those categories you mentioned, but that might get kind of uncomfortable if we were to truly absorb that, now wouldn’t it?
Abby,
I’ve had incidents like the ones you describe above with my own father in law. He was very abusive with his children, and still abuses his wife and anyone who will let him.
You are so very right with this paragraph!
The real problem with the Pearls, the Ezzos and even with Mark Driscoll (they all go together) is that they see parents/men as superior beings, and children/women as inferior. It all runs together, and the basic premise is that he who has the bigger guns runs the show. It’s bullying, plain and simple, and we need more people who will stand up for those whose voices cannot be heard. Small children, abused wives, sex-traffic slaves, etc. cannot speak for themselves. They will never be heard until the justice of God comes down, and the only way that this will happen is if the church of God does something about it.
What is it Jesus said? Let the little children come to me, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
I think one big problem in the church and some Christian family teaching is the concept of “chain of command”, and the huge emphasis placed on authority, who has it and who doesn’t.
I’d love to expand on this one, but my 6 year old has an owie in his tummy and I’ve promissed him a tummy massage, see if it helps.
I know this is kind of random, but here are some more of my thoughts from my personal Bible study.
The story of Dinah in Genesis 34 is strange and sad, but not quite what I was expecting. When Dinah “went out to visit the women of the land” it is apparently more than just an afternoon chat. Physical departure, leaving, even abandonment can be seen from the word used (yasa’). Visit is the word ra’ah, “to see, to look, to observe.” So she did make herself vulnerable in leaving her family and her home, but I don’t see a lot of violence in her interaction with Shechem, who “took her and lay with her.” (KJV) Laqah means “to take hold of” or “to marry.” Obviously I’m no Hebrew scholar, but I don’t see any connotation of violence or force. Shakab means “to lie down” and is a common euphemism for sexual intercourse. I’m a little confused by the translations of this as “violated” or “forced” or “raped.” What am I missing here?
This seems to be followed by Shechem falling in love (or at least in lust) with Dinah. He is drawn to her (dabaq), the same word used to describe marriage in Genesis 2:24, being joined together. So, to put this in more contemporary terms:
Dinah goes to stay with some new friends, she meets Shechem, they hook up, and he becomes infatuated with her. Sounds pretty current —
There is a great deal of anger and bitterness on the part of Dinah’s brothers, but Jacob himself seems curiously uninvolved. He is angry with Simeon and Levi because their act of revenge has damaged his own reputation in the land but does not seem nearly as concerned for his daughter.
Genesis 38 begins with Judah, like Dinah, leaving his family. The KJV says he “turned” (natah) from his brothers to a man of Adullah — indicates a physical change of direction and is also used to instruct God’s people not to “turn away” from what is right. He marries a Canaanite woman and there is pretty much nothing good that comes from this. His two oldest are struck down by God because of their wickedness, and his surviving daughter-in-law becomes a problem that he does not handle well (to say the least). Judah again makes a wrong turn when he turns toward Tamar, thinking she is a prostitute. Yet God honors Tamar and her children by making them part of the Messianic line.
Both Dinah and Judah get themselves and their families in trouble. I think the problem is not so much that they left their family home, as that they left the company of the godly for the company of the ungodly.
Another thing I find interesting: Abraham assures Eliezer that God will send an angel to guide him in finding a wife for Isaac. Isaac instructs Jacob specifically not to marry a Canaanite woman. There is no record, however, of Jacob passing on any such instruction to his children. Dinah and Judah both chose to be unequally yoked, and it caused grief not just for them, but for all around them.
Again, I would love to hear from some of y’all who are more knowledgeable in this type of study. I am certainly finding it fascinating but know that I may be missing or mis-reading some things here as well –
I read both pieces, and like all generalizations, it tends to be simplistic and regionally predjudiced (can you tell I’m not from up north? =)but still has some really useful things to say.
I am learning more and more about fundamentalism. Being raised in it, I assumed that what I learned from Christianity in my church was universally accepted.
I have discovered that fundamentalism is a relatively new (late 1800s) distinctly American phenomenon. In many ways this is alarming, and yet also very freeing.
I want my faith to be authentic, and as such it is based on my personal experience and my own study of the Bible. Yet the experiences and writing of all the Christians who have gone before me beg to be read and appreciated as well.
In some circles that would mean that I am becoming “liberal”, but in actually it means I am looking for something more conservative (of the true faith passed down through the ages) than this new-fangled American fundamentalism I was raised on.
But I have never lived farther north than Virginia.
I’ve read some interesting things about the rejection of Dinah.
Part of one of my commentaries can be accessed online through books.google.com
Not sure if this link will work:
A young unmarried woman in the Hebrew world (and the rest of the ancient near east) was NOT an independent agent. Therefore, she could NOT give consent to sexual intercourse – she NEEDED her father’s approval (i. e. marriage). Because she could not give consent to sex, any sex (with someone other than her husband) was considered rape.
Personally, I think that the story of Dinah is irrelevant beyond understanding what happened in the lives of Jacob’s family. It’s history. It has nothing to do with how we should live today, or the redemption offered in Christ Jesus.
The best I can get out of all those old stories is that God’s love truly is unconditional. If that greedy swindler Jacob is loved and chosen by God; if his immoral, superstitious and greedy son Judah gets his name/tribe immortalized by the Lion of Judah, then truly God’s love is not conditional upon the strict observance of his commands. Truly mercy triumphs over justice.
Reuben was a hotheaded violent man who also slept with one of his father’s wives, if memory serves me correctly. Just one more proof that in our flesh dwells no good thing- that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
“My hope is built on nothing less than 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; all other ground is sinking sand.”
Kay, that’s an intriguing take on this story. All kinds of nuances here that I would never have thought of.
What? — that is an illuminating and helpful perspective.
Shadowspring, I agree that this is not a manual for how we are to live today, and thank goodness for that! To me, it just underscores the authenticity of the Bible that God records the good and the bad in the story of His people, warts and all. It’s sad and depressing in some ways to see how little we have changed, but it also encourages me to see how God takes real people with real issues and uses them in spite of their problems and bad decisions.
The best thing I am getting out of this is a realization of how endlessly fascinating God’s word can be. I’m really enjoying the time spent in looking closely at Scripture and that is in itself a blessing to me.
“It’s history. It has nothing to do with how we should live today, or the redemption offered in Christ Jesus.”
Shadowspring,
I have to disagree with you on that point.
On this one I agree:
“The best I can get out of all those old stories is that God’s love truly is unconditional.”
It seems to me that the way God planned for the good, bad and ugly all to be recorded about His followers, lends itself to lessons on “How Not To Walk” as well as “How to Walk.”
For instance, through the life of Dinah, we can see how damaging it is to treat people (women) as a commodity of the family. In Dinah’s case, she apparently felt so little affection from her family that she went away from home to seek friendship. Her mother seemed to be far more interested in gaining sons to win Jacob’s love. After Dinah’s rape, her own brothers seem most interested in making the family name good again by revenge killings. Jacob’s family certainly seems to be one big lesson on “How Not To Love Thy Neighbor.”
I have to agree with Kay. The Old Testament does not have “nothing” to do with the redemption offered by Jesus Christ; on the contrary, it has everything to do with it, because everything that Jesus Christ did had an OT precedent. This is why he stated himself, “I have come to fulfill the law.”
Dinah’s story is a demonstration of why people should forgive those who have sinned against them, as Jesus commands of us. Even though Shalem offered to convert to the monotheism of Jacob’s household and marry his daughter, Dinah’s brothers refused to forgive him for defiling their sister, and honour-killed the men of Shechem. In doing so, they slaughtered innocent people, widowed women and deprived children of their fathers, and placed their own family in great danger. All of this could have been avoided had they forgiven Shalem instead.
“Personally, I think that the story of Dinah is irrelevant beyond understanding what happened in the lives of Jacob’s family. It’s history. It has nothing to do with how we should live today, or the redemption offered in Christ Jesus.”
I can see both sides on this.
Dinah has been made into doctrine for daughters by the patriocentrists on why a daughter must be kept under lock and key and not allowed out by herself- to go on the mission field, to go to dinner with friends, to go see a play with friends, to have a job, to go to college, etc. The patrios teach that the reason Dinah was raped was that she went off with her friends without her “authority” or NMR- nearest male relative.
Well, that is balogna. Tamar was raped in her own home by her own brother. Why don’t the patrios make doctrine out of that story and prescribe that brothers are a danger to their sister’s purity and that living in a home with brothers will get you raped?
So, the story of Dinah is not prescriptive nor does it contain doctrine about how unmarried women are to remain under the constant watchful eye of brother or father until they are married.
On the other hand, I totally agree that Dinah shows us what happens when women are treated like property/commodity or like cattle. Dinah’s own mother had no worth in that society unless she bore her husband sons. Can you imagine how miserable her life would have been if she were barren or had only born daughters? Leah was the unloved wife and she knew it. Also, we have no idea if she was or was not a good mother to her daughter. Also, we don’t know why Dinah went off with her friends. It isn’t just because she had a bad relationship in her family. It could be that she had a very good relationship with her mother and she was just spending time with females her own age. It isn’t as if she just ran off. It is no different than if one of our daughters went somewhere with her friends. My daughters do things with their friends all the time and it has no bearing on whether or not they have a bad relationship with me. It is HEALTHY for people to have relationships/friendships outside of their own home, imho.
Leah would have been surely banished and forgotten if she didn’t give birth to so many sons.
A woman’s total worth, basically, was in how many sons she could give birth to.
Yes, this story shows us what happens when women are treated like property and objectified as objects of sex and what happens when revenge is taken because of one’s own skewed vision of women rather than true Biblical justice.
We have to be so careful not to superimpose our own emotions on top of some of these stories and read things into them that are not there.
“A young unmarried woman in the Hebrew world (and the rest of the ancient near east) was NOT an independent agent. Therefore, she could NOT give consent to sexual intercourse – she NEEDED her father’s approval (i. e. marriage). Because she could not give consent to sex, any sex (with someone other than her husband) was considered rape.”
This is not what the OT teaches.
It makes provision for a woman who consents to intercourse if she is unmarried. If she were to have sex with a man and she was unmarried and her father finds out about it the man would pay the father and the man could not divorce her.
So, no, not any sex was considered rape. If that were the case, then the Law commands that the rapist be put to death. And if this were so why is there part of the Law that states that this girl is to be married off to this man and the man can never divorce her.
“Yes, this story shows us what happens when women are treated like property and objectified as objects of sex and what happens when revenge is taken because of one’s own skewed vision of women rather than true Biblical justice.”
So true, Corrie.
Also, from what I see of Jacob’s family/patriarchy is a general lack of true love and affection for one’s family members. With the exception of Rachel, everyone’s worthiness for relationship is based on their cultural value. When you get right down to it, even the sons were not simply valued for being ‘eikons’ of God, but for the cultural value and prestige brought to the parents or as a means for buying love (ie.Leah). Yuck!
I don’t know exactly what the customs were at that time and in that place, but remember this was before the Law was given.
If I ever hear a sermon on staying at home/protection/etc. using Dinah, I guess I now have ammunition with the points about brothers and Tamar, and the devaluing of women being the problem… Of course, now it’ll be another 10 years before I personally run into someone using that story!
I am seeing that there are not really any guidelines given in the OT (at least as far as I’ve read — in Numbers right now) that tell specifically how to “do” marriage, courtship, etc. There are some specifics on how not to do it and directions for how to deal with situations where things go wrong. But the “how-to” part is clearly left up to families. So, the Bible is not the manual on courtship — that had to wait for the internet, apparently.
So, the Bible is not the manual on courtship — that had to wait for the internet, apparently.
emr,
Patrios wouldn’t be caught using Abraham’s Biblical courtship method – sending his servant to pick out a wife for his son.
Step 1. Tell your servant to find a wife for your son not “among whom I am living, but go to MY OWN relatives and get a wife for my son…”
Step 2. Have the servant pray for guidance:
“May it be that when I say to a girl, ‘Please let down your jar that I may have a drink,’ and she says, ‘Drink, and I’ll water your camels too’-let her be the one you have chosen…”
Step 3. Have your servant give the girl “a gold NOSE RING weighing a beka and two gold bracelets weighing ten shekels.”
Step 4. Then have him ask, “Whose daughter are you?…is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?”
No,no, I think the patrios are ignoring the patriach Abraham’s guide lines.
I was involved in that discussion. Some of the mother’s comments were directed at me and my confession that I couldn’t bake my bread from scratch AND have time for my small children. It was rather a shock to the rest of us that someone’s mom could post under her daughter’s name and insult a bunch of people she didn’t even know. (I joked with a friend later that we should form a group called “Biblically Apethetic Raging Feminist”, BARF for short, where we could discuss how to poison our kids with store-bought bread. )
But you’re right, it was sad. There was so little grace in anything they said that it made me feel sorry for them and others like them.
Here is a good article you all might want to read. Isn’t it encouraging that more and more people are seeing the same things we all have been talking about when it comes to the attitudes toward women in the body of Christ, the one size fits all promotion?
The effects of Spiritual Abuse on Women by Richard Damiani
Share
Today at 12:34am
The Effects of Spiritual Abuse on Women, by Richard Damiani
When women are trapped in an abusive church the effects are profound and deep. Single women may never marry since they can never quite measure up to the leader’s expectations. This, plus the general immaturity of many single men who are kept in a dependent state by the pastor or elders gives them very little choice in a spouse. Both single and married women are told to submit without question to their husbands, the leadership, and sometimes to men in general. Cults generally have a strict “chain of command theology.” God is the head, then the pastor who is God’s anointed under shepherd, then the husband, then women, followed by children, who are to be totally obedient and submissive.
Women are generally told that their place is in the home, that their identity is found in being a wife and mother only, that they are to be keepers at home primarily except when there is an emergency that the leader deems proper. In some groups there is no excuse for working outside the home, even if financial ruin is the option. Some churches preach a code of dress much like Amish or Mennonites as the only type of dress a truly spiritual woman would ever wear. Wanting makeup, stylish dress, jewelry, etc. are signs of worldliness, and are condemned. Women are good for marriage, sex – whatever type of sex her husband demands or the leader teaches is proper – motherhood, and not much else.
Women are kept from any meaningful ministry in the church. They are to be quiet, reserved, and even totally silent. The man is the head in all things, and his wife is to be subject to him. Single women, too, are to be subject to men, especially the leadership. A single woman is considered an oddity since marriage is the natural state of all women.
Spirituality is measured by dress style and length. Pants suits, slacks, etc. are sinful in some churches, since they are men’s clothing. Some cults demand long dresses only, much like the Muslim Fundamentalists. Indeed, there is much similarity between cultic teaching on women and radical Muslim teaching. Anything that flatters a woman’s figure in any way is considered sinful, as if Satan was the creator of a woman’s shape and not God.
All this, plus much more that many others could add leads to many ills. Women become unnaturally reserved, not expressing their individual personalities as God gave them. Women slow down or stop developing as independent persons who bear the image of God. Rather than growing toward a full maturity and individuality in Christ, women in cults are told any identity apart from men is sinful. An unnatural dependence on men and husbands is the result of this false teaching.
Instead of expressing the individual tastes and personalities that God gives to everyone, women in cults end up looking the same, acting the same, having the same interests, wearing the same type of clothing, hair styles, and lack those womanly things that make women’s femininity beautiful. A false femininity is preached which is identified as submission, housekeeping, mothering, and in some cults natural foods only, making one’s own clothing only, home schooling only, raising one’s own food only, and many other “back to earth” teachings as tests of spirituality.
Please understand that these things are not wrong as preferences, but they do not make anyone more or less spiritual than anyone else; they are just preferences. When they become marks of following Christ and being holy, they become abusive.
Women raised in cults may never know that there is anything outside of what they know to be “God’s way,” which is really the leader’s way and not God’s. They view other Christians as worldly and sinful compromisers, but fail to have a positive concept of following Jesus’ love and grace. Rather, spirituality is that “we are not like them,” just like the Pharisees.
When you go into a cultic, abusive church the women all seem alike. Just like the movie “The Stepford Wives” from the 1970′s, there is a uniformity that is unnatural. Rather than giving life in its fullness as the Gospel does, cultic churches rob women of full growth, development, individuality and identity in God and Christ. Women’s identity is found in the man, then in the leadership, then in Christ, according to the unbiblical chain of command that is imposed. They are taught that questioning their husbands or pastor is to defy God, since they stand in the place of God. Women are little more than objects for rule and subjugation in some abusive churches.
When a woman leaves a cult, whether she is a wife, a teen, or a single woman past teen years there is great confusion about who and what she is. What should she do now? What is the place of women? How can she dress and use makeup? What is allowed for a career? Are careers allowed, or is menial work the only work fitting for a woman? What is the place of sex in marriage, and how does she express her sexuality? These and so many other questions bombard a sister who has left a cult.
Many of these answers can be found as you enter a wholesome, normal Evangelical church where women are free in Christ. Finding a good church is not easy, but when one is found and you feel safe enough to begin to become a part, start making friends with women who obviously love God, but are so different from the false model you were given in your old church. Look at how godly women are serving and ministering in the church. Talk to them, spend time with them, if needed, find an older woman who can mentor you, maybe even find a Christian woman counselor to help you over the cultic inhibitions. Begin to dream the dreams you had for yourself before you entered the cultic church. Some had gifts of music, writing, business, etc. that were all smothered in error. God has given each of his children gifts and talents that are the very things we are to use to praise him and minister to others. Now that you are free from the cult, part of your healing will be to rediscover what God has given to you so you can bless him and others by using them well.
There are good books on these topics, as well. Many books on marriage, life in Christ, sexuality, ministry, etc. can be found in an evangelical Christian bookstore. Be patient, though. During all the years you were under false teaching you have been brainwashed to believe error, it will not disappear overnight. God will bring you back to truth and life, but it will take time to build a solid foundation of belief and life. Don’t despair! God will not leave you!
As a woman you are so greatly treasured in God’s eyes. Jesus defied the evil teaching about women in his day – the same type of wrong, evil teaching that is found in most cultic churches. He treated women like equals and honored them. Women were always with him – they even helped support both Jesus and the disciples! Jesus allowed the bleeding woman to touch him, and he spoke and ministered to the woman at the well – all things good Jews of the day would never do. Jesus raised women up from the false subjugation they were held in, and gave them a place of honor in his kingdom. Never, ever look down on yourself. You are highly treasured by God!
This is what I want to say to you, my sisters in Jesus. Leave off following a man and a church and follow Jesus alone; you haven’t seen anything yet!
For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord,
Plans to prosper you and not to harm you,
Plans to give you a hope and a future.
And the danger of using the OT for practice is exactly what is demonstrated in this discussion: reading into the text whatever supports our theories, when it is not expressly stated.
Dinah was raped because she had no NMR with her, or Dinah was raped because her mother didn’t love her enough, Dinah was raped because the only safe place for friendships is at home, Dinah wasn’t raped at all but was consenting in the way that passionate hormonal teens do, the law of Moses was in effect (just not written down) because Abraham lived a life of faith, etc.
The last line is particularly troublesome because that defies the New Testament teaching that the Law was given only as schoolmaster until the Messiah comes to make us as true sons, and implies that the Law is the Ultimate Revelation of God to Mankind- something only a theonomist would believe.
(Yes, the Law was fulfilled in Christ, and being fulfilled has passed away, and now we are to live under the perfect law of liberty. =)
Darcy, hugs to you. Sorry that someone somewhere still believes that people who use store bought bread are poisoning their children. One of the very few times an ATI family interacted with other home schoolers in my world, a young daughter haughtily told me I was poisoning my family. The arrogance is inherent in the heresy. This little girl was probably nine. I wonder where she is in the world today. *sigh*
Thank you, Karen, for posting the link to Richard Damiani. I will be checking that out today.
Remember my niece? She has had her first child. I can tell by the pictures that she had the child at home. She looks exhausted. It cannot have been easy. My heart is broken as I see how much she is willing to endure to be pleasing to God, not knowing that she is pleasing to God simply by existing and wanting relationship with him.
I remember when she was a young, happy spitfire of a child. I remember when she loved playing saxophone in band at public school. I remember when she had a bright future. And now this. It breaks my heart.
Her first child is a girl. May God have mercy on that daughter. She will never know the few freedoms her mom enjoyed as a child, unless there is some miracle intervention of some kind.
Bright news (sort of). Her little sister (who is unlikely to ever marry) has been accepted to a position to teach in Kurdish Iraq. She’ll have no problems wearing the whatever covering is required of her. On the other hand, her brand of Christianity is scant improvement over Islam, with the false Jesus they present.
It is so discouraging that this happened in my extended family, right before my very eyes, and I am so vilified by their father (and successfully done) that there is no respect at all for my faith by my nieces. I see no way to ever communicate truth to them. They are only listening to the patriarchal men/church in their lives.
Shadowspring, your words about daughters reminded me of a comment my father in law made to my poor brother the other day. My brother has 2 daughters, and my fil went on and on to my brother about how daughters are sent to college, have their rent paid if they live outside of their parents’ home before marriage, etc, etc…, just like the sons. I think he really worries that we all think that everyone is thinking that they mistreat girls over there in Egypt (which, in Christian circles, I know is not true, girls are “basically” equal), and it just makes me think that in a country that is basically keeping women under wraps, the Christians are more free with their daughters than some of the groups we’re talking about, and it’s the kind of jolt to the system that patrios need in order to see that they are no better than strict Muslim sects when they put such harsh restrictions on their daughters.
Re: 124
Richard Damiani is absolutely right. He came out of a high profile Reformed Baptist church. We were part of a closely tied in copy-cat work. There are so many, many things I regret about being in that environment. Being crushed was just one.
I’m always the last to know :p but this shocked me.
my daughter just informed me that Mike Pearl asked Debbie to divorce him:
“When your state grants marital status to same-sex partners, send the state notification of your revocation of your state marriage license. And then as a couple, draw up a document that you file in your local court house that declares your marriage to have occurred on the date you were married long ago, including city, county, and state, with a brief statement about the Biblical nature of your covenant before God, and then signed by the two of you and witnessed by two friends. It is a retro-marriage covenant—not a license.
When I first shared this with my wife, she freaked out and said she did not want to get a divorce, just to be married again 38 years later. No, your rejection of the state license will not be a divorce. You are just acknowledging that the state never had jurisdiction over your marriage and that your marriage has existed, and does exist, apart from the state. We expect the state to continue to recognize our marriage, granting us all the protection and rights that marriages have traditionally enjoyed.”
I completely understand your overall concerns and it’s sad that your family members are caught in the trap of patrocentricity.
I’ve been reading here and not commenting but the homebirth comment brought me out of lurkdom. I homebirthed some of my children – one where my dh was there, one after I left him because of the abuse. If anything, these births were easier on me than my hospital births because at the hospital my husband was “on show” and he demanded the spotlight be on him. When he finally slept because of “exhaustion” my labors eased up but even there I was uncomfortable emotionally. For me, homebirth was a safer, better option both physically and emotionally. My hospital birth had many complications – all of them iatrogenic (caused by hospital/OB errors).
But… being forced into a homebirth is just as bad as the forcing that was done to me at the hospital. And feeling that you “have to” be successful at a homebirth because of the “evil hospital/doctor” or because a hospital is sinful or anything like that… that’s worse in my opinion.
I read that link to Pearl’s article. I don’t get it – if marriage is not the domain of the church or the state, what is the purpose of drawing up a “covenant document” and filing it at the courthouse with witnesses? Why not just get married in the eyes of God? After all, it seems he’s claiming getting married and becoming one flesh is what makes a couple married. What’s up with this alternative legal document mumbo jumbo.
I’d be curious to know which one of his kids actually has a state marriage license and the reason why. After all, the other 4 shunned state licenses.
I was saddened to see some of the comments people left. Some were jumping on his bandwagon, saying they were going to revoke their marriage licenses and one even said his daughter was getting married soon and was NOT going to get a marriage license. Then they were asking about property rights and legalities if one of them dies. Good luck – how is Pearl supposed to answer that? Of course if couples get into legal issues over property, death benefits or otherwise, he’d probably deny any responsibility, just like he’s done in the case of the children who’ve been beaten to death.
Abby, I am so glad to know that Christian daughters in Egypt are loved and supported by their families!
Yes, this new extreme fundamentalism patriocentricity is very, very much like fundamentalist Islam. It is so scary.
Cary, I am glad you understood that I am not against home births as an option to be freely chosen by an informed woman (though when I looked into it for my first child, our state considered that too high-risk for a licensed midwife to do home birth, though birthing centers were an option).
I’m not against large families either. Or grinding your own flour. Or being an entrepreneur. All of that is perfectly fine.
None of it is required to be pleasing to God. All of that is being preached in ATI/patriocentric circles as the highest and best.
I doubt if they come out and say those of us who practice family planning, shop at grocery stores, work for someone else, and have our babies at hospitals are going to hell- yet.
They just make it very plain that if you are REALLY wanting to please God, that’s how you’ll live. That’s what takes it from a lifestyle choice to spiritual abuse.
First time births were considered too high risk for home delivery by a licensed midwife, as were VBACs (a relatively new phenomenon at the time), history of pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, incompetent uterus and other known complicating factors.
Peaches, I remember a few years ago when Kent Hovind, who is now in jail for tax evasion, spoke at our local homeschooling convention and he taught against marriage licenses. Then, last summer, one of those videos I posted of the betrothal story had an interesting phrase in it. The father pronounced the couple husband and wife by the “authority invested in my as patriarch of the family.” I think there are many,many of these situations where marriage licenses are not gotten because of some fear of state control or whatever.
I just went on a 2nd honeymoon with Dan.
I can’t IMAGINE him asking me to divorce him. What message does that say to the children of that union? I don’t care if they *say* their reason is legal epediency. The strongest message they send is the woman is expendable!! Dan and I would rather suffer persecution than deny our marriage.
The Bible says there is nothing new under the sun. I suppose some of these Command men think they’re smarter than all of our forefathers.
*They* are gonna outsmart the government! Unfortunately, they end up leaving their wives vulnerable- not protecting them as they claim! Mrs. Hovind went to jail.
THANK YOU for taking my words gently and understanding what I was trying to say.
For me, this is similar to abuse in general… often, if you try to describe a single incident, many people look at you and say, yeah, he’s a little controlling but what’s the big deal. They don’t realize how much those “little” things destroy a person and work together. The big abuses that happen don’t occur all the time but the little abuses just keep pulling you down so that you don’t fight back at the big one.
And thank you everybody else for your comments here. I am a DV survivor and though the church wasn’t patriocentric, my husband tried to use similar teachings on me to put me into my place. He also used to to justify his behavior. He still does.
I have never heard of Kent Hovind. I just read about him on wikipedia. Wow.
I wonder what Pearl suggests for people who get in situations where a marriage license is required? For instance, when my husband was in the military, in order for me to get benefits, an I.D. and be declared one of his dependents, we had to show our marriage license.
During the same presentation Hovind did at our school convention, he also said that the jet trails in the sky were really chemicals being dropped on us for mind control or some such nonsense. One of our sons was in his workshop and heard this and the marriage license stuff and it really colored the rest of his presentations for all of us. We found out the next day at church that it elicited the same response from many other parents. I keep thinking that the Pearls, like all the rest of these teachers, have a following of people who have never looked under the hood or who simply lack discernment. As I have listened to some of the moms I have heard from, it is alarming. And then I remembered hearing John Stonestreet talking about how few parents have a truly Biblical worldview so it is no wonder today’s teens are so confused.
And here I thought that when Jesus said “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Matthew 22:21)that he meant it. Same with Paul, and that bit about “Everyone must subject himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. … Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Romans 13:1,7) And Peter: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men … Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.” (1 Peter 2:13, 17)
So sorry to hear to read that you are intimately acquainted with domestic violence and abuse. I can relate too well.
Karen,
How can people get so off-base and still have anyone listen to them? Chemicals for mind control? Really?
*I* invited a Civil War enthusiast/home school dad to come to speak at our little convention. All I had heard before was talk about Civil War reenactments. Silly me, I’m thinking hands-on immersion learning.
Boy was I surprised when he got all political on the platform, speaking about the NRA and other issues he assumed everyone in the whole room supported. I am guessing now he may have been a CR, but I had never heard of that then.
Still, I never went to a presentation of his after that. I certainly didn’t ask him to return, but then I was kicked out of that group later.
Too bad I didn’t see the importance of fighting for balance in home schooling at the time. I just thought to live and let live, you know.
Now I see that only works when both sides want to live and let live. My once vibrant Christian in-laws now live in dire poverty on a compound in the mountains. Their three children are trapped there, with no education to take them elsewhere, all working for Daddy’s business/ministry. And grandchild number four was just birthed on the grounds.
Wish I had been better informed of the seriousness of the danger earlier, but I doubt that I would have listened. It’s all too fantastic to believe.
Carys, your birth stories just go to show how much our minds and emotional state are connected to a labor and delivery’s pain scale. Thanks for sharing.
As for Kent Hovind, I’ve listened to him in person and it was appalling. I was so embarrassed to call myself a Christian if he claimed to be one. It was just bad.
I remember a couple years ago there was a lady whose name I *believe* was Jennifer…she had a blog called Enjoy the Journey or something like that. I was trying to find her blog again the other day, but I can’t find it…does anyone remember her/have her blog address? I used to have it in my bookmarks, but we lost all our info on that computer about a year ago, so I’m stuck. :/ Anyway, if anyone remembers her and can give me her blog address I’d greatly appreciate it!
Love in Our Lord,
Hannah
Fundamentalism every where is getting worse, not leading people to the God of love and the peaceful way of life we are called to live. Thanks for the link, emr.
I am embarrassed to say I bought Hovind VHS tapes at the urging of a friend. I have never presented Creation Science as truth, but I wanted my children educated about everybody’s theories.
Lucky for me, the quality of the taping was so poor (just a guy standing in one place yapping) and the content so boring and well, preachy not educational, that we never made it beyond five minutes.
Still, I wish I had my twenty bucks back. Could get my dog groomed. She needs it. :p
emr, that was a great article, thank you.
I found this comment to be particularly saddening:
“I find the behaviour of this lady shameful. Has she never heard of not washing your dirty linen in public? Whatever issues we have with male oppression of women must be dealt with internally and within the framework of the Qur’an and Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet [saw]) not according to the licentious ethos of western liberalism.
Nasser Nathaniel, Southend-on-Sea, Essex”
It’s more of the same: SHHH! Don’t tell outsiders the truth! Fight the system from within, and never reveal the abuses that you are suffering! Yuck. More “outsiders” need to stand with this woman and show their support. Gandhi fought injustice in the same way, and had the same kind of critics, but he didn’t stop trying to make change. Good for her. May she never be silent.
Wow Abby. That does look good. I especially like the title of that session called, “Who Killed Cinderella, From Disappointment to Thriving.” I’d like to sit in on that one!
Even I’ve heard of Kent Hovind, but I can’t say I’ve ever heard anything good.
Full disclosure, I’ve never read any of his writing or listened to or seen any of his presentations. But the husband and I did buy his nemesis PZ Myers a beer one night. Definitely $10 I was glad to spend.
A little off-topic but maybe not . . .I saw on Doug Phillips website a reference to the recent wedding of Scott Brown’s son and then I saw some photos on Scott Brown’s site— does anyone know how old that boy is? Seriously, he doesn’t look more than 16. I was somewhat astonished. Of course, Vision Forum seems to have a need to have one splashy picture perfect wedding a year, but this couple looks like they are still in their mid-teens. Is this the model? (Must be because Doug Phillips has a photo on his site where he is holding up the arms of the father of the groom like he was a prize-fighter.) How does a teen-age father like that support his family? I am truly bewildered . . .
Maybe he works for his daddy on the family compound and lives in a tiny cabin that the family built with funds from the business in leiu of part of his salary? That’s how my nephew does it.
My nephew was old enough to get married (early 20s) but found out shortly after getting married that the college correspondence credits he earned from the Christian correspondence college were worthless. Since they don’t believe in birth control, the temporary job for daddy became a permanent trap with no way out. He certainly can’t take four years off to earn a degree and get his dream job of teacher now.
They are expecting their 3rd child any day, and still live in the tiny staff cabin- maybe 1000 sq ft?
And when my niece-in-law (who hates me by the way)wrote on the net for people to please pray for a bigger house for them as she doesn’t know how she can add a fourth person, wouldn’t you know, some uber-religious woman answered with a shaming post reminding her that she should be praying to be content with what God has provided instead. >:[
I’m praying for her anyway, and her hubby too! I pray my nephew will rise up like Gideon did and smash his father’s idols.
Elizabeth,as I recall, this 18 year old groom built a home for his bride and is debt free. Pretty amazing!
I have only known one other young man who did this sort of thing. He bought a house when he was 13 and paid for it all by himself with his paper route money!
My guess is that while some of us are seeing our sons go to college and pay for an education, many of these young men invest their time in starting their own businesses and building or remodeling homes. I guess I don’t see one as having more value than the other. While 18 seems pretty young, Clay and I were 20 when we got married and a lot of these homeschooled young men are miles beyond where we were at that age.
It makes provision for a woman who consents to intercourse if she is unmarried. If she were to have sex with a man and she was unmarried and her father finds out about it the man would pay the father and the man could not divorce her.
So, no, not any sex was considered rape. If that were the case, then the Law commands that the rapist be put to death. And if this were so why is there part of the Law that states that this girl is to be married off to this man and the man can never divorce her.”
A rapist was NOT put to death – UNLESS he had raped a married or engaged woman. (In such a case, the woman would be spared because she was a victim of rape, not a consenting adulteress.) He’d be put to death for adultery, not rape.
There was no way in the ancient near east that a judge could determine that a young man had “violated” a young woman without her consent. It would be unjust to put the man to death (but not the woman) if the sex was consensual.
And if the man HAD actually raped the woman, putting him to death wasn’t fair to his victim.
Place yourself in her shoes (sandals?). Your parents and family hate you because you’ve brought dishonour upon them. Your whole community blames you for putting yourself in the situation in which you were raped (Lydia Sherman and Jennie Chancey come to mind here). Your rapist’s family blames you for his crime, and insists that you had consented to it – in fact, the brothers of your rapist are already planning to kill you and your family as revenge for their brother’s death.
Of course, the man is never allowed to divorce his victim because there is no else who is willing to marry her after she has been raped. The woman, however, is allowed to divorce the man.
Whatever happens, at the end of the day, the man has learned a valuable lesson: respect women and do not treat them as sex objects.
How did the judges (do their best to) determine whether or not a married/engaged woman had been raped?
If she was “raped” while out in the wilderness, no one can determine whether or not the sex was consensual. Since the woman is the weaker sex, she would’ve been easy for a man to take advantage of, because there was no one to rescue her if she had screamed. Therefore, we will assume that the woman was an innocent victim, and that the man was a rapist. He will be put to death for adultery; she will be spared.
If she was “raped” in the city, where there are lots of people who could heard her scream (which she definitely would’ve done if a suspicious man had violated her personal space), then the only reason that she didn’t scream was to hide the sex act. In doing so, she has consented to the sex act, and is an adulteress. She and her lover will be put to death for adultery.
“Elizabeth,as I recall, this 18 year old groom built a home for his bride and is debt free.”
Hmmmm . . .I must admit to being VERY skeptical about this claim— I know that I have seen references to it before on the Vision Forum site (or one its family of sites)and I just don’t buy it. My experiences with building and dealing with contractors makes me highly doubtful of a claim that a teenager has the carpentry, plumbing, electrical, etc. skills to build an up to code house by himself. Not to mention to pay for all the materials on his own.
I think that 18 is just too young for the vast majority of people to marry. (And I say this as the mother of two fairly mature children who have seen their 18th birthdays.) I think that is especially true when the 18 year old has been inordinately sheltered (which I think a lot of the Vision Forum girls are). And, is he even 18 yet? Honestly, he doesn’t look even that old to me.
I guess my real issue or question is with the way VF presents their world. It seems like all of these people work for each other in some way. Doesn’t VF poster boy Peter Bradrick work for Scott Brown? And what do all those interns actually do? Yet, there seems to be enough money flowing for beautiful weddings, expensive trips to Europe (the one they are advertising now is a real doozy!), sumptuous retreats, etc. And I wonder, “where does all the money come from?!” And how many people see the VF presentation of the world and get sucked into thinking they can have it, too?
John Piper is taking a leave of absence from ministry to devote time to his marriage. He confesses to sins of pride that have affected his relationship with his wife.
Light, I heard about this yesterday as well. I pray that this time would open his eyes to what is happening in the world of patriarchy and the church in general and that he would be changed in a way that might make him unpopular among many of his current “fans,” but might also lead many of them away from the negative side of Christianity. an 8 month sabbatical from work and ministry might be exactly what he needs to soften his heart toward what God is doing through women.
That link to Phil Johnson was posted on Scott Brown’s website for the Family Integrated Church. I found several things about it to be offensive. First of all, the message is sent that women aren’t interested in deep matter of the faith, which we all know is not true. And then there is the notion that true manhood isn’t interested in “felt needs” etc. But isaiah 53 says of Jesus:
“He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”
I was disgusted at Phil’s notion that real men shouldn’t be subjected to these notions. Now, granted, I think he was employing that ever popular with the patriocentrists speaking technique of hyperbole. But secondly, what was painful for me to watch, was the reaction of a room full of pastors who obviously found it amusing that bad preaching = feminine thought.
I just checked out Doug Phillips’ Grand European Tour. Five countries in 14 days? Yikes! They’ll be spending half their time breathing bus fumes. I’d love to hear how much he’s charging for his “motor coach” adventure.
For a supposedly Christian tour, he’s planned a surprising lack of church visits in Rome. No Vatican–museum or cathedral. An anti-Catholic bias is showing, perhaps? Their only Roman Basilica is an obscure one built over an intact pagan temple. An odd choice, I’d say.
I’m amused by Doug’s description of this tour as a “Ph.D course in Church history for the family…” Wasn’t it Voddie Baucham who claimed his young daughters earned the equivalent of a Ph.D simply by working alongside him?
What is it with these patrio guys and fake Ph.D’s, anyway? They’d never allow their daughters (and most sons) to set foot in a university for a Bachelors degree, but believe they can deliver Ph.D’s by mere pronouncement?
Reminds me of those little Napoleans who pronounced their children married “by the power vested in me as patriarch”? (I remember them well, too, thatmom.)
Maybe Doug thinks he can charge higher fees for the Grand Tour by promising Dougie Doctorates upon completion of the amazingly long bus ride?
“Or perhaps she didn’t scream because her attacker was choking her or held a knife to her throat.”
Considering how closely guarded Middle Eastern women (especially young girls) were (and still are), that kind of an act would not go unnoticed (and it would count as a physical assault on the part of the man).
In the event that it does go unnoticed, the sex counts as “unwitnessed” and is considered rape.
“If Jesus was going to endorse that portion of the law, wouldn’t he have stoned the adulterous woman? He chose not to do that.”
Jesus DID endorse that law; he agreed with the men’s statement that the adulterous woman should’ve been stoned. What he took issue with was the corruption of the law by the men: stone the woman, but not the man, and appoint yourself judge over her when you yourself are guilty of the same sins. Jesus hates double-standards and hypocrisy.
Jesus did not kill the woman, despite having every right to do so, because he is merciful and forgiving. In this sense, he is the epitome of Jewishness. Jewish culture has always prized mercy and avoided the death penalty, and even looked for ways to execute criminals as humanely as possible. How many ancient societies made any attempt to treat criminals humanely?
Given they also bill this tour as PhD equivalent then maybe calling it “The Gates of Hell” is about right. Anyone who has done a real PhD will tell you it isn’t a holiday.
Hebrews 8:6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
“The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”[c]
13By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
IMO tagging selective family holiday touring as “PhD worthy” is just an example of little steps reconstructionist societal redefining and revisionist thinking.
When will a series of these expensive, edited tours become the new standard for a Vision Forum PhD? Seems like it’s part of the big picture 200 year plan.
Debbie from CA posted, “What is it with these patrio guys and fake Ph.D’s, anyway? They’d never allow their daughters (and most sons) to set foot in a university for a Bachelors degree, but believe they can deliver Ph.D’s by mere pronouncement?”
I have noticed as well that as much as these patrio men deride university education and academics, they sure seem to like the trappings of education, even if they have to make up their degrees. Methinks they doth protest too much!
Good points, Savannah and Anne2. I think these guys are compensating. In reality, many of them are probably intimidated by those with actual degrees.
Their Ph.D-worthy claims are insulting to those who have put in the actual blood and sweat to earn the real deal. I know somebody with no post-high school education who got a Ph.D by mail and now tries to go by “Dr.” The patrios aren’t much different.
Yes, emr, “Gates of Hell” just screams “bring your kids for a rousing good ole time!” to me. (They seem to have a thing for the word “rousing,” so I had to include that.)
I’m sure the children will be enchanted by their visit to the catacombs. Catacombs–but no visits to Rome’s incredible museums and cathedrals. So strange. But am I surprised? Somehow, no.
I tried posting some links yesterday about rape in the Middle East, but they haven’t shown up yet.
I think they are relevant to the points made by What? essentially saying that rapists in the Middle East can’t get close enough to a woman to rape her without her allowing it. That is untrue, and the links I tried to post address both the issue and personal circumstances of real women that prove this is not a fair judgement to make.
Patriarchy is cruel to women, period. The Old Covenant is passed away (fulfilled in Christ) because God found fault with it. There is a new and better way, the New Covenant, where we are to live the “one anothers” (as Karen puts it) by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
The fact that human culture was mired in patriarchy at the time of Moses, and that the Law of Moses gave some very limited relief to women in that culture, does not make patriarchy “of God” or righteous.
In the beginning this was not so, but God made man male and female as equals. Patriarchy is a manifestation of the fall of man- sin nature at it’s ugliest. Might makes right.
Jesus defied the Law of Moses and tradition many times: in allowing the unclean woman to touch him and healing her, in speaking to the woman at the well, in calling the bent over woman up to the front of the synagogue to heal her, in showing mercy to the woman caught in adultery, in allowing women to travel with him and be a part of his ministry team, in letting the woman of ill repute wash his feet with her tears and dry them with her hair, in having angels preach the resurrection to women first, appearing first to a woman and sending women to be the first preachers (witnesses) of the resurrection.
His Words and actions say it all. The Old Covenant is passed away. The New Covenant in His blood is now in effect. Thank you Jesus!
Karen–on GC. Um, what can I say?
1. very wordy, indirect arguments.
2. flawed logic.
She basically said:
Contraceptives make it easy to hide your sin (which is true), therefore, contraceptives are a form of evil.
Couples who are married and use contraceptives deceive those around them by not fully disclosing the health of their marriage (this one seemed like an even bigger leap), therefore contraceptives are a form of evil.
Couples who are infertile have to tell everyone they know because they don’t want people to think that they are using contraceptives when they are really trying to get pregnant, therefore contraceptives are a form of evil.
Parents who use contraceptives make it okay for their kids to use, which is a slippery slope, because their kids will cleverly figure out that contraceptives help you hide sexual sin, therefore contraceptives are a form of evil.
Having children is the best sign of a “healthy” marriage, therefore contraceptives are a form of evil.
The other thing I had a problem with is the author’s (and Kelly’s) belief that somehow this whole “childbearing” business should be like it was in the first century. People were shamed for not having children (because they were infertile). They were considered to be cursed by God. Thank the Lord we know that’s not true! But some people still see this as the “ideal” way. It’s just another way to judge people’s faithfulness or the faithfulness of God toward them. (If that couple can’t get pregnant, there must be some sin that God wants to remove from their lives before he gives them a baby. But shhh. We don’t want her to know we were talking about her.) I think Virginia’s got it right.
I made a rare visit to “the world according to Kelly” and could not have been more disgusted. It squarely reminded me of why I avoid her condescending, know-it-all blog and her revolting sense of entitlement.
If anybody from “church” showed up on our doorstep to question us on why we “only” have three children, my husband would show them the door in short order with clear instructions to never darken it again.
And as someone who dealt with the pain of infertility for a season, it makes me really sad for women who are dealing with that to be judged in this way. “Oh, since you have produced no ‘fruit’, you must be ‘unfaithful’ to God”, forcing them to choose between sharing a private, painful matter or being judged spiritually. What utter, complete, mean-spirited, hateful nonsense.
I keep being reminded of the “other gospel” these people are preaching. I do not consider Kelly’s “ministry” to Christian women anything but misleading and harmful.
Okay, this discussion leads to a question: what do you ladies think about married couples who choose to not have children. Is this a legitimate choice for Christian couples?
Congrats Virginia in maintaining a loving tone to your clear-minded rebuttals.
Some first impressions:
*Posters/author seem to have a lot of boundary/enmeshment issues! I would guess that the churches these woman attend have many cultish traits and are probably not safe places to get involved.
The scriptures about not being a busy-body in other men’s affairs was nowhere in sight.
*I think these people WANT the church to “grade” marriages based on how many children the family is having because they will get As! If they can frame a healthy marriage in those terms, then they don’t have to look at the dysfunciton and unhappiness inherent in their patriarchal system.
In other words, they live for and encourage the praise of men, rather than the praise of God, like the parents of the blind-from-birth man whose parents valued their synagogue reputation above all.
* They seem to believe that living fruitful lives as children of God means being physically fruitful i.e. having lots of kids. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, etc. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world, else my followers would fight.
That is a pretty bad confusion. I grew up hearing Catholics disparages for trying to build the kingdom of God through pro-creation, but good evangelicals know that the kingdom grows when new people hear the gospel and receive the message in faith. Now it seems the shoe is on the other foot.
I am saddened to see more and more people falling for this false gospel. Very, very sad. Too late the mothers will realize they did not choose the best part, and that their efforts as workhorse for the kingdom turned out to be only filthy rags.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having no children, few children or many children. There is everything wrong with bearing children in a misguided effort to be more righteous. There is everything wrong with judging others by this misguided standard.
“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.” Hebrews 13:4
This is the passage of Scripture that keeps coming to mind. I think whenever someone seeks to get into the middle of someone else’s marriage bed, that is, the sexual aspect of the relationship, it violates this verse. Of course, counseling against an abortion or using abortifacients is another thing. And even, in general, talking about some of the dangerous choices for women is not only ok but is wise, especially as a pastor or a counselor or an older woman. (I am thinking of women who are told never to have surgery if they have an ectopic pregnancy.) These are issues of life and death.
BUT, imposing your own convictions about having children, family size, abstaining, etc. onto someone’s else’s marriage is the real sin.
I believe it is true that these people think they are getting Brownie points with God by having many children and it makes them feel better about themselves if they can paint themselves in this light. They do the same thing with all those issues that, once again, cannot be applied to all people in all places and at all times. Don’t these people ever get tired of themselves? I mean, really, graceless rhetoric is exhausting and makes me tired just reading it. I don’t know how they have the energy to continually prop up this paradigm. Where is the resting in Christ and the sufficiency of His grace for all of life?
My sons’ youth pastors are a married couple in their late 40′s who never had any children over the course of their 20-plus year marriage. I don’t know why and would never even remotely consider inquiring, as it is none of my beeswax.
I have often thought, though, that one of the reasons they do such a totally incredible job is because they are able to focus fully on their ministry. They are salt and light to many, many young people over generations. Beyond my husband and I, they have been the largest spiritual influences in our sons’ lives. When our eldest graduated from high school, he spoke very movingly of the people to whom he owed great debts of gratitude, and immediately after he mentioned his father and me, he spoke about G. and L.
On a side note, I do not believe that a couple has to have a “good reason” (such as ministry or whatever) or explain themselves in any way to others regardless of what their childbearing decisions are. I’m sure we can all think of people who for many hosts of reasons should perhaps forgo parenthood. Not everyone, frankly, is cut out for it. Or whatever. The bottom line to me is that this is a highly personal decision, and if the church is as involved in this decision as Kelly and her ilk seem to imply that it should be, perhaps it is time to do an “Am I In A Cult?” checklist/survey.
So if having children is a sign of a healthy marriage, having a dozen must indicate an uber marriage. How does this make sense? I think thatmom is correct that it’s just another way for the patrios to feel superior.
“Look at us! We need a bus to drive our passel about. We’re holier than you because of it!”
Back to the Holy Gates of Hell Grand European Tour… $5000 per person (w/o airfare) is a lot. I’ve planned longer European vacations for half that, staying in nice places.
We do, however, stick to one or two countries per visit, not five. (Still shuddering at the thought.)
The Holy-Hell tour’s added expense must be from all that bus time. Those must be some incredible buses.
I just found it. Official cost of Holy-Hell Tour: $5,700.00 per person. You may have to share a four-person room at their discretion–no discount.
Fee doesn’t include airfare. Other than breakfast and three rousing banquet dinners, you have to pay for all your own meals. You do, however, get some cheese fondue once in Switzerland, something they seem inordinately excited about.
I read the Generation Cedar article and the replies.
Virginia Knowles, you made some excellent points very graciously.
If the topic hadn’t been the evils of BC, I think I would have agreed with one point: the church is not supposed to turn a blind eye to sin, or encourage sin and covering it up. If the church cared more for her members, if we truly loved each other enough to get our hands dirty helping restore the broken, the church would be a place of refuge and healing.
But what that article seemed to be getting at was not exactly the church being loving, protecting and restoring of hurting people, but the church’s right to know about married couples’s sexual life, and how contraception keeps the church from knowing whether a couple are keeping their vows or not.
As Virginia Knowles (I think it was her) pointed out, continuing to have babies could actually be covering up the disastrous state of a marriage! I know one such marriage, where the wife kept having baby after baby, with an alcoholic, substance abusing, wife and children abuser. When she sent him away for a year, the pastor berated her for denying him his marital rights and putting him in the way of sin.
The article also confirms our suspicion that patriocentricity is obsessed with sex. Becoming one flesh is about SO MUCH MORE than sex! (hm… another book for the Botkins to write?)
And Kelly et-al are romanticizing a time where women died in childbirth, children died at birth or shortly after, often because the family was poor and couldn’t pay for health care. A time where girls who got pregnant out of wedlock disappeared, their babies given up for adoption.
It frustrates me how they focus so much on “modesty” for the sake of sexual “purity”. Why not teach their daughters (and sons!) about the value of human beings, how every man and woman is an image bearer of God, and how they are to honor each other as such?
The comment where Kelly (I think) boasts of how she would turn around to her pregnant daughter and tell her “I told you so”, calling it tough love, was very sad. It just misses the point.
Savannah, what a wonderful testimony about your sons’ youth pastors. I love how your eldest honored them (and you!) at his graduation. You’ve shown grace and wisdom in not putting your nose into their childbearing “beeswax,” as you aptly put it.
Sometimes when I meet somebody new I’ll ask if they have children. If they say “no,” I immediately move onto other conversation. Not only are the details not my business, but oftentimes the answer is deeply painful and personal.
Eventually, my new friend may volunteer information about a genetic disease or an absence of reproductive organs that prevent conception. I listen and empathize.
In my experience, most couples want children. Those that don’t, well, usually they’re upfront and pretty vocal about the subject. No need to ask.
shadowspring said:
” The Old Covenant is passed away (fulfilled in Christ) because God found fault with it.”
I would have to disagree with you on the phrase “because God found fault with it.” If God was the One who created the Law, how could there be any fault in it? Rather, I think it’s because *we could not live up to it*, that He did away with it. The Law requires perfection, which we as humans can never attain (this side of heaven *wink*). We couldn’t live up to His standards, so in His mercy He gave us a different way. Make sense? I’m not trying to say you were wrong; perhaps I misunderstood your wording. I just couldn’t let it go unnoticed, though, since it’s something I’ve been thinking about recently.
And secondly: they must be crazy thinking parents will want to bring the kiddos on that tour. Just think-they tell people they should have as many kids as possible, and now they want you to shell out 5 grand for each of them on that tour? They must think they have some seriously wealthy followers!
“If the topic hadn’t been the evils of BC, I think I would have agreed with one point: the church is not supposed to turn a blind eye to sin, or encourage sin and covering it up. If the church cared more for her members, if we truly loved each other enough to get our hands dirty helping restore the broken, the church would be a place of refuge and healing.”
If you mean the church (large group of people meeting together once a week or more) needs to get involved in struggling marriages, I strongly disagree.
If you mean, as I think Virginia pointed out on the GC blog, that a very few close Christian friends or perhaps a pastor be invited to pray, care and counsel a couple in a struggling marriage, I agree.
Several things came to mind as I forced myself to finish reading the contraception article over at Generation Cedar.
a. Subject seems a bit undignified and unhealthily fixated for folk who generally pride themselves as doyennes of gentility.
b. How many people are in a marriage?
c. Boundaries anyone? Busybodies?
1 Peter 4:15
d. Prooftexting s.v.p.
I think this kind of church, of which I’ve been a part, does more damage than good. The focus turns inward individually and corporately and the group resembles more that of an ingrown festering hair than a soothing healing outpouring balm. We are so busy staring at our bellybuttons, chasing our own and others’ sins, real or imagined, that we forget about the lost.
Shadowspring,
I mean the church as the Body of Christ.
Not every part of the body has to know about every other part of the body, but nobody in the body should be struggling alone.
Sin usually affects other members too, as the author of the article pointed out. For example, the children of a struggling married couple are going to be suffering. Should the church “mind it’s own business” and let them suffer, or should they care enough to reach in and help?
Of course, you will need wise people helping the hurting couple and their children, not people who will talk with everyone else about how deeply troubled the family is.
As I said, I don’t agree with meddling, making public announcements from the pulpit when the issue is not one that concerns everyone. Love should be the drive, not nosiness.
Post #173 is a direct quote from the Bible (NIV). Past #180 is entirely based on it.
For further commentary from the Apostle Paul about the value of keeping the law, see the book of Galatians.
For a clearer picture of the value Paul placed on studying the Law, knowing the Law, zealously keeping the Law and demanding others uphold the Law, see the book of Philippians chapter 3:
3For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4though I myself have reasons for such confidence.
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
7But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
The word translated “rubbish” in the NIV is actually the word for excrement. Paul was not putting it delicately.
I quote I found in my devotional today (about marriage):
“Esther trembled in the presence of Ahasuerus, but the spouse in joyful liberty of perfect love knows no fear.” Charles Spurgeon
I just thought that was a beautiful quote, not just about our relationship with Christ, but what a marriage should look like, too. And it’s not at all what I’m seeing when I see the young girls being pushed into “marriages” (if you can call an arranged living situation without legal paperwork “marriage”).
Anne 2 posted, “Several things came to mind as I forced myself to finish reading the contraception article over at Generation Cedar.
a. Subject seems a bit undignified and unhealthily fixated for folk who generally pride themselves as doyennes of gentility.
b. How many people are in a marriage?
c. Boundaries anyone? Busybodies?
1 Peter 4:15
d. Prooftexting s.v.p.
I think this kind of church, of which I’ve been a part, does more damage than good. The focus turns inward individually and corporately and the group resembles more that of an ingrown festering hair than a soothing healing outpouring balm. We are so busy staring at our bellybuttons, chasing our own and others’ sins, real or imagined, that we forget about the lost.”
Couldn’t agree more! I have always been struck by the fascination these people exhibit about other people’s private sex lives. It’s very unseemly, in my view.
On your letter c, any authority on cults will confirm that healthy boundaries are the first thing to go in a cult/cult-like setting.
As far as the church sticking its nose in, let’s remember that the only “sin” (as I remember, and I can’t force myself to read such drivel again) that was the real topic of article on Kelly’s site was the “sin” of married couples being “unfaithful” to God by making the choice to not pop out baby after endless baby. I personally do not believe there is any place for the church in this discussion/decision of a married couple. It is not widely accepted among all Christians that birth control is sin (I do not accept that and most Christian couples, including most Catholics, I know have limited their family to 2-4 children, give or take, so obviously this is not a widely-accepted “doctrine”).
This is not to say that there is not a place for the church/church leadership to address sin in the lives of its members. Clearly, the NT speaks to this and how it should be approached.
The focus turns inward individually and corporately and the group resembles more that of an ingrown festering hair than a soothing healing outpouring balm. We are so busy staring at our bellybuttons, chasing our own and others’ sins, real or imagined, that we forget about the lost.
Anne2,
You are right that a church which is always focusing on the sin of her members is like an ingrowing, festering hair. Great image!
On the other hand, there are churches that are so focused on reaching the lost that they let their members deal with their weaknesses alone, expecting a degree of maturity way above the on they have reached. I was part of two such churches. It was just expected that you’d be out evangelizing, welcoming the lost in your home, etc… It’s taken some time to heal from the pressure to do things that were “uncomfortable”. Besides, both those churches failed to grow. One shrunk significantly and the other disintegrated.
Karen, one of my comments is still in moderation for some reason. I posted it right after the video link. It doesn’t have a link, and I can still see it (since I posted it). Let me know if you need me to resubmit.
I am curious about how they view autism, too, Annie C. I watched a special program on autism and autism research last night on television (I think it was Autism Awareness Day (could have been Week or Month), and it made me wonder if the patrios/Pearls/Ezzos and that ilk believe these kids are just misbehaving. . .
Oh, that is too sad to contemplate, Annie C. and Savannah.
I know the Ezzos teach that being shy is a sin and merits public shaming , i.e. telling the adults around that ‘we’re working on it’, and private spanking when you get home.
My daughter was shy and everything I read said that shyness/introversion is a genetically inherited trait. How sad that these parents are trying to train biology out of their children instead of loving them for who they were born to be.
Shadowspring, I know what you mean about the whole “we’re working on it” thing. I remember being very timid as a child, and though my mom and dad would encourage me to speak, I was never punished for being shy. That was just how it was. It’s the same with my daughter. I’m pretty frank with people, because sometimes, she’s shy, and other times, she just doesn’t like certain people. I will usually say “oh, she’s just shy around new people.”
Oddly, though, and I think most people miss this, being shy is not the same as being introverted, in reality. My daughter, once comfortable in a setting, is outgoing and makes friends very easily, even with adults. But *I* was very introverted, and to a large degree, I still am. I’ve gotten more bold as I’ve gotten older, and I’m not afraid to talk to new people, but again, I think shyness in children isn’t something to be punished, it’s just something most people have to grow out of. Encouraging kids to talk to new people when mom and dad are around, and not shaming them publicly because they are nervous, is really the best way to go.
On the autism thing, I think that there’s a real lack of understanding from *most* people who aren’t around it often, and yes, I think it’s quite possible that most people think children with autism are just misbehaving or being rude, but I also don’t think that is exclusive of certain patrios or any one group, because we adults have not all figured out how to talk to children in the first place! I remember a child in one of my classrooms that we were all sure had some form of Ausperger’s, but his parents had not told us anything, just from the way he acted at certain times. Knowing that there might be something there, when he acted a certain way, we didn’t punish him for acting out, but tried to calm him down, etc. We would have done the same with any other child, too, not because of any suspected disorder, but because what children usually need is help calming themselves, not more reason to get worked up.
“My daughter was shy and everything I read said that shyness/introversion is a genetically inherited trait. How sad that these parents are trying to train biology out of their children instead of loving them for who they were born to be.”
Interesting. My first “papoose” was born with this quiet personality. (I called Kristian and Charlotte “papoose” because they looked like little indians compared to all the other blue eyed toe-heads!)
I had to stand on my head to make her smile, and when she did, it gone as quick as it came.
Today, Kris is eighteen, with an imagination bursting with stories to write. But she’s still quiet. I love her personality! I wouldn’t have her any other way. (I often think Charlotte would have been like her.)
She quietly observes everything, but you can see how she is enjoying herself by her broad smiles.
I told her, “You can’t use any of my material for your books because I’m too ridiculous!” lol.
Are any of you familiar with anyone who is a licensed counsellor who has experience working with patriarchal issues? I am looking for a counsellor for myself, and potentially someone who might be able to provide counselling to my parents as well. I have found that a lot of counsellors aren’t really familiar with the issues in patriarchal families and it’s hard to get them up to speed. I’m looking for someone in Illinois, though the surrounding states would be possibilities as well.
I have read that Jeff Van Vonderan has done some really useful things regarding spiritual abuse. I don’t know that he is specific to patrio stuff, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he or his colleagues are familiar with it.
That is truly disgusting that they all themselves “great authors”. Shameless braggarts bent on self-promotion, that’s what that is.
It is an insult to all the truly great authors out there” William Shakespeare, Voltaire, Homer, etc. and even the niche Christian greats like C. S. Lewis, Bonhoeffer, Augustine, etc.
I hope no new and poorly educated home schoolers fall for their advert.
I might have just starting out. Due to my personal public school experience, I did not know much about “great authors”. In my quest to become better educated in order to better teach my students, I had to rely a lot on other people’s recommendations in the beginning.
Oh, Lord, expose these blowhards publicly in front of all those currently impressed by their slick advertising and elitist appeal! Show their fruit for what it truly is; put it on display as openly as this ad is on display. May your name and your name only, Jesus, be magnified in the home of those calling themselves “Christian” home schoolers. Amen.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with celebrating life, but I do think the conference is a little self congratulatory. I can think of many other mothers who are just as deserving of the “mother of the year” award, and having lots of children isn’t the only way to be a champion in the fight for life. It’s like they’re pretty much saying that the best way to “prove” that you care about children and babies is to have lots and lots of them, and anyone who doesn’t do that must not care as much about children. Is it a thoughtfully given award, or is it a political move? I just think the Duggars are once again being used as the “Poster Family” for this sort of thinking, and it certainly doesn’t make me feel any better when I see this right after that post on Generation Cedar.
I’ve been wondering how a man concludes that the creative order shows that woman is “under” man because she came out of man?
I’ve birthed 13 babies, and I am as concerned about my duty to them as any responsible parent. But just because they came out of me does not obligate them to submit to *me* in particular when they reach adulthood. :confused:
So I was thinking, if that is not true in the most natural sense, how can the point be made in the broader sense of creative order?
I started wondering when the forum patrio suggested his parental authority extended into his children’s adulthood. Why can’t they tolerate maturity and autonomy in others?
Okay, I mean this in all seriousness with absolutely no vitriolic sarcasm, but…
Is it just me, or is Doug Phillips looking creepier and creepier??
I’m serious. There is just something about him that just crawls under my skin and sends shivers down my spine. Perhaps it’s because I’ve seen the depths of evil he has been an instrument of (in fairness, I know he believes he is doing God’s work, but evil masquerades as light, after all… even to him. His best intentions are being used against him).
“One reason men lack vision is because they lack poetry in their lives. Men no longer sing or recite inspirational verse. Our boys are no longer required to memorize the great psalms, hymns, and poems of Christian manhood. Poems for Patriarchs seeks to resurrect manly poetry through timeless poems designed to address the various biblical roles, relationships, and seasons in a man’s life — from early boyhood to his twilight years.”
From the Great Authors info
Even poetry has gender now? Who knew?
I saw a post on Scott Brown’s “Marriage Blog” recently in which he too touted the benefits of inspiring poetry. He cited an example when his wife met him at the door when he arrived home from work and started reading poems to him, to inspire him. I am happy that works for them, but I can tell you that if I met my husband at the door after a difficult workday and started reading poetry, he would not be inspired.
“I am happy that works for them, but I can tell you that if I met my husband at the door after a difficult workday and started reading poetry, he would not be inspired.”
*snort* (I really did snort when I read that )
I can’t even imagine doing that to my husband. I’m having giggle fits just thinking about it.
For those who may have followed the blog of the “Internet Monk” (Michael Spencer), he passed away on Monday. I am just very sad, as he inspired me and many others to hang on through serious doubts. I will miss him very much.
What on earth is R.C. Sproul, Jr. doing leading a course called “Bibilical Economics”? This is the same guy who got de-frocked by his denomination for stealing another congregation’s tax identification.
What is R.C. Sproul, Jr. doing teaching ANYTHING for that matter?
Alisa, interesting about your reaction to Doug Phillips. I can see how you feel that way knowing what we know about him, and I agree with you there. Oddly enough, I find him fairly charming and attractive on screen. He is quite well-spoken, and the soaring music inspires, darn it. This all just makes Dougie more dangerous, in my opinion. An attractive little package like Doug P. can influence those who don’t know any better.
emr, you cracked me up about Scott Brown’s wife greeting him with poetry. My husband would think I’d lost it entirely were I to answer the door reciting verse. (He’d also think I’d lost it if I greeted him wearing cellophane–if you remember that old suggestion–but at least he’d find that fun.
Ditto on the idea of reading inspiring poems at the door after my hubby’s long, tough workday. I would get a look that probably wouldn’t be appreciation. It might be tempered by a good backrub, but that’s the only way it would be well received at that time.
I think the patrios are going to be doing more webinars–they seem to have been profitable for the Botkins. Makes sense financially and pragmatically for large families to listen in weekly around the PC, rather than pay for the whole kit and kaboodle to travel to a conference, including meals and lodging.
Plus Doug, RC Jr., and Kevin don’t even have to put on their vests and bowties for an audio webinar–they can sit around the mike in their “wifebeaters”* and slippers, puffing on their stogies between pontifications.
*slang for item of men’s clothing–no insinuations of domestic abuse are intended
Jeanette,
A good counselor for those coming out of patriarchy, who truly does understand (because she lived in the Gothard-type camp for years) is Sandra Harrison. She will do distance counseling, and she is VERY good…Very wise, very insightful, and a great listener….and well-trained (MA in Marriage and Family Therapy, w/ lots of diverse experience).
Phone is (865) 206-3185 and she’s in the Eastern Time Zone. She does have a new website, but I can’t remember what it is. Sorry about that.
I watched the show once, and it made me feel almost physically ill. A little girl was in pure terror as she waited to have her wisdom teeth pulled, sobbing as the cameras zoomed into her face.
Her father was sitting beside her, and did nothing to protect her or her dignity.
It seems symbolic of the movement in some ways. It’s ostensibly about protecting women/protecting daughters, but it seems like much of the time, it’s the weakest who get damaged in protection of the paradigm. I’m sure the father feels like he’s doing this for the greater good, but I can’t imagine the pain for the little girl that could come out of having the whole world see her humiliation and tears. And this was only one moment of thousands that have been filmed for public viewing. What about allowing cameras and camera people into a NICU unit, as I have heard happened (correct me if I’m wrong)? What about the potential physical risks to the smallest one taken to maintain the image?
It feels to me that just like many in the quiverfull movement, the welfare of the children and women are less important than the image/the product/the lifestyle/”the vision” that’s being marketed.
Concerned, I have friends who are parents of preemie twins, and this was right around the beginning of the H1N1 “epidemic.” Had we made it to see the babies in the first two weeks, we would have been allowed to see them. But around Sept. 1, Maternity units and particularly NICUs were locked down. No one but adults in Maternity, and no one but the parents in the NICU. To have a hospital make “exceptions” for this family (if that’s what happened) is despicable. I don’t care if they are doing a tv show, there are other babies in that unit who are just as important, and their safety is important, too.
But I don’t know their hospital’s policy, and we dumped our cable at the beginning of the year, so I haven’t been able to watch the Duggars’ life unfold.
Ladies, I don’t know if this is the right place to put this, but I need to bounce something off of you wise, homeschooling moms. I just moved and today I visited a Christian homeschool co-op that I was told about. Even though my “authoritarianism antenna” were in place, it seemed all right. Nice, actually. The ladies teaching my daughters’ classes were great, the leader was awesome and very helpful in showing me around, and nobody was wearing denim jumpers. They all looked like me…pretty normal.
But then I got home and read the handbook and membership requirements and my mind has been shooting red flags. I don’t know if I’m just being ultra-sensitive to what I consider abnormally controlling or if these sort of “requirements” are normal in most HS co-ops. So I was hoping I could put a few of the requirements up here and you wise people can tell me if I’m freaking out for no reason or if there really is something fishy going on here.
Under “Membership Requirements”, here’s what’s bothering me:
“Parents must have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, profess Christian faith, agree with our statement of faith, and agree to uphold [name of group] in prayer.
“Co-op participants are expected to attend church regularly/weekly.”
Maybe it’s just me, but I fail to see why this matters in the context of a HS co-op. However, I DO understand if they’re trying to build an exclusively conservative christian group. Just not sure that’s what I want in a co-op.
“We are a covenant community. We enter into a covenant (a binding agreement) to maintain our group’s faith, integrity, and discipline.”
Sounds a little scary to me, but maybe I’m just commitment-phobic.
The dress code really got me (probably a reaction to my past):
“Generally try to cover up and avoid being extreme in dress, hair, or jewelry. Our goal is to draw attention to the Lord.
1. Clean, appropriate and modest dress is required at all times.
2. No low necklines
3. Shirts must cover the stomach completely (even when raising hands)
4. No short shorts please. Walking shorts permitted
5. Shoes are required at all times
6. No shirts with writing. Many or our studenst/teachers will have an opportunity to be in front of an audience and any writing can create a listening distraction. (???)”
Then they have an Etiquette Code and an Honor code, mostly which state that everyone is be perfect models of behavior, quiet, clean, and honoring to those in authority. Something about it just seems…off to me.
Is this normal for homeschool co-ops? I’ve never done this as a mom before, only as a student so I have no idea. Perhaps I am suspicious for no reason???
Darcy, this is actually pretty standard stuff for home school co-ops. The only thing that was unusual was the rule against writing on T-shirts — I never saw a problem with this sort of thing, and it seems picky. Also, the thing about weekly attendance would seem a little controlling; I would prefer to see regular attendance, because there are extenuating circumstances (work schedules, etc.) that would hinder weekly. Other than that, those are the kinds of things I would appreciate seeing in a co-op agreement. And trust me, my antenna are currently on ULTRA-mega-high alert about the authoritarian issues.
If that’s not what you want in a co-op, then move on, like you said. At any rate, try talking to the leaders about how serious they are about enforcing this, and also get a feel for the general atmosphere over a longer period of time if you’re still interested.
I don’t post here very often, but I read here everyday. Also, I’m not a homeschooling mom. However, I have been a homeschooling student, and have attended private (Christian) and also public schools, so take the following for what it’s worth:
It is not the norm for the co-ops that are home school co-ops, but it is the norm for Christian only co-ops.
My son belongs to a speech club that has no rules relating to religion. The religious folk started their own club, so they wouldn’t have to rub shoulders with the unclean.
I wouldn’t join such a group unless there were absolutely no other groups around that could meet my need and no other way (like the internet) to get it done.
Let’s say your children go, make friends, and then word gets around that your family just doesn’t measure up in some way. Will the later shunning be worth the initial welcome? Something to think about.
Darcy, the “covenant community” admonition raises the greatest concern for me. What exactly does that mean in a group setting? Seems like they could interpret that pretty widely according to their whims.
Shadowspring, your “rubbing shoulders with the unclean” comment made me laugh, mostly because I noticed an obession with cleanliness in the holy rules. The clean vs. the unclean.
I wonder how many of these moms run around with their arms raised above their heads, checking themselves in the mirror as they do home test runs to make sure their shirts don’t sneak up. Wouldn’t want any unclean glimpses of tummy flesh out there.
Formerpatrio – thanks for the nice words. My new website is skfcounseling.com. I’m still working with women coming out of patriocentricity as well as doing even more work with abused women and children along with my general practice. God is good and I’m still enjoying my calling.
I have some thoughts about co-ops based on what I have seen as an outsider, since we have never been part of one. I have taught speech classes at two co-ops and am currently teaching a speech class for a local group of homeschoolers but it really isn’t a co-op. But I have heard plenty and observed much as well.
Each one seems to take on a life of its own and eventually many of them tend to replace the actual “home” aspect of homeschooling. One mom I knew told me about the co-op she had been involved with that was so academically intense that it took one day each week (at least) for her children to prepare for the one day of co-op each week. The co-op agenda ruled and if she wanted to take advantage of some interesting opportunity that came along (one of the benefits of homeschooling in the first place) she would always feel that she couldn’t because she had made a commitment to the co-op and her children needed to be prepared etc.
There was also a sense of competition in that co-op that was apparent between those who had children with learning disabilities and those who had children they felt were “exceptional” or “gifted.” It was even worse than in public schools because the moms were the teachers and the pressure was more intense. It also caused some students to compare their own homeschooling experiences with others and I know of much discontent that was caused when one family of children planted seeds of doubt with their friends, telling them that they weren’t prepared enough for college and their the mom wasn’t educated enough, etc. I would steer clear of that sort of co-op. They seem to take much of the natural, organic ways of learning that are the benchmark of good homeschooling and replace them with public school formulas. It makes no sense to me.
Other co-ops I have seen functioned more as a resource for enrichment, giving children opportunities to learn things that were more easily learned in a group setting, like speech for example. There isn’t the same type of pressure to perform or the comparison of families, children, etc. when there are more hands-on opportunities. Also, when a mom has a certain specialty to share, like a craft skill or speaking Spanish, etc, there can be good opportunities for a co-op group without the problems that can pop up in more academically minded ones.
To me, the real danger in the co-op model is not the list of rules about dress or etiquette etc. Even in the best of situations, those will all be subjective and our kids will eventually learn anyway that all places of employment or the military or colleges have their own rules for these sorts of things.
I would be more interested in knowing how theological differences are approached. I would want to know if, for example, the group considers Mormons to be Christians. (Some groups do and I certainly would feel uncomfortable having my children taught by Mormons.) What do you do when one teacher approaches the material from a sovereign grace perspective and another one from a free-will perspective? How do they approach the issue of the Civil War or the role of women’s suffrage? One co-op I know had all the children put on black face for a presentation at the end of their study of the Civil War. Seriously, if I had been there…..
Using the word “covenant” is also a warning signal to me. While I am “reformed” in that I hold to the doctrines of grace, I am very leery when I hear that phrase tossed about because it can be a code word for all sorts of patriocentric/ecclesiocentric teachings. I am not sure what they mean by that (if they even know themselves) and don’t know how they determine this. Are you asked to make vows to this group? Do they see themselves as their own ”church” in some ways? I know some patriocentric leaders have taught that para-church groups are supposed to function as a group and can exert church discipline in the same way. Wanting you to commit to a certain number or church services is weird to me, too.
I also think the big question you need to ask is if the time you spend in a co-op (preparing, participating, driving back and forth, etc.) is the best use of YOUR time for YOUR children. If you feel like they are missing something by not being in a co-op, would they really miss more by doing those activities with other children and their moms than by doing them with their siblings and you?
This whole thing is part of one thing I have been wanting to blog about for a long time…how homeschooling has gone from the lovely, simple way of learning to a “movement” that includes all sorts of things that aren’t really homeschooling at all but moms feel a pressure to do.
I am certainly not saying all co-ops are bad for all people, but sharing what I think about the direction this all has gone/is going.
One more thought…one of the reasons we homeschool is because we want to inculcate a Biblical worldview into our family’s life. We don’t see the place of educating them to also be a place of evangelism per se. Not to mean that our home isn’t for that purpose but that those who are teaching them are to be seen as a mission field. So a co-op for the purpose of reaching out to those who aren’t saved was never an option for us. We were in a homeschooling support group once who wanted to provide teaching opportunities for the children and the first thing that happened was that one of the mothers wanted to not call the group “Christian” so as not to offend those who weren’t. I think there is room for all sorts of homeschooling groups and if a group desires to call themselves “Christian” then there should never be expectations that it must be inclusive to reach out to the lost.
Don’t you think this “inspiring poetry” business is just more role playing?
I had to chuckle at the “webinar” with “great authors.” Why not take that money and invest it in some really great books written by truly great authors?
I once bought an entire set of the Great Books at a garage sale for $10.00.
“What do you do when one teacher approaches the material from a sovereign grace perspective and another one from a free-will perspective?”
Karen, seriously? Christians who believe in free will can’t learn beside or teach academics with Calvinists? You wouldn’t let your child learn Spanish from a Mormon? Seriously?
Wow.
If people in your world have to all believe the same things you do in order to be part of your world, that says to me that you feel that your beliefs won’t stand up to honest questioning or scrutiny.
If your children are not drawn to your faith because the Holy Spirit has convinced them that it is truth, then they won’t hold to your beliefs forever, only as long as you control their environment.
I know the power of God and the truth of God’s Word, and I know He is able to keep His lambs close to his heart. I believe that his sheep know His voice, and the voice of a stranger they will not follow.
I am not afraid of Mormons, Armenians, Calvinists or atheists. An atheist can teach my children math, even science, and I am not the least bit concerned that they will turn my children’s hearts away from God.
After all, for the one or two hours they listened to a person with different beliefs than mine, they have spend fourteen waking hours with me. No contest there, if that much time with a committed believer isn’t enough, their faith isn’t real faith, but only an outwardly enforced belief system.
While I wouldn’t want a Mormon to teach my children religion (or any one else in a co-op, for that matter) I would have NO PROBLEM with a gifted math teacher teaching them math, or history, or literature or anything else.
Isolationists confuse me. How much sheltering do your children need? Many kids go to public school every day and follow Jesus. If all the extra time they spent being discipled by you has not been enough to firmly establish their faith, if all the way to adulthood you keep them from ever hearing anyone else’s point of view, they are not ready to follow Jesus out in the big wide world.
My God is able to keep his sheep without micromanaging on my part. Sounds to me like isolationists don’t trust Him that much.
You shared your opinion, now I have shared mine. It’s obvious we disagree on this issue. To me, your logic is the same as that used by the patrios. The patrios have just run a little longer and a lot harder with it.
Shadowspring, every single person has a worldview that is expressed in how they teach, how they live. I don’t think it is fair to label someone an “isolationist” because they seek to learn all the disciplines from a Biblical worldview perspective. I would not want my children to be taught subjects by teachers who don’t share our faith in Jesus Christ as the only way to God. That doesn’t mean they don’t know about and learn about opposing views. But those views are taught from the perspective that the Bible is the word of God and is the standard for all truth. John warned the Christian mother in 2 John that discerning truth is crucial to remaining in the faith.
Sadly, in the post Christian culture we now live in, truth is fluffy and nebulous, even within the church. I would steer clear of Mormons as I would of patriocentrists or any other group like them because they teach a works salvation. Grace is absent in word and in deed. I would not even put myself under that sort of teaching. Look at all the testimonies women have shared here about the influence they were so easily swept under in these patriocentric teachings. Look how lovely and enticing it looked to so many of us. Look at the damage to families. Would you honestly want your daughter to study Spanish or any other subject with a patriocentrist? By their own admission, they seek to influence ALL areas of life, not just “religion.”
The point I was trying to make in the previous post is that when you get a group of Christians together who form a co-op, there are certain “Christian” expectations. Some people think you MUST be a Calvinist to be saved. Some people think you “MUST” speak in tongues to be saved. Some people think you “MUST” have your children baptized to be saved. ETC. ETC. ETC. So if you choose to participate in a Christian co-op, you need to be prepared to know what the expectations are and how differences are addressed. Is there a statement of faith that allows for those differences, for example? If not, you could be headed for some real problems. And theology isn’t just for a religion class. For genuine believers who hold to a Biblical worldview, it most certainly will permeate ALL areas of life. There is no neutral, benign area of life for a Christian.
“And theology isn’t just for a religion class. For genuine believers who hold to a Biblical worldview, it most certainly will permeate ALL areas of life. There is no neutral, benign area of life for a Christian.”
Well, it doesn’t permeate our Pre-Algebra book!
And there’s little to no mention of religion in our Spanish IV, though using Bob Jones University Spanish III last year we got enough of it to last a lifetime!
(I did not find it presented a balanced picture of life in Latin America at all. We had to do a lot of supplementing to make that course practical.
Even though our chemistry text is written by a Christian, it’s all about- you guessed it- chemistry! No little nuggets of religion slipped in, just plain science. (Beginning Publishing House Spectrum Chemistry for interested readers.)
And there’s not a hint of it in our history textbook either. Any religious interpretation comes from our conversations as we discuss history together.
We use regular textbooks and sometimes internet classes from state colleges. Evolution is presented as fact in a public/secular science book, it IS a fact that most scientists find the evidence for evolution compelling. I don’t have to hide that fact from my children, we experience it and talk it about head on.
Long and short of it, I still disagree. Yours and Virginia’s stated methods of home school do fit my definition of isolationist. An isolationist in my book is any one who deliberately weeds out people from their children’s lives: those who have different ideas, doctrines, cultures, beliefs.
There are more extreme isolationist of course. Some isolationists carry on longer than others (patrios keeping their adult children under their thumb). Some isolationists have a more narrow list of who they will allow in their world. They could exclude girls who wear pants or people of a different race, something I know you would allow. But to me, the philosophy behind the excluding is still the same.
That’s me, though, not you.
Doesn’t mean we aren’t still sisters in Christ though! I can happily keep company with people who don’t agree with me. =)
“And there’s not a hint of it in our history textbook either. Any religious interpretation comes from our conversations as we discuss history together.”
I don’t think I even mentioned textbooks, but rather, instructors. And you just made my point.
“An isolationist in my book is any one who deliberately weeds out people from their children’s lives: those who have different ideas, doctrines, cultures, beliefs. ”
Come on, Shadowspring, you can’t tell me you don’t ever do this ever. Seriously? We aren’t talking here about having a son mow the grass for the Muslim doctor (ours did this) or chat with the pro-abortion woman in our neighborhood (we do that, too) or share cookies with the atheist. Hiding from those people would make someone an isolationist. But being careful where you place yourself or others for instruction and mentoring is a different thing. You have never done that?
Shadowspring, I’ll gladly keep company with you here! We are in a co-op that is explicitly Christian and evangelical, and that’s the way I like it. I wouldn’t have a problem with a non-Christian teaching my child math, but science and history are another story. I personally teach English from a distinctly Christian point of view, not bashing other perspectives, but explaining the difference. We’ve been doing a series on world religions lately that’s been quite interesting, and we’re observing Holocaust Remembrance Day this Monday.
In fact, if I’m going to take a pot shot about anyone during my class, it’s going to be hyper Christians who are making idiots about themselves in the name of God — like Michael Pearl, or the street evangelists screaming about filthy wicked Sodomites, or the obnoxious teenager who posts a YouTube video of her trying to convert a Hindu friend (but in which she herself acts like a completely bigoted jerk). Yeah, my students have heard about all of them lately.
I’m trying to speak God’s heart of truth and compassion. I think that’s a huge difference from what they would get in a public school classroom. But I wouldn’t call it isolationist.
Plus, keep in mind that one of my daughters is in co-op one day a week and on the college campus two days a week — and that is anything but sheltered. We’re actually pulling out of our co-op Shadowspring, I’ll gladly keep company with you here! We are in a co-op that is explicitly Christian and evangelical, and that’s the way I like it. I wouldn’t have a problem with a non-Christian teaching my child math, but science and history are another story. I personally teach English from a distinctly Christian point of view, not bashing other perspectives, but explaining the difference. We’ve been doing a series on world religions lately that’s been quite interesting, and we’re observing Holocaust Remembrance Day this Monday. In fact, if I’m going to take a pot shot about anyone during my class, it’s going to be hyper Christians who are making idiots about themselves in the name of God — like Michael Pearl, or the street evangelists screaming about filthy wicked Sodomites, or the obnoxious teenager who posts a YouTube video of her trying to convert a Hindu friend (but in which she herself acts like a completely bigoted jerk). Yeah, my students have heard about all of them lately.
I’m trying to speak God’s heart of truth and compassion. I think that’s a huge difference from what they would get in a public school classroom. But I wouldn’t call it isolationist. Plus, keep in mind that one of my daughters is in co-op one day a week and on the college campus two days a week — and that is anything but sheltered.
We’re actually pulling out of our co-op this next year anyway. I think I can do better at home. More books, less paperwork. Sort of like what Karen was saying about getting away from what home schooling was really all about in the first place.
Glad to keep company with you too. And glad to hear that your students are on college campuses. And that they are engaging their world on the internet as well as in person. There is so much to learn!
One of my close friends was a public school teacher who grew up in the Bronx surrounded by Holocaust survivors. She used to invite one of her former neighbors to come and speak to her class on Holocaust Remembrance Day.
I don’t have to go far at all to discover many other faiths. We have a Hindu family next door, two Jewish neighbors, two Catholic neighbors, a couple of evangelical neighbors and some with no religion at all.
My new next door neighbors are Sikhs. When they moved in with those ceremonial drums blaring and all the men wearing turbans, I knew they were different from my other Indian neighbors. Sure enough, they are- very different! I took them a welcome gift of tangerines in a cute basket with a nice card, and they left a card and a potted tulip at my house a few days later. I haven’t met them face to face yet though.
Karen you wrote “But being careful where you place yourself or others for instruction and mentoring is a different thing. You have never done that?”
I do not consider learning about one area of skill or knowledge to be the same as mentoring. Nowhere close.
And yes, I have learned Creative Writing from an atheist, Moroccan cooking from a Muslim, and how to make Rhoti and about Indian culture from a Hindu. We learned about Brazil by having Brazilians live with us, neither of whom were particularly religious. Our Japanese students were agnostic. Our Turkish student was non-practicing Muslim. We learned about belly dancing and Turkish cooking and history from her.
My daughter’s Japanese instructor of two years was a typical Japanese. She had a shrine to her deceased relatives and traveled to Japan on the anniversary of the mother’s death every year for some sort of ceremony.
My daughter loved her, shared the love of Jesus every week and the gospel as often as conversation allowed. (Unfortunately, her in-laws were isolationist Baptist who did not want her as a daughter-in-law, so Mariko was pretty closed to the gospel because of them.) She prayed for Mariko regularly. My daughter was in no danger of losing her faith.
I mentor my children. The music director and the Sunday school teachers mentor my children. The many, many hours of living, instruction and prayer I spent with my children are/were enough.
After all, I went to twelve years plus some college of public school, and Jesus was faithful to me. My faith was genuine and stood the test of time and exposure to this big wide world. Jesus will be faithful to my children, and I believe their faith is genuine and will also remain.
The traditional definition of “grace” in these terms is “unmerited favor” which means that we have nothing of any particular value that we bring to the table that causes God to save us from our sins. His gift of salvation is just that, an undeserved gift.
Ephesians 2:8-10: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” The grace of God means that everything we have is given to us by His gracious hand.
What I have noticed is that often those who claim this grace as their own as Christians and who teach i in doctrine, will turn around and be loathe to extend that same grace to others, either in what they say to them or how they treat them. There are lists and regulations and rules that ago beyond the standards established for us in the Word of God. And those things become works-salvation, a check list for determining whether or not someone is a Christian.
“Would you honestly want your daughter to study Spanish or any other subject with a patriocentrist? By their own admission, they seek to influence ALL areas of life, not just “religion.” ”
Oops, missed this. If that patrio had some useful skill to teach (not history for their revisionist history is the equal of any secular revisionist history) like math, chemistry, automotive repair, then I would.
But let’s be real, they would never let us in their group. We’re Lutherans!
Here’s a copy of my son’s speech club rules:
I agree to the following:
1. I will be on time and prepared for meetings. I will notify the Toastmaster if I am sick or plan to be absent.
2. I will give the Counselor a list of vacation days when I will not be available. (Note: Gavel Club will run from September – Mid May).
3. I will respect each speaker by being quiet and attentive while he/she has the floor.
4. I will accord the same respect to all of my fellow Gavaliers and any guests.
5. I will help out where necessary – moving tables, setting up and putting the room back into the condition it was before the meeting.
6. I will not bring food or drink to the meeting.
7. I will silence my cell phone for the duration of the Gavel Club meeting (usually one hour).
8. I will not chew gum during the meeting.
That’s all they have to agree to at our club. I think it is a junior toastmaster’s type thing. There is a set of workbooks the teens have to work through about giving different types of speeches, and there are very specific roles assigned. Plus the emcee is called the Toastmaster. That’s the biggest clue.
It is a good mix of kids: evangelicals of different stripes, Catholic, Jewish, agnostic, atheist. It’s for one hour a week. My son is really loving it.
Thinking back to my personal public school experience, I can recall the atmosphere being very eclectic, in the sense that we had teachers who had a lot of varying beliefs and faiths. I don’t recall anyone being Muslim or Mormon, but I’m sure that most were either non-Christian or some varying degree or denom. of Christian. I knew that several were church-goers, as they went to my own church, and others were involved in our outside parachurch activities (like the afterschool Christian group that met in the science lab–our Bio. teacher was a Christian).
As far as homeschooling goes, I’m one to think that the whole “organized co-op” thing goes, it’s not for me. If a group of friends who all homeschool want to get together at random and do outings or help one another teach different subjects, that’s a “co-op” in a sense, but not formal or organized–I’ve always thought of homeschooling as somewhat “anti-establishment” and having these “organizations” seems counter to the movement, but that’s just my personal feelings and observations. It doesn’t bother me at all that there are others who do this.
What I get out of the idea that Christianity permeates our whole lives is probably slightly different from both the perspectives Karen and Shadowspring gave, at least in how I would put it. Maybe not in reality, just in writing. I believe that being a “Christian family” whether in homeschooling or public school means that you teach your children how to reflect Christ. That means if they disagree with someone else’s beliefs, they disagree in a respectful (of the person, not necessarily the idea) way, rather than how I’ve seen in some of my former Christian *College* classmates, who blasted professors who they didn’t agree with and one even got kicked out of class one day for the disrespect. Totally unChristlike and inappropriate behavior coming from someone who had to sign a document that she professes Christ. But if the same person would have done so in a public school classroom, who would ever have known she was a Christian, or if they knew, how would they ever seriously listen to her beliefs about God again?
I wasn’t, and am not, a perfect reflection of Christ, but the point is that wherever your kids are learning and whomever they are learning from, you should be teaching them what it means to be like Christ, and love one another.
I like homeschooling not so much so that I can add the “Christian” worldview to whatever I teach, but because there is freedom to teach what is interesting and then some, rather than teaching “to the test” or dumbing down the curriculum to the lowest level child in the class, but teaching the children each exactly where they are at. As a parent, if I have to squeeze in worldview into every subject, then I may not be setting a good enough example of Christ to let Him speak for himself through my everyday actions.
And remember, this is coming from someone who pretty much *has* to allow people from an opposing faith teach my children if I move to Egypt. It’s not a choice, because homeschooling is not really an option, at least not one that will be taken seriously by the state. If my children are going to have Muslim teachers and are going to have to learn Quranic verses, then it’s best that I give them the best example of Christ that I possibly can to influence them against that.
Thank you, ladies, for you replies. I’ve really been thinking this thing over in my mind. You know, it’s not really the actual dress code and requirements that I have a problem with (though a few things are a little silly), it’s the fact that the leaders feel the need to dictate every little detail about the families that are involved, even how often they go to church. To me, that is indicative of a controlling mindset that could be problematic. Why can’t they just leave some of these details that really don’t matter that much up to each individual family? (I’m a libertarian, what can I say? )
Also, I have issues with the whole “don’t be extreme in your dress, hair, or jewelry; we’re trying to bring attention to the Lord”. Who decides what’s “extreme”? I have a friend who is thinking about homeschooling. She loves the Lord with all her heart. But she has dreadlocks and dresses like a hippy. I have a sneaking suspicion that she wouldn’t be welcome in that group. And that bothers me. I’m actually lothe to introduce her to the dark side of homeschooling and I can’t imagine explaining to her why she wouldn’t be welcome. It doesn’t make sense to anyone outside the conservative homeschool elitest movement.
I guess I’m having issues with the exclusivity midset that I’m seeing in the handbook. I would prefer a group that wasn’t so focused on outward details and was more inclusive of people with different lifestyles and tastes. I can conform, I’ve done it all my life. I can fit in to these circles anytime I feel like it (until I start talking ). But I got tired real fast of being one person in group A, another person in group B, and yet another person in group C. I could totally see myself freaking out before co-op and checking to make sure my skirt is long enough, my shirt covers everything, and there’s no writing my mine or my kids’ clothes. And that I DON’T want to do. Been there, done that, I’m done with all of it.
Another thing is the emphasis on teaching from a Biblical worldview. Meaning….?? I can’t stand the history books that have been rewritten to show that God has always been on the side of white Europeans and Americans, the suffergettes are evil, man-hating feminists, birth control was the downfall of America, etc. (“The Light and the Glory” comes to mind). If that’s teaching “from a Biblical worldview” then you can have it.
Anyway, I’m trying to figure out how much of my aversion is due to a reaction of the ATI/elitist mindset of my past, or really is God telling me to keep looking. Of course, the fact that they charge $40 to join and I don’t have that right now might decide for me. Of the fact that I could fail the application process and/or the personal interview (seriously, an interview to join a HS co-op? Is THAT normal?).
What is the proper view of the phrase “Biblical worldview”? No disrespect, but that is a very loaded phrase (think The Light and the Glory or Wallbuilders). What DO you two ladies mean by it? What do others think it means?
Shadowspring, this article is the way I would express the concept of having a Biblical worldview. I first was exposed to this idea about 30 years ago when I began reading Francis Schaeffer. Interestingly, though Schaeffer thought that Christians ought to look at life through the lens of Scripture and ought to seek to influence the culture as believers, he was also opposed to theocracy and trying to impose the Old Testament law.
What in the World is a
Christian Worldview?
By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.
It was no surprise that a recent report by the Barna Group confirmed that America’s culture “continues to evolve through new worldviews.” This is clearly evident as our pluralistic society offers a smorgasbord of various philosophies to choose from. Some of the many perspectives on the ‘worldview buffet’ include Naturalistic Atheism, Eastern Pantheism, the New Age Movement, Marxism, Nihilism, Existentialism, and Postmodernism. The influence of these worldviews has been so great that only four percent of Americans today are said to possess a biblical worldview as the basis for their decision making.
Not only are more people opting for non-Christian worldviews, but many Christians are adopting all or parts of philosophies that are not Christian. According to Barna, only nine percent of born-again Christians have a biblical worldview. That is why Christian philosophers and apologists of the past like Francis Schaeffer and more recently Charles Colson, James Sire, and Nancy Pearcey, have rightly trumpeted the urgent need for Christians to understand and articulate the Christian worldview and refute non-Christian philosophies.
Worldview—The Mental Roadmap for Navigating Reality
So just what is a worldview? As a college professor I find that a lot of students have heard the term “worldview” but very few actually know what it means. So let’s start with a basic definition of “worldview” and then discuss what constitutes a “Christian worldview.”
The term “worldview” comes from the German word Weltanschauung which literally means “look onto the world.” In today’s usage, “worldview” refers to the overall perspective from which a person or group both consciously and unconsciously understands and interprets the world. A worldview includes presuppositions and beliefs about issues such as the existence of God, the origin of the human race, our purpose in life, ethics, and life after death. As Nancy Pearcey in her book Total Truth asserts, a worldview is like a “mental map” that, if accurate, “will enable us to navigate reality effectively.” To summarize, we can affirm that a worldview is any philosophy, ideology, religion, or movement that provides an all-encompassing approach to understanding reality.
Naturalistic Atheism, for instance, is a worldview that offers a comprehensive understanding of reality. It asserts that our existence is the result of random chance and the evolutionary process. Thus, humans hold no special place in the universe since we are just one random part in a chaotic cosmic community. Our problem is that we rely too much on a mythical God and religion and not enough on human reason and potential. The solution is to throw off Christianity and embrace secular humanism and ethical relativism. Naturalistic Atheism asserts that we have no future beyond the grave since there is no God and no immortal soul.
The Christian Worldview
What, though, is a Christian worldview? The Christian worldview is a comprehensive understanding of reality based on the teachings in the Christian scriptures. In particular, the Christian worldview hangs on four strategic events: (1) Creation; (2) Fall; (3) Incarnation; and (4) Restoration. Together these events explain the Christian philosophy of history and offer a blueprint for living.
First, the Creation addresses how we got here. A perfect and eternal God created the universe by speaking it into existence without the use of preexisting materials. This God also directly created the human race. This means that this universe is the result of intelligent design; it has meaning and purpose. Creation means people are God’s image bearers and, thus, have dignity and a special role in mediating God’s will over this planet.
Second, the Fall explains what went wrong. It explains why there are things like evil, death, suffering, and natural disasters. Through Adam and our participation in his sin, the world is experiencing the results of God’s curse. Things are not as they should be because the human race has separated itself from its creator. The image of God still remains in us but it has been marred and all parts of our being have been tainted with sin.
Third, the Incarnation explains the solution. It is God’s Son—Jesus Christ. By becoming a man and paying for the sins of the human race, the God-man, Jesus, removed the barrier between God and humanity and a relationship with God is possible.
Fourth, Restoration tells us where history is going. It is headed for a New Heavens and New Earth in which righteousness dwells. Sin, death, and evil do not win. The curse will be removed and a perfect world will arise and God will dwell with his people forever.
These four events encapsulate the Christian worldview and offer a comprehensive perspective on reality including how we got here, what our problem is, what the solution is, and where we are going. Paul, in his Mars Hill address to the Athenian philosophers presented such a Christian worldview (see Acts 17). He started with an explanation of God’s role as creator and sustainer of the world. He then introduced the issue of sin and the need for repentance in light of the coming judgment.
Other essential truths also lie at the heart of a Christian worldview. For example, a Christian worldview includes belief in the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, the Trinity, the deity of Jesus, salvation by grace through faith alone, and a literal second coming of Jesus.
How Now Shall We Live?
The Christian worldview has significant implications for how we should live. For example, since God created the world everything we do has significance since we are accountable to him. Also, since all people are God’s image bearers we must treat all with respect including people of different races, the unborn, and the helpless. Understanding the Fall means understanding that we are tainted with sin, have the capacity to do evil, and are in need of a Savior. Understanding the Incarnation means believing in Jesus Christ, for salvation. Understanding restoration means living with the hope that evil, sin, and death will some day be vanquished.
As Chuck Colson said in How Now Shall We Live? a Christian worldview is “intensely practical.” It makes a huge difference in how a person lives. While many bemoan that Christians act ‘just like the world,’ research by the Barna Group actually shows that that those who truly hold a biblical worldview evidence a life that is radically different from those who do not. In addition to experiencing the saving grace of God and knowing the essentials of the faith, those with a biblical worldview are much less likely to engage in non-marital sex, use profanity, gamble, view pornography, get drunk, or approve of same sex relations and abortion.
Refuting Non-Christian Worldviews
Properly understanding the Christian worldview also means refuting non-Christian worldviews. It means refuting Naturalistic Atheism’s assertion that everything is the product of blind random chance. It means refuting Eastern Pantheism’s views concerning reincarnation and the belief that the main goal in life is to escape all desire and merge with some impersonal Absolute. It means refuting Nihilism’s pessimistic assertion that there is no meaning to life. It means refuting Existentialism’s claim that obtaining certain knowledge is impossible and that all truth is subjective. It means refuting the assumption of Postmodernism that there are no foundations for knowledge.
Having a Christian worldview is not just some nice exercise for Christian scholars and seminary professors—it is an absolute necessity for all Christians. Much is at stake. Pearcey points out that other worldviews are “connecting all the dots” and giving people a full explanation of their perspectives on reality. That is why Christians better connect the dots as well. The Barna Group is correct when it asserts that unless the church starts presenting a coherent worldview to our society it “will lose influence” and Christianity will represent “one more option among the numerous worldviews that Americans may choose from.”
That’s a very thorough explanation, Karen, which gives some good sources to explore it further. A friend who is a well-educated, passionate homeschool advocate and mentor, and who stresses the necessity of a biblical worldview, really likes Total Truth by Pearcey. I can’t vouch for all of it, but will move it up on my reading list.
When my daughter went to a classical Christian school for her high school (a much better education than I could have given her, and she thrived there), they continually stressed having a biblical worldview. The essence of that, as I recall, is that all truth is God’s truth: literature by non-Christian authors can also be valuable to study (some works have less nuggets of value to find amidst the “muck”, however). And because God is sovereign over His creation, true and unchanging, mathematics, science, music, PE, etc. under a biblical worldview will all point to Christ as Lord. Not just history and literature, but all of it, and they did not go with the “From Sea to Shining Sea” view of history. This tenet wasn’t just given lip service; her math teacher especially made sure to bring it into play.
2+2 is always 4 because Christ is Lord, but I have heard that now in Canadian schools, for example, students can come up with their own answers and this is not the case. Sorry I don’t have the source for this, but I don’t doubt it.
One area that Schaeffer felt so adamantly about having a Biblical worldview was in the area of the arts. He basically said, though I am paraphrasing, “The world doesn’t need more artists who produce Christian art, it needs more Christians who are producing good art.”
How true this is…if I see one more Thomas Kincaid knock-off I will scream.
His son paints a very different picture of Dad than his father portrayed himself to the world. If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, maybe you should read his son’s book Crazy For God and see how F. Schaeffer Sr.’s ideas have fared in reality.
I haven’t read it yet, but it is on my list.
My husband’s parents subscribed to the same fundamentalist religion Schaeffer lived, and I am left picking up the pieces of my husband’s broken heart.
I have read Edith’s book (quite long…The Tapestry) and would consider that a better resource than Franky. Also, the testimony of the rest of the family through the years seems to contradict Franky’s writings. I would highly recommend Shaeffer’s writings.
What denominational background are/were your inlaws?
Wow. I just read all of the interviews on Frank Schaefer’s web site. Very impressive man, a humble man, a brother in Christ. He now attends Greek Orthodox. By all accounts in the book reviews I just read, he writes with great affection and appreciation for his parents.
None of his sisters contradict Frank’s testimony of his life and family. In fact, they get along well as far as the interveiw on his web site records. You should really read the interview with John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute. It’s about a third of the way down the page under the heading Oldspeak.
Frank is the one behind the “How Then Shall We Live” and “What Ever Happened to the Human Race” documentaries. He convinced his dad to put them out there, and personally worked on those projects. He does not go by Franky anymore, and I can’t imagine why you would reject his current work after praising his early projects so profusely.
I have What is a Family by Edith Schaefer on my book shelf. Very interesting read. So Frank Schaefer was the man throwing the potted plant in anger mentioned in her book? LOL Now we know.
My husband’s father’s fundamentalist pedigree is immaculate: Dallas Theological Seminary, Unevagelized Fields Mission, pastor of his own independent fundamantalist Bible church, currently in a Southern Baptist church as retiree and Sunday school teacher, strong supporter of Al Mohler in fact.
Why? What bearing does my husband’s father have on Frank Schaefer’s experience of growing up at L’Abri and his regret at what the religious right has done with his and his father’s work?
I did appreciate reading How Then Shall We Then Live? by Schaeffer, think I might have checked out the videos from the library and discussed it some with our children. Lots of good thoughts there.
Since Francis is not here to defend himself, it’s hard to know what the truth about the Schaeffer family might be–all of our leaders are merely mortals, with feet of clay. Making an ad hominem comment about Francis Schaeffer doesn’t mean that his writings on a Christian worldview are not worth thinking about. From what Franky says, his father was not in total alignment with the Christian Right, although he was gladly co-opted by them.
I enjoyed both Francis and Frank. I don’t see their views as mutually exclusive. One is the product of the other, and it is clear that Frank loved his parents very much, and they loved him. I’ve seen how some claim he is “bitter” and a bunch of other stuff. I have to wonder if they really read his books with any real attempt to understand what he was trying to express. He describes real people, including himself, who are flawed and complex. There is always a desire to lionize some of the big “Christian minds” and not want to hear about their struggles or flaws, but that’s not reality.
And yes, I imagine that some of the Schaeffer family members weren’t all that excited about Frank writing about his family’s real life situations. That doesn’t surprise me, nor does it make his perspective not true.
In several email exchanges with Frank, I have found him to be a caring, thoughtful person.
I have been lurking, but not posting. First of all, thank you from the bottom of my heart for your prayers. My husband has fully recovered from his heart attack, and my 82 year old has fully recovered from legionnaires disease. My mom was in the hospital for two months, and then in rehab. She is now back at work! Good as new.
The hospital called our family three times to tell us my mother was about to die and we should get there fast so we could say goodbye. She survived every crisis, to the amazement of the doctors. When people ask her how she got through the ordeal she says “A lot of people were praying for me.”
I have a question for you. What are your opinions on treating post-partum depression? Are there any groups that don’t believe in treating ppd with medication? Do you know if Quiverful Movement allows psychiatric treatment (including meds) for ppd?
I’m a nursing student, and I wanted to get input from you.
I think that Kathy is right, we can’t really know the full truth of the Schaeffer family, at least from Francis’ perspective. It’s entirely possible that he had a temper, but we don’t know the full extent of that.
I think it’s interesting that people on both sides of the political spectrum (why’s it always political???) have taken his words for their own use, because it’s not the first time in Christian history that has happened, and doubtfully will be the last. I have a pastor who is admittedly more “democrat” in his political ideals, but who never talks politics from the pulpit, and honestly, I think half our church has no idea what his real political affiliations are, though some could guess fairly easily. But he loves Francis Schaeffer’s writings. He’s a staunch “pro-lifer” but also promotes social justice and even environmental responsibility. But this is all interconnected in his mind as every soul matters, and we are to be good stewards of what we have been loaned.
I’ve not read anything by Francis Schaeffer, but I can say that I’ve taken church history classes that show that there are many Christian leaders in the world whose views have been misconstrued by someone in order to take an entire denomination a different direction. For example, the “Church of Christ” movement began with the “Restoration Movement” in northern Kentucky/southwest Ohio. There are now several denominations or brotherhoods that claim to be the child of this movement, and yet have striking differences, so much that there’s hardly any similar DNA in them anymore. The United Church of Christ is different from the “non-instrumental” Church of Christ, which is different from the “instrumental” Church of Christ/Christian Church brotherhood. The point I’m trying to make is that there was a small set of church leaders who set out to do one thing, and now there are multiple churches claiming to be the product of that one thing.
Maybe Schaeffer was trying to set up the church as more politically “right” or maybe he was just being a Christian, and certain people who had more political motives took his work and put it into the political arena. Either way, I think that if his works are taken from a Christian perspective (which is what we’re talking about), there are good things that can be gleaned from it. After all, he is not the controversial figure that the Pearls or other patrios are.
I think insisting on calling him Frankie when he is a grown man who prefers to be called Frank is mean-spirited. It belittles the man, and I expect better from the posters here.
Come on, sisters, you are sounding defensive, questioning my husband’s family’s credentials, insinuating Frank is attacking his father and/or being dishonest when all he is doing is sharing his experience of life. As the child star of fundamentalism, he deserves to be heard.
None of his sisters are on record disputing what he says. And if you read his interviews, you’ll see that he was intent on being transparent and honoring both the truth and his parents. He loves his parents!
Plus he is very plain about reminding everyone that people are complex and multi-faceted people. Nowhere does he claim that his book is the sum total of his parents as people or the only definitive truth about his parents.
It is their only son and youngest child’s perspective on what life was like growing up with them at that time.
If you don’t make heroes out of anyone but Jesus, then their feet of clay won’t offend you.
I have been thinking about the Barna group statisitics only nine percent of born-again Christians have a biblical worldview and I am floored by the arrogance and exclusivity in that statement.
Only nine percent of the people Jesus accepts are acceptable? Only 9% of “born again” Christians believe in Creation, the Fall on Man, the Incarnation of God in Christ and the Restoration to fellowship with God of all those who put their faith in Jesus?
You can’t be born again without believing those things!
Sign me up with Jesus, who is not too pure to hang out with the other 91% as well. I am appalled by the concept.
So the Christian only home school support groups exist for the 9%. I get it now. Indeed they ARE the 9%. Well isn’t that special?
Makes me ashamed that I was ever president of one of these groups. Thank God for true home school support groups like SHARE- Support Homeschool Activities Reaching EVERYONE!
I am not writing to incite people to anger, but rather to think.
If ten waking hours a day, 365 days a year, for even only the first ten years, is not enough to deliver a faithful witness of the gospel-
if instead you must exert total milleu control so that your children don’t play with, learn from or come into any unsupervised contact with someone who thinks/believes differently from you-
then, I would think something was very wrong.
As a child I would wonder why you think your faith and beliefs couldn’t win out over any competing ideas and beliefs.
As one who believes that everyone who is saved has been born again by the power of the Holy Spirit, I would wonder if you think that conversion was really not a supernatural rebirth but simply an embracing of the right doctrine.
Because if, as I believe, it is the beginning of a lifelong relationship with the Living God, how could anyone ever give that up just because they met someone with a different idea about God?
The whole idea of home schooling as discipleship I can see. Your kids are with you all day. They are learning from you all the time. They ARE being discipled by you.
But precisely because of that, because I believe that conversion is work of the Holy God whom I worship and serve, I do NOT feel the need to exercise total milleu control over my children’s lives.
It reminds me (this need to have strict control of all outside influences) of this Pink Floyd song from The Wall. I think the urge to control all influence has more to do with natural human fears and insecurities than any mandate from the Bible.
After all, I have had far, far more time with my students and, as mother, I hold a place of influence in my students hearts greater than any one else ever will.
Mother (Waters) 5:32
Mother do you think they’ll drop the bomb?
Mother do you think they’ll like this song?
Mother do you think they’ll try to break my ba**s?
Mother should I build the wall?
Mother should I run for president?
Mother should I trust the government?
Mother will they put me in the firing line?
Mother am I really dying?
Hush now baby, baby, dont you cry.
Mother’s gonna make all your nightmares come true. Mother’s gonna put all her fears into you.
Mother’s gonna keep you right here under her wing.
She wont let you fly, but she might let you sing.
Mama will keep baby cozy and warm.
Ooooh baby ooooh baby oooooh baby,
Of course mama’ll help to build the wall.
Mother do you think she’s good enough — to me?
Mother do you think she’s dangerous — to me?
Mother will she tear your little boy apart?
Mother will she break my heart?
Hush now baby, baby dont you cry.
Mama’s gonna check out all your girlfriends for you.
Mama wont let anyone dirty get through.
Mama’s gonna wait up until you get in.
Mama will always find out where you’ve been.
Mama’s gonna keep baby healthy and clean.
Ooooh baby oooh baby oooh baby,
You’ll always be baby to me.
Shadowspring, I wanted to be sure you understand that I asked about your father-in-law’s background only because you brought it up, saying it was the same fundamentalist background shared by Francis Schaeffer.
“My husband’s parents subscribed to the same fundamentalist religion Schaeffer lived, and I am left picking up the pieces of my husband’s broken heart.”
I wasn’t looking for any credentials, only clarification so I could better understand the point you were making. Why would you think I would want credentials?
“Only nine percent of the people Jesus accepts are acceptable? Only 9% of “born again” Christians believe in Creation, the Fall on Man, the Incarnation of God in Christ and the Restoration to fellowship with God of all those who put their faith in Jesus?”
I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make about the Barna research, in the article I quoted. It isn’t that only 9% of born again Christians “KNOW” these things to be true, it is what they do with that truth. Do they live it? Does the walk match the talk? From what I understand of this research, the results of the questionnaires showed that about 91% of people who professed to be believers still would think certain things were “ok” even though they were things that the Bible calls sin. I believe that would probably be a fairly accurate response. I am amazed at the people I know who profess to be Christians but who think it is ok to have sex outside of marriage or to steal from their employers or to get drunk. This is how I understand those stats. A Biblical worldview has to do with sanctification rather than regeneration. The moment someone is saved, they don’t automatically embrace all Biblical truth. That is part of the growing process. That is why discipleship is so important.
“I think insisting on calling him Frankie when he is a grown man who prefers to be called Frank is mean-spirited. It belittles the man, and I expect better from the posters here.”
I have never read where he said he didn’t want to be called by the name that is still on the credits of the DVD’s I have seen. Why would you assume it was a slam at him?
“As the child star of fundamentalism, he deserves to be heard.”
I don’t know what this means.
When I think of fundamentalism, I think of the independent Baptist churches, Hyles-Anderson, BJU,etc. Schaeffer was a mainline Presbyterian as I recall and refused to get bogged down in the infighting in the denomination back in the 30′s,calling for peace and reconciliation. He was Presbyterian all his life. The audiencs he addressed were those who were struggling to maintain a rational, biblical perspective when they saw modern influences fueled by science and industrialism produce things like abortion in the church. He sought to warn evangelicals that theirs would be the same future if they weren’t careful. At this point in church history, his words are prophetic.
The religious right were far more influenced by Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Cal Thomas, who worked for Falwell in helping to start that organization, has now renounced it, not because he has different doctrinal views or that he thinks Christians ought to steer clear of influencing government policy but because he thinks that the only way to true biblical genuine reformation is through evangelism, salvation of the lost, and discipleship which produces a Biblical worldview.
After spending 30 plus years as a pro-life evangelical, I don’t recall Frank Schaeffer as having barely any influence within this movement. In fact, all I remember are the two episodes of the film series that he directed and the book he wrote on Christians and the arts. Help me out here. Where was all the influence he had, what form did it take etc?
“I have never read where he said he didn’t want to be called by the name that is still on the credits of the DVD’s I have seen. Why would you assume it was a slam at him?”
In the interviews on the web site I linked to he explains his desire to be called Frank instead of Frankie. I assumed you read some of his web site, and also all of the books he has had published list him as Frank, not Frankie.
If you DID know this (and you state that you did not know this, which I accept) then to continue to call a grown man by a name associated with his childhood and which he expressly has left behind would be rude.
“Help me out here. Where was all the influence he had, what form did it take etc?”
Please go back and read, if nothing else, the interview with the Rutherford Institute that I linked to and referred to earlier.
Frank (not Francis) was apparently the author of the idea to do the series “How Shall We Then Live” and the one about the human race being endangered(haven’t seen it, don’t remember the title). He is the one who convinced his father about the importance of taking an anti-abortion stance.
I am in the middle of a good book right now, Four Views of the Atonement, but i will bump Crazy for God up to the top of my list, if you want to also read and discuss it.
Shadowspring, I called Frank Schaeffer Franky (Frankie?) because that was all I remembered him as, and because Karen referred to him as that. I have read reviews of his book and couldn’t remember what name he went by as author.
I briefly googled him, did skim the Rutherford interview, which I found interesting. I have other books I need and want to read before I read Crazy For God.
I barely have time to take part in this discussion and did so because I feel that a biblical worldview is important, although I obviously don’t know as much about it as I want. I thought that was where the discussion was heading, although it seems to have gone in another direction.
I am spending 3-4 hours a day helping my elderly parents with very basic things since recent health setbacks. Tonight I’m finishing getting their business records together (which are all over the place) to meet the accountant to file their taxes, then taking my mother to a lengthy doctor’s appointment, THEN finishing filing our taxes, hopefully. I don’t know if you are also accusing me of being mean-spirited, but if so, I assure you it was unintentional. I don’t know much about Frank Schaeffer, so I had NO CLUE what the heck he prefers to be called.
It would be nice to take the discussion here down a notch or two emotionally–perhaps I will find it that way when I have time to return. Grace and peace…
Discussions on this board go anywhere the conversation goes. Not sure where you think it’s heading, but all you have to do is ask a question or make a comment to send it in a different direction. The title is all things patrio.
One aspect of cults (Cynthia Kunsman’s cite, thatmom did a podcast with her) is total milleu (sp?) control. That pops out at me in bold when I hear a Christian home school parent say that they will only allow Christians (doctrinally correct Christians at that!) to teach their children any subject.
Now all parents exert some control over their children’s environment with the goal of helping them grow until they are ready to engage the less pleasant realities of life. We don’t sit our five year olds down and go over the family budget and talk about the economic uncertainties that lie ahead, for example. It never even crosses our minds to do that for most people. On the other hand, I believe you should certainly do that with your teenagers who will all too soon be facing these realities and need to be prepared.
So while sheltering of the very young is loving, good and proper, it is not necessary or desirable in my opinion to continue to exert total control over their environment. Is the only difference between the “normal” exclusive Christian home school community and the patrios the EXTENT of the ideas/people/practices they work to exclude and control?
Also this Christian world-view idea, it sounds like the goal is to produce children who never sin. I mean, if one accepts the premise that 91% of born again Christians ARE born again, acceptable to God and in relationship with Him, then what differentiates them from the other 9% that “Biblical worldview” adherents think they are among?
According to Karen,those who have not had their environment strictly controlled “think it is ok to have sex outside of marriage or to steal from their employers or to get drunk. This is how I understand those stats. A Biblical worldview has to do with sanctification rather than regeneration. The moment someone is saved, they don’t automatically embrace all Biblical truth. That is part of the growing process. That is why discipleship is so important.”
I believe that sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit and can not be accomplished by parents carefully screening what people/ideas their children may be exposed to. Jesus is our sanctification and the Holy Spirit is the agent by which this is accomplished. I Corinthians 1:30, I Thess 2:13, I Peter 1:2.
So this is something we clearly disagree about. I can not sanctify my children. One who has had no exposure to temptation in life is not sanctified, he is untested. Big difference.
I do not think it is needful to exclude non-believers or believers who believe the Bible teaches a different perspective than I believe, form my children’s lives. I can let life happen naturally to my children, without my strictly controlling what they are “allowed” to experience. The Lord is with them.
Plus as they grow the more freedom and exposure to the world they need to experience while we parents are available to discuss it with them.
Further, I do not believe that wrong teaching or exposure to other ideas is WHY some Christians don’t accept the Bible as authoritative in their lives. It is far more complicated than that.
If any one thing is responsible, it is the hypocritical posturing of those who say they believe the Bible that turns many away. If/when a young lamb sees more love and acceptance among the worldly crowd, that is the fault of believers not practicing the words of Christ to love as He has loved us. I have heard this many times from many straying Christians.
Then also, there is the sin nature to contend with. Knowing does not translate into doing. Adam sinned, and he lived in Paradise and experienced the literal presence of the Living God every day. If God’s sheltering could not accomplish purity of devotion to Him, mine certainly will not accomplish it.
Thirdly I already spend much, much, much more time with my children every day than any parents who utililizes institutional education. If all the hours I have spent with them in the early years were not enough for them to “catch” my passion for the Living God Jesus Christ our Lord, and my deep respect for His Word as it is actually written, then the battle is already lost.
I think I harm my cause by insisting that no one who is not living/believing as I think is right be allowed in our world. It screams insecurity in my beliefs, my children, and in the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives. It says I expect them to fail if they are tested.
Further, what then happens to “God so loved THE WORLD”? If I treat the rest of the world like outsiders to be avoided, how is that the love of God for all people? It becomes God so loved me and you and all the people who think/believe like we do. That is not the Word of God.
Those are the reasons that I expressed so much shock at what I was reading here, about being careful not to let anyone who doesn’t pass the doctrine test teach your children. It seems very cultish to me- relying on the efforts of people rather than the power of the Spirit to effect salvation and sanctification in our children.
I brought Frank Schaeffer into the discussion because it was his video series (that he and his father produced) that was given as the inspiration/justification for the milleu control. As I wrote earlier, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So it is thoughtful and intelligent to ask, “how did that work out for the producers of that series that is so foundational to this parenting style”?
I was asking honest questions and sharing the honest conclusions I have come to regarding total milleu control. It is a parent’s responsibility to keep out harmful influences when they are very young, and a parent’s responsibility to allow them ever-increasing exposure to the world in which they will one day venture off on their own.
But then I sincerely believe that I could do that if my children were in public school as well. My children’s faith and sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit and He is always with them. My prayers and my emotional, spiritual, practical advice and support are here to help, as all the publicly schooling Christian parents also provide. But it is not my work, nor could I accomplish it if I wanted to do so.
“According to Karen,those who have not had their environment strictly controlled “think it is ok to have sex outside of marriage or to steal from their employers or to get drunk. This is how I understand those stats. A Biblical worldview has to do with sanctification rather than regeneration. The moment someone is saved, they don’t automatically embrace all Biblical truth. That is part of the growing process. That is why discipleship is so important.””
Shadowspring, please stop misrepresenting me. You repeatedly take what I am saying and turn it into something else. As Christian parents, we are to raise our children in the “fear and admonition of the Lord.” In my home that means training them to discern what it means to be obedient to Scripture. I am not talking about the man made lists of rules. I am talking about what the Bible actually teaches about the core issues of life and how they are applied when we one another each other. You don’t have to agree with me. You are free to do as you wish. But do not reconstruct what others here are saying or interpret us in the worst possible light.
“Those are the reasons that I expressed so much shock at what I was reading here, about being careful not to let anyone who doesn’t pass the doctrine test teach your children.”
I don’t know where anyone said that a teacher has to pass the “doctrine” test. I certainly don’t hold to that if you are talking about orthodox Christianity or unless you are talking about Mormons or others who are in a cult or are cultic. What I DID say is that when you place your children under someone else for teaching, you need to know how they will interpret the material and in a co-op situation, how those differences will be handled. And that all disciplines have a worldview; there is no neutrality in education.
Who here is advocating all interaction between Christian children and unbelievers? There is a difference, a HUGE difference between building relationships between Christians and nonChristians and Chrsitian children being taught and mentored by nonChristians.
Is it me who isn’t communicating properly? if so, someone please tell me.
“Are there any groups that don’t believe in treating ppd with medication? Do you know if Quiverful Movement allows psychiatric treatment (including meds) for ppd?”
I am not sure that there is a definitive answer for this. I would imagine that nouthetic counselors would not want to encourage women to take meds for PPD and that most QF families would go to a nouthetic counselor. It is like the response to ADD etc. However, I think there has been some changed thinking since several cases of severe PPD that resulted in tragedy have come to light. I am thinking of that mom who drowned her little ones in the bath tub. I would be curious to hear what anyone else knows.
I want to be very careful here not to misrepresent anyone, but I have to agree with Shadowspring’s main points here. What actually concerned me, though, a couple of days ago, was when someone posted that they would never allow a non-Christian to teach their children. I think it was history – sorry, I can’t find it right this second, but I clearly remember it.
That certainly is that person’s choice as a parent, and I would not argue with the choice, but with the reasoning behind it. I ran this by my husband, who teaches American history (in an “institutional” school – LOL), and it was kind of eyebrow raising for him, too. Historical facts are historical facts. There are not “Christian historical facts” and “secular historical facts”. Christians do not have some corner on the market of historical facts (although I agree they should).
When homeschooling and Christian-schooling parents financially support curriculums that are heavily influenced by David Barton, and all the other Christian revisionists, et al., they should be very concerned about what these people are peddling.
Are there revisionists on “the other side”? I’m sure there are, but it should be MUCH more troubling to a Christian parent that a so-called Christian publishing company are printing lies BY Christians than it is that sometimes non-Christians don’t tell the whole truth.
Honestly, I’d take Chris Rodda’s meticulous research any day over David Barton’s lies.
Karen and I have already had the discussion months ago on her take on “inculcating” a certain worldview in our children and if there is more than one way to do that, and I don’t wish to rehash it. We must agree to disagree on that issue, as do all public school advocates and homeschooling advocates who wish to find common ground with one another.
I’m sorry if I detected a condescension toward Frank Schaeffer if there was none. It just seemed like “damning with faint praise”, at the very least, but I could be wrong. Incidentally, he is a grown man and in any books he has written in the last couple of decades, he clearly goes by Frank. I loved his books on his son in the military, and Crazy for God, and I just recently read Patience with God, which I found very encouraging. Maybe it’s not everybody’s cup of tea, and that’s okay, but he is a true brother in Christ, and I love him for the encouragement he has given me and others.
However, there are various ways those “historical facts” can be interpreted according to the agendas people have and it also depends on which facts are presented and which ones are conveniently left out. I remember reading a review on a secular history textbook that listed the biographies written within the book. 5 pages were given to Marilyn Monroe. Martha Washington wasn’t even mentioned in passing.
I recently watched this happen in our local school district. The high school curriculum coordinator and history department planned a unit on the progressive era. They presented Margaret Sanger in a film about her life that portrayed her as a benevolent kindly mother who sacrificially gave her life to helping poor women. No mention of her association with Hitler. No mention of her eugenics agenda. No mention of her adulterous affairs and perversions. No mention of her leaving her husband and precious children to pursue a debaucherous lifestyle.
One man in our community addressed the board and the teachers. He didn’t ask for censorship. Rather, he asked that the whole story of Sanger be presented. He said that the way they were teaching her would be like saying “Hitler gathered a group of young men and gave them free clothing.” It was true but it certainly didn’t tell the whole story.
I am puzzled as to how I misrepresented you. I put your exact words in quotes, almost the whole paragraph. If you believe I misunderstood you, tell me where I missed the mark. But I didn’t represent your words, I quoted them verbatim.
Again, this all came up when a poster asked if it was normal to have a statement of faith, a “covenant” agreement to a list of rules about religious beliefs and practices as well as dress, in home school support groups.
You and Virginia thought it was pretty normal, maybe a little extreme, and I don’t want to go all the way back and look it up, but I am pretty sure you said that you wouldn’t let anyone teach that didn’t meet your faith criteria, as you saw them as being in a mentor position.
Everything else I have to say I have already said. I don’t believe I misrepresented anything.
I appreciate Savannah weighing in with her opinion. Yes, we are all just going to have to agree to disagree.
The situation above, with Margaret Sanger? My position is that hearing that one-sided viewpoint would not negatively affect a child in a healthy Christian home, especially one who is home schooled. His loving parents will already have shown the child that life is to be cherished. He would already know what scripture says about shedding of innocent blood and baby sacrifice.
The home schooled child would likely have almost immediate feedback from his/her parent when he was picked up from the co-op or if it were a community event, the parent might actually be there with the student. The open communication of loving Christian homes coupled with the extra opportunities for conversation and feedback in a home school situation is more than enough for the Holy Spirit to work with.
Therefore, I am not afraid for my students to hear other points of view, in fact I welcome it. I would love to help them puzzle through it while they are still around me so much of the time.
That is MY position. If my dissent is causing distress, I will refrain from posting. But I want to be on record that there is no ill will on my part. I disagree with the principles behind statement of faith home school groups.
I am a sincere believer with a committed walk with Jesus. I love Him with all my heart, study and read my Bible often, have personal times of prayer and worship on a regular basis. I believe you do too, Karen. I just disagree.
Nuff said by me. Anyone want my olive branch? I am extending it now.
I had a whole big long response, including my view of Margaret Sanger and the historical implications of the early Hitler years, but it really is not my intent to be divisive, so I let it go. I will say that it is easy to pick out the worst of the worst isolated concerns about the left’s interpretation of historical events, all the while ignoring the great harm that is being done by Christians who lie – namely, Christian revisionists like David Barton and his ilk.
I’ve been doing a lot of research into Christian revisionism (those two words should be oxymorons!) and perhaps I am a little more sensitive to the whole issue than I would normally be.
Karen, you and I will ALWAYS disagree on the homeschooling vs. public schooling issue. Both sides often feel disrespected and condescended to in the debate, which makes it hard to have an actual debate, as we all know. But I do appreciate many things about you, particularly your advocacy for women and children stuck in patriocentricity, and your care for others.
“I will say that it is easy to pick out the worst of the worst isolated concerns about the left’s interpretation of historical events, all the while ignoring the great harm that is being done by Christians who lie – namely, Christian revisionists like David Barton and his ilk.”
Oh, Savannah, I hope you also know that I happily point out the revisionist history on both sides as I discover it!
Karen posted, “Oh, Savannah, I hope you also know that I happily point out the revisionist history on both sides as I discover it!”
Sorry, Karen, I didn’t mean to imply that you personally would ignore Christian revisionist lies. I don’t think you personally would ignore any lie.
But usually when one gets into this discussion with Christians, they pull out the “back pocket” leftie problems all the while pretending that “their side” is lily white, so I should have made it clearer that was speaking generally.
Got all the records together and passed on to the accountant, now on to file our tax return–whew! Of course I couldn’t stay away for long, though–hopefully my rapid reading and response will be an accurate representation of what others have said and what I mean to say.
Worldview is a loaded word with different interpretations, so the way I think of it might not be the same that a more fundamentalist organization does. To me it does not mean indoctrination, and it definitely doesn’t mean a revisionist viewpoint. God’s word (right doctrine) can stand up to honest questioning and comparison with other worldviews. I don’t see isolation as the answer, far from it–I have a real beef with oversheltering parents, and have seen that go awry in many different ways. You can’t block out the sinful heart, no matter how high you build the wall. Christ said it’s not what goes into a person, “but what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.” (Mt. 15:18)
I also completely believe only the Holy Spirit has power to sanctify my children and keep their hearts loving Him. Our passion for the Lord can be caught, but not taught. Spending time discipling our children, loving them, being authentic and transparent about our faith and our flaws has got to be the best way to do this.
We’ve had our kids in public, private, and homeschool. Our belief is that the Lord directs parents individually, depending on the child and the situation. I can’t be dogmatic about saying public school is wrong–our son got an excellent education in public high school (after 4 yrs. of homeschool), great academic opportunities which helped him toward his already blossoming career. He made great friends (students and teachers), and with some started a Bible study still going years later. I would say he thrived, and not sure how we would have done it differently. But he still battles porn addiction and went through some rough spots at college before returning to a steady faith. We wish we would have been more proactive and observant in discipling him, and maybe we would have caught it sooner or even helped prevent it had we given him a proper worldview of biblical sexuality and helped prepare him for the onslaught on the internet.
It’s not a matter of “Don’t do that” or even “Do this,” but “‘That’ is the worldview–humanism, hedonism, nihilism–behind what you are going to be seeing in TV, movies, etc., and ‘this’ is what God’s Word says about it,” so they will be able to recognize and deal with temptations using God’s truth. Otherwise, that shiny apple will always look really good.
Karen, I do understand what you are saying, and I am not accusing you of excessive sheltering. I do think we should be cautious who we put in the position of mentoring our children, although I’m open to having less structured learning opportunities for them and making sure parents stay involved, not blithely trusting that they won’t be absorbing any other worldviews.
Forgot to add… MORE Titanic references? Really, patrios?
What is it with that particular fixation, anyway? A insatiable need to prove their manhood? Are they that insecure?
A REAL man has nothing to prove. Besides, they’re too busy helping their wives wash the dinner dishes after getting the kids to bed to spend time fantasizing and pontificating about how honorable they’d react to a 1912 disaster they’ll never ever personally encounter.
Two families we began doing homeschool co-ops with come to mind, both of them very loving and desirous that their kids continue to follow in the faith. Both families had homeschooling and their kids as a priority, made it interesting and fun, both were involved with other families, kids, and church.
Family 1 went to a more “relational” church and youth group, read Christian books but were less strict about knowing doctrine, put their kids in public school from junior high on, partly out of economic necessity. They love their kids, but the family was a little child-centered in discipline (more relational and less respect).
Family 2 went to a church known for doctrine (studying the Word, NOT fundamentalism), had more rigor in academics and in examining and memorizing the Bible, a very active and fun family, but in a “disciplined” way. Their kids were involved in extracurricular activities with public schoolers, went to college with Running Start (as jrs. and srs. in high school). Not isolationist in any way, but they made sure their kids had biblical worldviews by examining the Word alongside other viewpoints.
Ten years later, Family 1′s children have fallen away from the faith, have little desire to know the Lord or go to church. Their daughter is seeking success in the secular (military) world and doing fairly well, the son had one short, failed marriage, no college education, lives at home and struggles to have a job. The children and parents are distant from each other. I hurt for the kids and for their parents, who also flounder in their faith.
Family 2′s children are well-adjusted young adults who have chosen godly mates, reach out to share Jesus with others, have fun and work hard. They may not make a lot in their secular jobs, but they’re content, serving in their churches, loving God, their parents, and life. The parents have adopted other foster kids and plan to keep homeschooling for years, raising them with loving discipline and teaching them in the ways of the Lord.
Children and families can’t be compared exactly since there are so many variables, but the difference here is striking. Discipline and doctrine are not dirty words! I would caution parents reacting against Michael Pearl and fundamentalism (not saying any here are doing so) not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If I can add one more axiom, I would say, “If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.”
Debbie from CA: Great observations. I think we’ve talked about the Titanic thing here before, haven’t we? Because what I recall from reading about the behavior on the Titanic is that it was more about the RICH getting in the boats and the poor being left behind, and that says a lot about the priorities of the people on that boat. I don’t know which class the patrios would fall into, but I assume that what they’re really saying is “I would sacrifice myself for others.” Which, in the real world, they haven’t really done, so why would I believe they would do it on the Titanic?
On the slaughtering thing, I’m not really bothered by the photos, they’re no more graphic than stuff I’ve seen on TV (I like the show Bones, if that’s any indication), but I would probably be bothered by it in person, and that’s just because I don’t like copious amounts of blood. But it’s nothing that millions of people around the world throughout history haven’t done or seen, so I don’t understand why they have to make such a big deal out of it.
“But it’s nothing that millions of people around the world throughout history haven’t done or seen, so I don’t understand why they have to make such a big deal out of it.”
This pretty much sums up so much of the patriocentric discussion as far as I am concerned. It is almost as though they think they invented all these things that have been taught and believed and done for years.
Kathy, the stories of the two families you shared are ones I could also share over and over again. One of the things John Stonestreet pointed out when I interviewed him about the growing numbers of young people who fall away from the faith is that many, many parents do not have Biblical worldviews and aren’t able to live truth in front of their children.
And for every fundamentalist family with the “right” worldview that anybody can cite whose children “turned out right”, I could name 10 whose kids didn’t, at least according to their parents’ standards. Same goes with homeschooling vs private schooling vs public schooling. Spanking vs don’t spank. Breastfeeding vs. not. And it goes on and on. With all due respect, while interesting sometimes anecdotally, it really doesn’t prove much.
If I told you that our public-schooled sons, so far, have turned out just great, and we’re very proud of them, but that we have a much more liberal (yeah, I’m gonna use that taboo word – LOL) “worldview” than probably almost anybody here, what would that prove? Absolutely nothing. You would rightly point out any number of variables for which I would have no answer.
One thing I will say – and this is just an anecdotal observation – is that what I am aware of in families who have turned out fine children, is something almost impossible to define – at least I can’t completely articulate it. It has something to do with the atmosphere in the home – something to do with a high level of transparency, honesty, unwillingness to accept anything less than total integrity along with a recognition that people are flawed and we fail and the earth won’t stop turning on its axis if the kid makes a mistake – so high expectations and generous grace. And a highly developed appreciation of humor. And oh, yeah, the willingness to communicate about anything (and I do mean anything .
Kathy said: “Family 2 went to a church known for doctrine (studying the Word, NOT fundamentalism),”
Savannah said: “And for every fundamentalist family with the “right” worldview that anybody can cite whose children “turned out right”, I could name 10 whose kids didn’t, at least according to their parents’ standards.”
There is a communication break down here. Having certain standards in your home does not mean being a “fundamentalist” nor does it equate with “isolationism.”
Great article! Wow, no kidding about “taking ourselves too seriously”!
“These little girls will enjoy many yummy chicken dinners because their daddy played the part of a man by spilling some blood on his hands in exercise of dominion and provision.”
Pluuueeeese! For centuries women have been the ones slaughtering chickens in order to serve dinner to their families. Are they really so ignorant of the real world and of the real work of women throughout the ages???? Or are they so stuck in their Victorian time-warp that they can’t fathom that women have been “playing the part of a man by spilling some blood on (her) hands in exercise of dominion and provision” for thousands of years!
It is not “playing the part of a man” to slaughter a chicken. Give me a break.
I can only wonder, after reading this article, if many of the patriarchalists’ manhood is lacking/suffering and that is why they have to make so much ado about nothing.
Good news about your husband and your mother! Wow! She is still working and 82 years old? That is fantastic!
About treatment of ppd for women in the patriarchal/quiverful movement? I don’t really know. I think it is varied. I have heard pro and cons concerning this. Some are very militant and say it is a spiritual condition, some are very pro-medication.
But, I think of Andrea Yates and I think we can learn a lot from her situation and how skewed religious views, imho, make her condition much, much worse. Why would her husband keep on getting her pregnant if she suffered so much from psychotic episodes after the birth of her children? They grew worse and worse but the children kept on coming. Andrea’s mental well-being was much more important than holding to some “quiverful” dogma.
I didn’t say that certain standards equals being a fundamentalist, although I think it is safe to presume that being a fundamentalist Christian does equal having certain standards, no? Most functional families have certain standards, but of course, that does not mean they are fundamentalist. And incidentally, I was not using fundamentalist in any sort of negative way – don’t fundamentalist Christian families still identify as that? I see churches all over town who proudly proclaim it.
And I don’t see where I said anything about being an isolationist.
The fundamentalist thing skews the whole point I was trying to make. Remove the word “fundamentalist” from my prior post, and the point remains, as the word was unncessary and not relevant to the point. My apologies.
I specifically stressed the issue is NOT fundamentalism vs. liberalism, and yet it seems to be assumed that anyone who is not liberal is fundamental in doctrine. There is a HUGE difference! I lifted a few quotes from a blog by a Reformed Fundamentalist to try to explain the difference between an exegetical church and a fundamental one. Hope this helps.
“Often in fundamentalism, doctrine and Biblical exegesis are downplayed, ignored, or avoided. Topical or shallow messages prevail. Church members learn their do’s & don’ts but not what the Bible actually says (the arguments Biblical authors use, the context of favorite proof texts, or Bible doctrines in general). While fundamentalists claim to be standing on the Bible alone, rare is the church that actually opens itself up to Biblical scrutiny.”
“Fundamentalists assume that their practices, standards, and positions are Biblical to the point of reading into the Bible what is not there to support their traditions and viewpoints. In the vacuum of solid Biblical exegesis, ignorance and faulty reasoning/logic prevail. In short, while fundamentalists claim to be the stalwart defenders of true doctrine, they are in fact the defenders of old-fashioned (actually late 1800’s early 1900’s) tradition.”
In music, dress, externals, you would not be able to say Family 2′s church is fundamentalist. Some people dress in jeans and lift up hands with (God-centered) praise music. Many women are SAHMs, but some work outside the home. There is a youth group and Sunday school. Churched and unchurched are reached out to and loved. You would see most people bringing their Bibles (and it is NOT the KJV that is preached) because they have a high view of God and of His Word (yes, this would mean inerrancy). The sermon would probably be 45 mins. to an hour, because they love digging into God’s Word, not for head knowledge or for pride, but because man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Then they take it out into their everyday world and try to live it out as best as they can daily. (If this blares “hypocrisy” or “fundamentalist” to you, perhaps you need to examine what is causing your preconceptions.)
“Standards” are not what it is all about, but how do we as individuals and families best please God and glorify Him, because we love Him and are eternally grateful for His grace and mercy!
#311-Savannah, I TOTALLY agree with your description of what a successful family life looks like–totally! However, I STILL think knowing and having a biblical worldview is vital! Hope some of the readers will explore resources on this further, rather than relying on posters’ assumptions and definitions of what a biblical worldview is.
I thought I had already conceded that fundamentalism didn’t have anything to do with it, and wasn’t really relevant to my point. I apologized for using the word. I didn’t realize it had such a negative connotation. I am not a fundamentalist, but I was one for years, and I wasn’t aware that it was a slight. I was just using it as shorthand to describe a narrow (again, not in a bad way) Biblical worldview.
We can talk about a Biblical worldview all day long, but the reality is that we may have very different ideas of what that is. Some people would say I lack a Biblical worldview because I am not a young earth creationist, or because I am not a dispensationalist, or any number of things. We will agree on the essential tenets of the faith (which I think the Apostle’s creed encapsulates nicely), but will disagree on many other things.
So when anyone says “Biblical worldview”, I have to think, “Whose interpretation?” While one worldview has been detailed above, there many others.
It is not my intent to argue over this minutia, but I just get my hackles up when I hear what strikes me as “formulas” for Christian living or raising children or whatever the topic. I probably should go and do something else now.
“Pluuueeeese! For centuries women have been the ones slaughtering chickens in order to serve dinner to their families. Are they really so ignorant of the real world and of the real work of women throughout the ages????”
So true, Corrie. My mother-in-law, who grew up on a farm in the 1930′s, tells a hilarious story about the first time she had to chop off a chicken’s head, pluck it, and cook it for lunch while the rest of the family picked cotton. She was NINE years old at the time!!
“I’ve killed chickens too but never thought to turn it into a weird theological lesson. Maybe it takes a man to do that.”
Anne2,
LOL! Maybe.
Kay,
I played the part of a man and slaughtered my first chicken when I was about 8 or 9.
How women who have dairy farms, grow up on them and have to castrate bulls?
These patrio guys do NOT live in reality. Debbie hit the nail on the head. They are all playing some part in a cheesy Patrio-drama made for Lifetime TV.
That should be “How many women who live on dairy farms, grow up on them, end up having to castrate bulls?”
The answer is MANY! I grew up in the heart of Dairyland and let me tell you that those women and my female friends who lived on Dairy farms castrated bulls and MORE.
These patrio men wouldn’t know hard work, blood, sweat and sacrifice if it hit them between the eyes, imho.
And, as far as their assertion that only men make sacrifices in “building cottages”, have they have done any reading concerning the settlers who went West? The women worked as hard as the men and the women had to constantly defend their flesh and blood, often times they were left alone for months at a time to hold down the “fort” while the men went off to get supplies or make money somewhere else.
I hope that this means some introspection for ALL of the teachers of complementarianism and how their doctrine affects their lives and the lives of others who have to live under their teachings.
“Ten years later, Family 1’s children have fallen away from the faith, have little desire to know the Lord or go to church. Their daughter is seeking success in the secular (military) world and doing fairly well”
Are you making a connection between “little desire to know the Lord or go to church” and women in the military? I am unsure of exactly what you are trying to say here.
Yep, a country boy can survive, and so can a country girl! =)
As a proud granddaughter of pioneer homesteaders, you are right on.
Women worked right beside men, pregnant and nursing sometimes! My grandma was out helping my grandfather on the farm the day her firstborn came into the world, not because my grandfather was cruel, but because it was imperative!
I hate that story, but I am proud of my grandma. I hate that life was so hard for them, that they worked so hard every day, only to lose the farm in the depression.
And after they lost the farm? According to relatives, my grandfather was so depressed he just sat on the porch in shock while grandma and the kids sharecropped.
I don’t know how long my grandfather was out of it or even if that part of the story is true, since that little tidbit I have only heard from one person. But the fact that grandma was out helping with the farm the day she gave birth I know is true. I have heard that from several sources.
Speaking of Biblical worldview, Kevin Swanson just interviewed James McDonald about the upcoming “worldview” conference that will be held in my area this weekend. Interestingly, as Kevin talked about those things that are symptoms of Christians that do not have a Biblical worldview, he mentioned those who send daughters to college.
#327-shadowspring, I was making no connections between women who serve in the military and having a love for the Lord–I know they can do both. Trying to condense my ideas while late at night probably led to some disjointed thoughts.
Family 1′s daughter did get a college degree and is actually quite successful in the service, I think. She has always been a motivated worker, and that is great. I don’t have a problem with women in the military–I would have a hard time sending my daughter into combat, but I’m sure some here have. Our family has been blessed not to have to face that issue directly.
I was merely trying to make the point that the daughter seems to be on an ambitious path to success in the secular world without caring a whit about pursuing the Lord. Hope that is more clear.
In the 50′s, a Christian woman who worked for my mother on the farm, came up to her at noon and said, “I’m sorry, I won’t be able to work this afternoon, my baby is being born.” They had been bent over all morning cutting asparagus.
My mother drove her home, she had the baby and came back a day later with the newborn. She had eight children with the alcoholic husband/father who couldn’t keep food on the table.
Of her children, I know for certain that all the girls went on to university although some of the boys ended up like their father in addiction.
And now I read about a Swanson interview about MacDonald’s Biblical Worldview conference. I can’t help but think these men are missing the mark of their calling. It’s about the gospel of Christ – bringing Christ to the world – it’s not about bad Christians who stupidly, foolishly, blindly, whatever, however, somehow though, manage to send their women to university.
I can hardly stand listening to Swansteria. Is it transcribed somewhere?
“These little girls will enjoy many yummy chicken dinners because their daddy played the part of a man by spilling some blood on his hands in exercise of dominion and provision.”
And just who took the feathers off, cut it up and cooked the chicken? These people act like city boys with arrested developmental issues discovering the country for the first time. Give me a break. I can guarantee my godly grandfather did not consider or have on his mind dominion when he killed the chicken for dinner. He had dinner for him and his family on his mind.
Actually, women are not allowed in combat roles in today’s military, though women in the military are arguing for this opportunity.
It’s one of the few things my older sister (currently church secretary, web developer/admin and retired Lt. Col US Army) and I disagree about. She thinks women who want to serve in combat should be able, but I see that as leading to an imperative that women serve in combat. After all, men don’t have a choice!
The last time we heard about a woman wounded in Iraq, it was because the supply truck she was on was ambushed. She was not serving in a combat role.
shadowspring, I should have known that. As I said, we’ve not had to think much about military service. I’m very thankful for the men and women who help protect our country, believe they deserve more respect and help than they are getting for all they do.
I should say that, although I’m glad women can enjoy some career and educational opportunities in the military, I don’t think they should be sleeping in the same quarters as men (I don’t like co-ed college dorms, either), and I still cringe when a mom is called up to duty and has to leave her children, particularly young ones. I think that is full disclosure for me…
Great post on shadowspring’s blog about being honest in our marriages.
“First and foremost, my husband and I are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. This is who we were when we met, and who we still are. That relationship will never change, and trumps every other relationship we will ever have.”
Yes! Thank you!
That’s something I respect very much about my sister. She made a self-assessment about her probable abilities to lovingly mother, and (rightly, imho) decided against it. She didn’t marry until late 20s and then became a step-mother, the weekend and short vacations kind. She is a great step-mom.
And she was an awesome officer. She cared very much for the troops under her command and care (she was medical) and was a tireless advocate on their behalf.
And now I am sure she shows the same professionalism and care for the clients of her web design business and the people in her church whom she serves in the office as receptionist/secretary.
I am very proud of my sister. =) Her husband and her horses like her too.
Something a little unusual, but it goes along with the child abuse issue we’ve talked about. http://www.secular.org/node/241
quick personal interjection: How can Christians let the secular world get the corner on the “protecting human dignity” market? We should really be making that a priority.
I was hoping you could shed some light on something for me.
I attend a large (borderline) AoG church; my college-age group is currently doing a series on marriage/purity/relationships et al. The phrase “priest, prophet and king” in reference to the man’s role in the home has been thrown around a lot recently. To me this smacks both of patriocentrism (sp?) and at least borderline idolatry. I feel like this has been discussed on one of these threads before, and I was hoping a few of you could possibly give me some insight on the origins of this phrase (if there are any) and maybe reflections on it.
Catherine, we have discussed it on this blog but I am not certain on which thread. It is definitely one of the catch phrases within patriocentrism and it IS idolatry to assign those offices to any: man a father, a husband, a pastor, or a priest.
Jesus is the only one who fulfills these offices. Google the phrase “Jesus as prophet, priest, and king” and you will get many commentaries. ( I had previously posted one but see Virginia’s comment below. It was from a cult…sorry I didn’t reserch it! Just be careful and do a better job of looking at the sources than I did!!!)
Note: the Roman Catholic Church also states that this is the role of their priests after the manner of Christ. However, Hebrews 10:1-14 says this:
“1For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5Consequently, when Christa came into the world, he said,
“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”
8When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”
I am not certain exactly where the idea first came from to call fathers or men by this phrase within the patriocentric circles but know it is used by Phil Lancaster, one of the authors of the Tenets of Patriarchy and by Voddie Baucham.
In contrast, this is what the Bible says about the notion of priesthood now that Christ has come in 1 Peter 2:
“4As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
7So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”a
8and
“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
9But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
11Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.”
If someone is going to say that fathers or husbands or men serve in the role of prophet, priest, and king, they have to say the same thing about mothers and wives and women. A prophet proclaims the Gospel, the priest petitions God on behalf of others, and a king is a ruler over some domain and executes the law.
All believers are called to do these three things:
Prophet: Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Priest: James 5:16 “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.”
King: Proverbs 1:8 “My son, hear the instruction of your father, and forsake not the law of your mother.” AND “Romans 15:14:
“And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.”
Mine just came in the mail, but I haven’t had time to start in on it yet. I’m on my way to a play “Assasins” with my son this morning. Maybe this afternoon I can begin to read What’s With Paul and Women. I am hoping to be both enlightened and encouraged.
OOohhh, didn’t do enough research. Virginia tried to post this but the wordpress stuff was goofy so I am posting for her.
Thanks for being so alert, Virginia!!!
Karen, the Prophet Priest and King link you provided is from the Christadelphians, who are a cult that denies the trinity and claims that Jesus had a fallen nature and needed to die in order to save himself. I know you are not endorsing them — but just providing a link on the subject that popped up on Google or something. But I thought I’d let you know anyway.
Well, a small chunk of my afternoon was spent going back and forth on Facebook with our youth pastor over the nature of the grace of God after he quoted snippets of John Piper from thea T4G conference this week.
“We sin every time we repent for sinning.”
~ and ~
“Don’t trust in the work of God in you. Don’t trust in the fruit of the Spirit. Trust in the righteousness of Christ.”
Huh? Uh, those may be sound bites out of context, but these quotes rather strain his credibility with me.
Huh? sounds like eastern mysticism: lofty sounding contradicitons when you do not know, then you will understand .
Did he come up with this confusion on his own or is he quoting John Piper?
Second quote: anyone who is going to contradict Scripture, blatantly separating fruit and actual experience of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit from doctrinal position is SCARY!
My guess, a lack of fruit in the speaker’s life coupled with no current evidence of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit producing that fruit has rightly become a concern to that person. Yet instead of earnestly seeking the Lord in prayer, to find out what beam in his eye is clouding his vision of Jesus, the speaker is turning to pat reassurance of doctrine to convince himself that all is right in his life EVEN THOUGH he has no joy, feels no love, is not currently experiencing the peace that passes all understanding, etc.
I feel that many older Christians in my life lived and taught this falsehood. When their vital connection to Christ, the daily love for Him expressed in heartfelt worship and prayer became clouded, they simply replaced it with perfunctory prayer and technically superior choir performance- all the while ridiculing those with the vital connection obvious in radiant faces and loving hearts as “foolish” and “emotional”.
The perjorative “emotionalism” was usually preceded by the adjective “mere” as if lives completely devoid of the fruit of the Spirit but doctrinally sound were true Christianity. The “emotional” people with all their joy were scorned as less than.
I love that Cynthia Kunsman points out on her website that scripture identifies false teachers far more frequently by their LACK OF GODLY FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT than by their false teachings.
Many, many, many Christians live this way, so it is not surprising that your youth pastor would come out and say it in black and white. After all, he is young and hasn’t fine-tuned the subtle art of spiritual abuse. He is still learning it from the older pastors/teachers in his life.
May God have mercy on the church in America, and bless those who persevere in vital connection to Christ in all places, including our country!
“Don’t trust in the work of God in you. Don’t trust in the fruit of the Spirit. Trust in the righteousness of Christ.”
Well, that first one is just plain weird.
I think I would need to read/hear that second one in context. I read that sentence as meaning that we must place our trust and faith and hope in the finished word of Christ on the cross and not in any of our own good works. i don’t see it saying that we aren’t to have good works or that they aren’t evident, only that we shouldn’t look at them and put any measure in them. I might say it this way “Any good in me is the work of Jesus’ righteousness alone. Any sin is my own doing.”
The youth pastor explained the first Piper quote this way: “His point is that our motives are always mixed and tainted by sin. Even the good things we try are not perfect… I would recommend a study for all of us of the doctrine of sin and total depravity. If repentance can be done without sinning, it is a work we can do worthy of acceptance, an act we don’t need Christ’s imputed righteousness to make acceptable to God. Sin is not just sinful acts, but missing the mark in general, which we always do (Romans 3). This is what Piper means.”
I can sort of see his point, but I just don’t think it was particularly helpful.
I replied a few times…
“With a focus like this, why get up in the morning? Why do anything? I stand with being completely covered with the blood of Christ, and that my repentence is pleasing to the Lord. He knows our frame. To focus on repentence being tainted is to detract from its inherent beauty. He forgives us, not on the purity of our repentence, but on the purity of his mercy. So I walk in the victory of knowing him, and this gives me the confidence to go do the good things I know he has called me to do (including repentence), not worrying overmuch if they are somehow not good enough. My gifts, my heart, my worship are given in love, and even this feeble human love is gladly received by the very Source of that love. We are “God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved” (Colossians 3:12).”
With all due respect, I spent enough years dwelling on sin and my inherent failure to be good enough, but the real joy and peace came when I started resting on who I am in Christ, in God’s work in me, and in the empowering fruitfulness of the Holy Spirit. It is the intense focus on our sinfulness that has led so many people to become discouraged with life and with church. A focus on the victory of Christ leads to liberty and progress. It is indeed a matter of focus, but that little matter makes all the difference to me and to so many others. I’ve tasted the sweet goodness of God and there’s no way I am going back. I hope to lead some others along with me in the process.”
He wrote in reply:
“I understand what your saying, that some people get condemned focusing on sin. Without disrespecting your means of coming to a place of freshly appreciating grace, I think that the problem is not that we’re too focused on sin, but that we fail to remember that the sin we focus on is condemned, forgiven sin. If I focus on grace to the exclusion of sin, that only works until my depravity shown it’s ugly head again. If I focus on condemned sin, focus on the cross, then sin truly has no power because my acceptance is not contingent on my avoidance of sin. That helps me appreciate grace more than turning my blind eye to sin.”
To which I replied:
“Unfortunately so many people who don’t learn the fresh focus on grace stay mucked in legalism and despair. Please don’t dscount how many there are, and how much of this comes from church atmosphere. That is one major complaint so many have against (our group of) churches, sad to say. I am really hoping this is one thing that will seriously change before more people leave.”
No reply from him after that. He got a lot of people disputing him on this thread — mainly folks from our church.
He is young, in his 20′s. He is in charge of youth ministry.
Finished Jon Zen’s book. Very refreshing. I plan on reading during our family read aloud time, and getting my pastor a copy.
Since I am married into a family of Bible translators, you’d think the cultural context of Paul’s letter and the nuances of words would be especially relevant. Maybe I should get my father-in-law a copy too.
Interesting article I read this morning, linked from Wade Burleson. I remember Mike Warnke really well and how much respect he had from teenagers during the 1980’s. The fact that all of his “ministry” was based on a lie is interesting. I remember hearing him interviewed on Focus on the Family. It certainly is a guru warning is it not?
“There always seemed to be a story. In college, as in the high school role-playing with Jeff Nesmith, Warnke refused to drop out of character. “He played it to the end,” says Greg. “He never gave up. That was the remarkable thing about him. We’d question him about his stories and he always came up with some half-baked answer. And you couldn’t disprove what he was saying—that was the common thread. It was never anything we were likely to have the real answer for or the time to check into. So he could say anything he wanted.”
Warnke’s refusal to admit to his own storytelling made him untrustworthy in the eyes of some members of the group. “I didn’t know anything about his past, so I didn’t know what was true and what wasn’t,” says Dawn. “I didn’t feel like he was sincere in anything he did. If the situation required him to be macho, he was macho. If it required him to be mean, he was mean. He just sort of blended into the situation and tried to monopolize everyone. There was nothing real about him.””
and
“Dr. LaHaye sums up, “His type of personality tells stories for effect, not for accuracy.””
Yep. I know this type, too. And they will do everything to shut a discerning person up…the person who dares to bother to ask questions because the stories just don’t line up.
“oxanne Miller’s opinion had less to do with the High Church trappings than with an event where Mike’s ritual got in the way of a few friends’ prayer time. “We used to go down to the park for lunch,” Roxanne recalls.[142] “Dot, Jan, myself, a few others . . . and we’d just talk about what God had done in our lives. What He still was doing. Mike was usually out of town, but one day he just showed up and said, ‘I’m gonna do the teaching this week.’ So we sang, and then Mike put on his robes. I thought he was plain ridiculous. It was like dressing up to be something you’re not. It made me feel sad. He wants to be so much, and he isn’t. I can still see him standing there in his robe, all velvet and dark.””
and
“To Mike, and all others, who have been tempted to sacrifice the truth for the sake of “the ministry,” we can offer no better words than these of the apostle Paul:
Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we do not lose heart, but we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Cor. 4:1-2)”
It is interesting how he slandered his ex-wives and accused them of having affairs in order to get public sympathy.
What I found so interesting about Warnke was that he spun such fabulous tales, not just simple lies. Perhaps the most dramatic and fantastical a story, the public is more willing to believe it. Anyway, there was do date on that article so I am curious when it was published and what Warnke is doing now.
“It is interesting how he slandered his ex-wives and accused them of having affairs in order to get public sympathy.”
The point was made by one of the wives that the public wouldn’t accept a divorced Christian celebrity unless the spouse had committed adultery so obviously that was the reason he had to do this.
If you go to Warnke’s current link (the one Karen provides above) and click on the “FAQ” button, there’s a link on that page called “Tribunal Board Hearing”.
I read the whole thing and on the surface, Mike’s attitude seems a lot more humble than R.C. Junior’s was at his de-frocking. But with the colossal lies Mike told since the beginning, it sure makes it hard to believe him now.
It’s easier to believe these fakes are sincere when they drop out of site and choose a whole different line of work. The fact that he continues in “ministry” makes me think he’s still trying to sell something and for him to get his credibility back, he has do the ol’ humility song-and-dance.
I remember hearing about Mike Warnke in the 70′s — read his book, my brother bought the albums — it’s sad to see how desperate he was to feel important, and how unwilling his friends were to expose the lies.
So, I’m in Numbers and just finished working through Numbers 12, in which Miriam and Aaron are called out by God for criticizing Moses. What I found interesting in this is that gender does not enter into it at all. Miriam is not condemned for speaking as a woman. She is condemned for, as a prophet, complaining about how God chooses to use His servants. God doesn’t deny or refute Miriam and Aaron’s claim that He has “also spoken through us.” (v. 2) God confirms that, “When a prophet of the Lord is among you, I reveal myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams.” (v.6) Miriam has already been acknowledged as a prophetess (Exodus 15:20) so that is how God speaks to her. But Moses is different — he has a special and particular role in God’s plan for the nation of Israel and he has a special and particular relationship with God. “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord.” (v. 8) I don’t see God rebuking Miriam for being out of line as a woman, but as a prophet. In the chapters to come (Numbers 16), there will be men who will also challenge Moses’ and Aaron’s leadership who will be punished far more severely.
Ministry has become a legitimizing word used by Christian businesses. Attach “ministry” and we sheep are more apt to follow with our money.
Some of us remember when ministry solely meant the function of ordained preachers giving out God’s Word every Lord’s Day and quietly serving the flock throughout the week.
Josef Stalin had a conference of Soviet Leaders at the Kremlin in the mid 1930′s. In a cage at the end of the conference table was a single chicken, and none of the other leaders could imagine the point the eccentric, all powerful Stalin was trying to make.
After keeping his senior leaders waiting for his arrival the “Man of Steel” Stalin had a quick announcement: “Comrades, I am going to give a demonstration of how to treat the Russian People.”
With that, Stalin went to the cage and plucked the bird clean while it was alive. The bird hysterically squealed and squirmed as Stalin plucked its feathers away and let them fall to the floor. He began a tirade of complaints against each of his ministers as he did this which left each man scared to death for his own survival. The leaders could not believe their eyes although none of them were strangers to cruelty, that the bird could long survive this.
Once plucked, Stalin released the bloodied, fear ridden animal, reached into his greatcoat and threw a few kernels of corn on the floor that the bird slowly and quietly ate at the feet of its torturer.
Stalin proceeded to the rest of his demands of his leaders. Frequently he stood and paced as he walked describing which food rations would be cut, the number of people who were to be arrested in his purges, and the instructions how they were to be slaughtered, tortured, or merely sent to Siberia to be worked to death. As he walked, following him closely was the chicken.
The message was clear. Strip people of all health, prosperity, security, humanity and keep them fearful, and they will follow you.
Heard reference to this story over the weekend and then looked for it because it reminded me so much of what happens in homes where parents are so harsh with their children and keep them fearful in order to have their loyalty. Also can apply to churches who are abusive.
Karen, what a sad story that is all too true of authoritarian homes. The smart chickens sense danger and fly away just out of harm’s grasp, while the “obedient” ones are prey to the one who holds them in their hand until they are broken and damaged…
“”Many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media.”
Uh huh…..
“What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble?” Sedighi asked during a prayer sermon Friday. “There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam’s moral codes.”
Uh huh….
Boy, this sounds awfully familiar. Kind of like when Piper predicted that the tornado struck in Minnesota because the Lutherans weren’t taking a strong enough stance against homosexuality in the church.
Of course, all of our catastrophes are to be blamed on homosexuals and/or women.
Funny how these men never blame these natural disasters on their own corrupt perversity. They blame the women for their own perverse natures and then blame them, again, for “God judging the nation” with a earthquake.
Could it be that God is causing natural disasters because of the fact that men are oppressing women and that these male leaders are filled with corruption and violence and oppression and greed and lust?
Nah! They are not to blame. They are like Teflon. Nothing sticks to them. They would be perfect if it weren’t for those darn women and homosexuals!
“The point was made by one of the wives that the public wouldn’t accept a divorced Christian celebrity unless the spouse had committed adultery so obviously that was the reason he had to do this.”
Karen,
This is true. Somehow adultery is the magic key!
And I have seen this with other Christian leaders. And that is why it is so important to check up on their claims and check in with the spouse that they are slandering publicly and accusing of committing adultery.
Although, you could end up getting slapped with a lawsuit for doing that very thing.
Karen–yikes. What about promiscuous men? What about men in Islamic (among other) countries who are having sex with young girls and boys and using them as sex slaves? Why are only women to blame?
Not that I believe people are to blame for any natural disasters, nor should we be punished further because one happened to us. Haven’t people suffered enough not to have further guilt and blame placed on them by religious zealots?
I wanted to comment on your Stalin story, too, but I’m still speechless. I guess all I have to say is that it affected my thinking profoundly yesterday, and I was acutely aware of even the small ways that we can manipulate and try to control our children, even if we aren’t being abusive, but we just want a little blind obedience. How tragic that this happens to entire nations. It’s no wonder people in this world are such a mess.
This quote sounds like a “Christian Patriarch” penned it:
“By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independantly, even in her own house.
In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independant.
Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure (elswhere), or devoid of good qualities, (yet) a husband must be constantly worshiped as a god by a faithful wife.
No sacrifice, no vow, no fast must be performed by a woman apart from her husband; if a wife obeys her husband, she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven.
A faithful wife who desires to dwell after death with her husband, must never do anything that might displeas him who took her hand, whether he be alive or dead.” – The Code of Manu
But, no, it’s actually from one of Hinduism’s sacred texts.
“Lust, wrath, greed, pride and all other violent passions form
the sturdy army of infatuation; but among them all the most
formidable and callamitous is woman, illusion incarnate.
Listen sage, the Puranas and Vedas, and the saints declare
that woman is the vernal season to the forest of infatuation,
like the heat of summer, she dries up all the lakes and ponds of prayer and penance and devotional exercises.” – Ramayana
Ramayana is a Sanskrit text and was called the greatest literature in all the world religions by Ghandi. The trope on women as deserts that soak up and dry out male seminal fluid is widespread in non-christian religious literature. I don’t normally have the stomach for reading Eastern religious texts, but this was included in some Christian mission literature.
Here is a quote from a popular Hindu tract by Swami Ramsukhdas:
Question: What should a wife do if her husband beats her and troubles her?
Answer: The wife should thinks she is paying the debt of her previous life and her sins are being destroyed and she is becoming pure. When her parents come to know this they can take her to their own house.
Question: What should she do if her parents don’t take her into their own house?
Answer: She should reap the fruits of her past actions. She should patiently bear the beatings of her husband. By bearing them she will be free from her sins and it is possible that her husband may start loving her. – How to Lead a Household Life
The missionary goes on to say that this is a common theme in most religious literature.
Karen, wouldn’t it be convenient to be an Eastern man so you could simply blame all your sins, problems and natural disasters on women?
What is the difference, in your opinion, between education and indoctrination?
What is the difference between milieu control and protection?
And, finally, is it really faith if it is beyond plain clear that it is the only belief system acceptable to choose if one wants to still be accepted and loved by your parents?
This does apply to patriocentricity, but also to the broader spheres of Christian home education and the even broader sphere of Christian parenting, so if Karen thinks it is too vague for this thread, please respond at my blog. I am really interested in other mom’s points of view!
Just finished the new book by John Zens and a video I ordered from him. Wow. Wow.
At one point he quotes a women from the early 1920′s who talks about Satan’s attack on the body of Christ through attacking women. I believe it is the exact thing we are seeing. And it is multi-faceted in patriocentricity:
There is the attack on daughter’s and leaving them without a direct access to God or Christ.
There is the attack on moms, leaving them open to all sorts of false teachings by telling them that, first, they shouldn’t feel like they need their own time in the Word and secondly that men are the ones who have all the answers.
Then there is the attack on moms by telling them that they aren’t qualified to teach their sons which, in reality,becomes an attack on sons,too.
There is the attack on sons by telling them they are bound to fulfill a father’s vision, rendering the working of the Holy Spirit in a young man’s life null and void.
There is the attack on fathers,trying to make them into something that isn’t necessary or even Biblical and giving them the notion that they are the “Lord” by calling them “lord.”
These people talk about the attack on the womb and childbearing but,in reality, their views on treatment for ectopic pregnancy are the real attack on the womb. And their notions that post partum depression isn’t real or is only spiritual is also an attack on motherhood, leaving women guilt ridden and their very lives at risk.
Their views of marriage are an attack on the institution of marriage and also the picture of Christ and the church.
They are not teaching the whole counsel of God and are painting a distorted view of relationships which attacks the whole body.
Their teachings on women and ministry are attacking fully half the body of Christ.
And on top of all that, they are attacking God’s Word by using random passages of Scripture to promote a manmade agenda and are refusing to look at the Scripture from a right perspective, considering the whole counsel of God in the process.
“Kay, those quotes are chilling. Think about how much today is blamed on “immodestly dressed” women here.”
Yes, exactly, Karen. Blaming one’s sin on others is very old game.
Most women were basically covered from head to toe when Jesus addressed this problem.
If a new set of dress code rules would solve the problem, then Jesus would have given one. Why did Jesus say not to look on a woman in order to lust after her? Because the problem is internal, not external.
If “fig leaves” were the answer, God wouldn’t have had to shed blood to cover Adam and Eve. In our choice of clothing or our choice of lusting, we choose to be led by either the flesh or the Spirit.
I often wonder if it has ever occured to them how anyone witnesses to those caught in prostitution, etc… How do the “patriarchs” and those like them, think that the mostly naked tribes of people were ever witnessed to and saved? I think the missionaries who share the Gospel with them were being led by the Spirit and not by the flesh, don’t you?
I read the article… the ironic thing is what that the woman who gave the leaflet to that young lady said to her – ““Even though nothing is showing, you’re being ungodly,” Canter recalled the woman telling her. “You make men want to be sinful.””
The fact that a woman can be covered from neck to ankles and guys will
still come on to her, even though she isn’t deliberately encouraging them, just
goes to show that for the most part, the blame SHOULD be placed exactly where
Jesus placed it — entirely on the males.
The plain truth is that men come on to a woman for the same reason that a
rooster comes on to a hen or a bull to a heifer — because she is FEMALE and
they want to have sex. What she looks like or is (or is not wearing) is entirely
secondary to that one, overarching fact.
Now, if a woman’s clothing, or most especially, her DEMEANOR makes her look as
though she might be “available”, most men will be far more inclined to try and
seduce her….. however, there are some fellows who see a modestly dressed lady
as a special challenge, and will single her out for extra attention.
In addition, most normal men find women who dress in skirts (of ANY length!) to
be a far greater “turn on” than women who dress in pants – a woman who dresses
in skirts is declaring her femininity to the entire world, because while both
men and women wear pants, in Western society (outside of Scotland and Ireland),
the general consensus is that only “real women” wear skirts and dresses.
The bottom line is that an unprincipled man who wants a woman will try
to seduce or even rape any postpubescent female that’s available, providing she isn’t
elderly, ill, or downright repulsive (and some fellows don’t even mind
that!), whereas a man of principle will not ALLOW himself to seduce or even
indulge in lustful reveries about a woman, no matter how much his carnal nature
would like to do so.
The historic demand that women hide everything exists because men are too lazy to deal with and repent of
their tendency to lust.
The men, being (rightfully) ashamed of that tendency, transfer their guilt and shame from where it belongs (themselves) to the object of their guilt and shame (all women), and so they cover them up, make them invisible,exclude them from public life and pretend as best that can that women do not exist, except for when they want one for sexual satisfaction or to procreate themselves.
Christianity pre-fundamental extremism, was a positive influence on society. Both the abolition of slavery, child labor movements, women’s suffrage, original abortion laws, even (misguidedly) The Women’s Temperance League all were strivng to make our world more like God’s kingdom come.
How sad that many, many today have left that righteous calling and are actually working to bring back wicked hierarchies of power that exploit the weak and exonerate wickedness among the power elite (being mostly MEN- as in “men can’t help but rape women, they’re so purty…)
Even the original abortion laws were written to provide relief for young women, raped by powerful men and then forced to endure abortion either to protect the man’s reputation or because she had absolutely no way of providing for herself and her child in our industrial revolution culture. (Thanks to Karen for posting links about this truth. =)
Now the CHURCH is leading the way back to this view of women as made for exploitation and undeserving of the same honor and protection as men.
Ugh. Men/boys get raped too. So whose fault is that?
Just opened World Magazine and found a full page add for “Babies Blessing or Burden” sponsored by Vision Forum. Speakers include Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, Doug and Beall Phillips and Dr. R.C. and Denise Sproul. Cost is only $85 or $299 for a family residing in the same household. Biblical answers on Adoption, Birth Control, Fertility, Home Births, Vaccinations, and much more. Just hit me wrong.
I’ve omitted some words in the following passage. See if you can guess what the author is talking about until I reveal it towards the end.
They blame the deterioration … on women’s rights, which allowed women to initiate divorce and destroy the family. They reinforce the … teaching that women need to be controlled … for the protection and preservation of culture and society. To them, … women who bare their legs, arms, hair and make up their faces are bait for sin. And we are not talking about the likes of Britney Spears dancing half naked with a live snake draped on her body. We are talking about any woman who wears shorts and a tank top to go to the grocery store to pick up some milk.
On one occasion, I was speaking at a large gathering … A very nice, friendly woman in her forties stood up and asked me [a question]. I looked at her and paused for a few seconds. She was wearing business attire: a skirt above her knees showing her legs, a short-sleeved shirt baring her arms with a V-neckline that allowed her chest to be visible in a conservative way. Her hair was worn up, revealing her neck, and she wore a beautiful necklace. Knowing that she was a business owner, I looked at her and said: “You are what they despise … You are the example of a beautiful woman, who in their eyes is baring it all for men to see. I can see your legs, your arms, your neck, face, and hair, and your cleavage. … You are the picture-perfect image of an independent woman who can provide for herself and her family without having to depend on a man. You have proven you have a brain and an ability to use it, rendering men irrelevant in your life by your independence.” This female freedom and independence is one of the greatest sins in Islam and is one of devout Muslim purists’ greatest justifications for terrorism against Western societies.
From: They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It by Brigitte Gabriel
Funny, it sounds like Muslims are exporting their brand of patriarchy to Christianity, doesn’t it? The underlying concepts of patriocentricity and Islam are the same. It’s only a question of degree. I omitted the phrase about beating women for the control of society. Here’s more from the same book:
They are repulsed by Western societies that permit … a woman’s right to be a man’s equal. They are repulsed by Western women’s freedom, their dress code, and their independence. The position of women in the West is abhorrent in Islam’s [or Christian patriocentrism's] view and gives fuel to those purists who want to bring Allah’s [or God's] justice to earth and punish those who gave women such freedom and undermined God’s will. Islamists [patriocentrist Christians] use women’s rights in the West [our society] as a rallying point to show that unless stopped, this corruption, headed by the United States, is coming to their Islamic communities [or their US Christian communities and families] and countries.
Follow, for a moment, the somewhat-standard assumption that men respond more to visual stimuli while women react more to romance.
Then take that same logic of blaming scantily-clad women for men’s sins. To be consistent, you would have to abolish all romance from society, lest women be tempted.
To remain credible, the patrios need to banish Valentine’s Day, lest any rose-carrying-Romeos walking down the street cause a woman to fall.
It’s no accident that Muslim modesty is being exported to Western cultures.
Think about it – if you take REAL Christianity (the kind that focuses on Jesus-as-Savior instead of Jesus-as-great-human-teacher) out of the picture, what is the BIGGEST obstacle to a meeting of the minds between moderate Islam and the West?
If they could just get past the problem of uncovered, independent, educated WOMEN, Islamic men and Western men could sit down together in consensus, do business, and MAKE MONEY.
You are completely correct in seeing the alliance between patriocentricity in Christianity and in Islam.
More and more, pastors and Christian speakers are not proclaiming the kingdom of God or the person of Christ. They are defaming those they perceive as their enemies: woman who they derisively refer to as feminists, environmentalist who they deride as pantheist, liberals who they villify as liscentious rather than as people wanting to end societal injustice, gays and other hurting souls, who are openly reviled as long as there is the assumption that everyone in the room will agree.
Really, you would have to conclude, reading a fund-raising letter from Concerned Woman for America or the American Family Association, that God called us to hate our enemies and work tirelessly to eradicate their influence in society and completely marginalize them.
You would have to conclude, if that’s all you knew of Christianity, that Jesus was a political activist who taught that the rule of law is the means by which his disciples will change the world.
For years I made excuses for fundamentalists. I rolled my eyes at the dire warnings in newspaper editorials and television opinion pieces. *I* was not trying to force my views on anyone, so I concluded that these “liberal” views were overstated and paranoid.
When the SBC affirmed the “complementarian roles” of men and woman in marriage, I thought what business is that to the secular media? People can live how they want.
Now I know why it is everyone’s business. The church is no longer about sharing the life of Jesus with the world. They want political power to enforce their version of morality, and they have convinced themselves that God called them to live this way.
“Christian” politics appears to be about dominating women, limiting education for children, exalting the historical role of religion in America, forcing their version of morality on our whole society through the rule of law, and generally feeling smug and superior in their Calvinist security.
I am disgusted by my participation in the downfall of the church. I was such a Pollyanna.
You are completely correct in seeing the alliance between patriocentricity in Christianity and in Islam.
More and more, pastors and Christian speakers are not proclaiming the kingdom of God or the person of Christ. They are defaming those they perceive as their enemies….
Ana Mendez, a former Haitian voodoo priestess turned born-again Third Wave preacher, also seems to be taking personal credit for the deaths of Princess Diana and Mother Theresa:
“Following the ‘Operation Ice Castle’ prayer excursion which included planting a flag for Jesus on Mt. Everest, one of the lead prayer intercessors from the excursion, Ana Mendez, reported that there had been dramatic results including, “millions have come to faith in Asia… and other things happened which I believe are also connected…an earthquake had destroyed the basilica of Assisi, where the Pope had called a meeting of all world religions; a hurricane destroyed the infamous temple ‘Baal-Christ’ in Acapulco, Mexico; the Princes Diana died… and Mother Theresa died in India, one of the most famous advocates of Mary as Co-Redeemer.”
Now, let’s go back about a year and a half, to THIS:
By Bruce Wilson, Printed on September 8, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/story/97939/ “On June 8, 2008 Palin was publicly blessed, with the “laying on of hands” before six thousand Wasilla area church members, by Head Wasilla Assembly of God Pastor Ed Kalnins and on the same day both Kalnins and Palin described, at a “Masters Commission” ceremony at the Wasilla Assembly of God church, how she had been blessed prior to winning the Alaska governorship by an African cleric known for driving the “spirit of witchcraft” out of a town in Kenya, after which town supposedly crime rates dropped “almost to zero.”
Sarah Palin’s churches are actively involved in a resurgent movement that was declared heretical by the Assemblies of God in 1949. This is the same ‘Spiritual Warfare’ movement that was featured in the award winning movie, “Jesus Camp,” which showed young children being trained to do battle for the Lord. At least three of four of Palin’s churches are involved with major organizations and leaders of this movement, which is referred to as The Third Wave of the Holy Spirit or the New Apostolic Reformation. The movement is training a young “Joel’s Army” to take dominion over the United States and the world.”
“The Third Wave is a revival of the theology of the Latter Rain tent revivals of the 1950s and 1960s led by William Branham and others. It is based on the idea that in the end times there will be an outpouring of supernatural powers on a group of Christians that will take authority over the existing church and the world. The believing Christians of the world will be reorganized under the Fivefold Ministry and the church restructured under the authority of Prophets and Apostles and others anointed by God. The young generation will form “Joel’s Army” to rise up and battle evil and retake the earth for God. While segments of this belief system have been a part of Pentecostalism and charismatic beliefs for decades, the excesses of this movement were declared a heresy in 1949 by the General Council of the Assemblies of God, and again condemned through Resolution 16 in 2000.
The Third Wave, also known as the New Apostolic Reformation, is a network of Apostles, many of them grouped around C. Peter Wagner, founder of the World Prayer Center. This center, which was built in coordination with Ted Haggard and his New Life Church in Colorado Springs, was featured in an article by Jeff Sharlet in Harpers, May 2005, “Soldiers of Christ.”
“Wagner’s top leaders often conduct spiritual warfare campaigns against the demons that block the acceptance of their brand of Christian belief, such as ‘Operation Ice Castle’ in the Himalayas in 1997. Several of their top prophets and generals of intercession spent weeks in intensive prayer to “confront the Queen of Heaven.” This queen is considered by them to be one of the most powerful demons over the earth and is the Great Harlot of Mystery Babylon in Revelation. (The “Great Harlot [or 'whore'] of Mystery Babylon” theme also figures prominently in the sermons of Texas megachurch pastor and Christians United For Israel founder John Hagee, former endorser of John McCain’s 2008 presidential bid.) Wagner and his group also claim that the Queen of Heaven is Diana, the pagan god of the biblical book Ephesians and the god of Mary veneration in the Roman Catholic Church.”
THIS, this violent Christo/Islamic politics-as-religion, is what I was trying to warn everybody here on TW about a year and a half ago, when I got shouted down by Richard Gelinas and Cindy Kunsman , and I left True Womanhood for awhile.
Has anyone heard of this girl? Reem Al Numery: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1984685_1984949_1985230,00.html
Her story is very interesting, I’m going to look for more info. It’s about child marriage in Yemen.
What stuns me about this is the contrast to here in the U.S. where those Christian groups who are opting out of “legal” marriages are actually circumventing the system and putting their daughters at the same risk.
I’ve tried a few times to post this but my computer freezes after I hit the submit button and it never shows up. Could you possibly post it for me?
Ladies, I have been reading the comments about modesty in recent days and I’m a bit perplexed. I know your intention is just to react to legalism and unfair accusations in this area, but it still comes across like you are abandoning the need for any standards in the way we dress. It’s like you are saying that it is a complete myth that the way women dress affects men in the area of temptation and lust. I don’t think you can so easily dismiss that. It does matter how we dress. It does affect them. No, they can’t shift all the blame on us for their own sins, BUT why in the world would you want to dress in a way that causes a brother in Christ to struggle or stumble? Why make it hard for them? If it doesn’t matter, why not order a subscription to the Victoria’s Secret catalog for your teenage sons? I know I am using hyperbole here.
You’re absolutely right that men should not blame rape or earthquakes or the collapse of society on women’s clothing (or the lack of it). But I think it is true that a man is much more likely to make a pass at a girl who is skimpily dressed than at one who is covered decently. We shouldn’t dress in a way that advertises, “I’m cheap! Come get me! Take whatever you want with your eyes, and then if you like what you see, feel free to come get some more of me with the rest of your body!” To claim that you can dress that way and still maintain purity in your sexual actions is like bait-and-switch — you are advertising one thing to the public that you insist to your Christian friends you won’t deliver on.
How we dress speaks about who we are, and whether we respect ourselves or not. If you use your “liberty in Christ” to dress seductively, how does that glorify God? How does that reflect on our faith and purity? We can be attractive, stylish, and modest at the same time. There is no need to be flaunting cleavage or wearing such tight or short clothes that every curve is accentuated. I’m not talking about burquas or even Mennonite or Victorian clothes. A simple outfit of a T-shirt or polo shirt with blue jeans or capris will do quite nicely. Even for dressy clothes, we can be classy and dignified at the same time. Feminine doesn’t have to be floozy.
And it is still the responsibility of the parents to see that their daughters and sons are dressing appropriately for each situation. This is not legalism. It is proper parenting. They need to hear a dad’s perspective on how women’s clothing affects men. They also need mom to set the example and the standards.
Ladies, please assure me that this is so for you! I think somehow in our rush to decry a wrong emphasis on modesty, we’ve not only thrown the baby out with the bathwater, we’ve left her butt naked in the streets, too.
Debbie, about romance and causing young ladies to stumble. We should teach our sons not to romance a young woman if they are just going to play with her feelings, take advantage of her, and not follow through with a REAL relationship of respect. That’s just not fair. And that’s just for one girl. What if a young man is flirtatious to a whole bunch of girls? Is a girl who values integrity and marital fidelity going to trust a guy like this to do right by her? No. And the other girls who aren’t so careful are going to get their hearts broken, feelings hurt or reputations damaged because they are so desperate for attention that they’ll even take it from a notorious ladies’ man. With an immodest girl, it’s even worse, because everyone has to look at what she has on and what it’s not covering. It’s like flirting without even trying to do it with anyone specific. And lots of girls want the attention so they flaunt their goods. It’s all about the package. Otherwise most of the trendy teen clothing stores would be out of business, and so would a lot of teen magazines. I’m really not trying to paint with a broad brush here. I think this is common sense. I personally want to dress in a way that a man of integrity doesn’t need to avert his eyes from me when I walk in the room. Not that he should be staring at my chest, but when he sees that area of my body, I want to be decently clothed enough that he doesn’t need to blush.
Virginia, nobody here was advocating that women go around dressing like hookers – the point being made is that there are many in religious circles who place the WHOLE responsiblity for men lusting on the women.
They start by decrying clothing styles that are obviously meant to seduce men, which is fine, but somehow, no matter how much women cover up, it’s never enough — men are still beset with temptation and the whole thing ends with groups advocating that women cover up everything but their hands and faces, and telling women as the tract-peddler linked to in comment #378 did, “Even though nothing is showing, you’re being ungodly…..You make men want to be sinful.”
The tract peddlar was more right than she knew, because while clothes and demeanor DO affect men, the chief thing that women do that tempts men to lust is to BE FEMALE.
The bottom line is, MEN (if they are normal) ARE DESIGNED TO BE ATTRACTED TO WOMEN, and no matter HOW much women cover up, the fact that they are women will always make them a temptation to men.
This is illustrated by the fact that in countries where women wear burqas, the mere presence of completely covered women is as tempting to men as a gal in a string bikini would be in Western countries.
Thus, while intentionally seductive clothing can lead to temptation, the only real way to fix this problem is to either to eliminate women altogether, or for men to get a handle on their own carnal nature by taking responsibility for it directly, and learning to control it, instead of placing the blame for their sin on other people.
Recent conversation from my son’s secular speech club aftermath:
Mom hands young lady money for snacks. Yong lady folds money up and sticks it under her bra strap, so that it is partially peeking out of her shirt near her scapula bone.
Jewish teen: Hey (friends name), I like boobs and I like money, and that is REALLY distracting me right now. Could you put your money someplace else.
All laugh. Teen girl takes the folded money and puts it in her pocket.
Teen girl, also laughing: Sure, no problem. Sorry about that.
All the teens move on to other topics and treat each other will respect and comradely affection. There is no lewdness or impropriety among them in any way.
Imagine this at a youth group. The young man would have felt guilty and shame about liking boobs and money and ducked his face OR surreptitiously went off to tell a leader about the “ungodly/immodest” behavior of the young woman. Depending on the group, the leader will either take the young woman aside for a personal moralizing lecture about being immodest, or perhaps throw it in as an example of bad behavior in the next lesson or in an announcement of a new dress code, publicly shaming the young girl in front of all who knew she stuck her money under her bra strap.
I like the way the Jewish boy handled it much better! He took responsibility for his thoughts, asked for help from his female friend in keeping his mind in the right place, no one was shamed, everyone moved on towards a righteous way of relating to one another- no big deal.
Uhmmm. . . I think that most of what I read was in reaction to religious fundamentalists believing that earthquakes are caused by women who dress loosely. There are definitely parallels to be drawn between those fundamentalists and the patriocentric ideas that we discuss regularly in this community.
I can’t imagine the women of this community have suddenly started dressing cheaply or started telling their daughters to dress cheaply. We were simply reacting to the ridiculous-ness of the claim. I don’t know what gave you the impression that we lost sight of the importance of modesty in general.
And while I appreciate your concern, Virginia, as a woman in my late-40′s, I really don’t need a scold in this area, and your post rather comes across like that, speaking for myself only. My idea of modesty may be different than yours, but it is one I have been at peace with for many years.
As the mother of three grown/nearly-grown sons, I have spoken repeatedly and at-length with that about what they will come across out in society, and how different people have different standards (and sometimes no standards), and no matter how a young lady is dressed, it should never be interpreted as an invitation for anything, and how ultimately, only they can truly guard their hearts.
Virginia,
At my church, my pastor has been preaching from Galatians since the beginning of the year. The last couple weeks he’s talked about freedom, specifically our freedom in Christ. A couple weeks ago, he mentioned the issue of “women’s clothing” particularly in church. He brought up that *every summer* he gets multiple emails from people that he needs to “tell the women how to dress!” He mentioned this with NO agenda, just to point out that there are things that people *want* to tell others what to do or how to do it “right.” He also mentioned some other things, like telling people how to vote, stuff like that. It was all legalistic stuff, really. People write to him to tell him to tell the whole church *How To Live* because they themselves want/need to be told how to live and can’t think for themselves.
What he told us after this: If you love Jesus, you will know how to dress. If he has changed your heart, you will want to dress respectfully. But if you haven’t had a heart change, no amount of rules is going to compel you to actually *want* to wear more modest clothing, if you don’t in the first place.
I know that most of my clothes don’t fit the strict modesty standards, but I also know when too far is too far. Those are the things I may have for my husband’s eyes only, not to wear in public. I wear clothing that is respectful to others, but our body shape many times can be more of a stumbling block to men than our clothing, and we have absolutely no control over that–God did that. In school, I wore baggy, unflattering clothing because I knew–KNEW–that there were guys in my class who were lustful, and I struggled with the fact that there were girls who were jealous. I didn’t like my body, yet somehow there were people who either liked it, or hated me for it, and it had nothing to do with the clothing I wore. I’m not boasting, because I hated this, really. I hated not being comfortable in normal clothes because I knew what the guys were thinking–they still thought it when I wore the baggy sweaters, because they already knew what my figure looked like underneath. I was incredibly shy, and still struggle in the area of being assertive in person, and if this weren’t the case, I most likely would have had a few choice words for all of those people who cared more about what was under my clothes than what was in my heart.
That is an appalling story concerning the “Women and Girls” pamphlet handed out by patriarchalist zealots.
The modesty teaching that comes out of this movement boils down to a woman’s body being inherently sinful. Women must hide the very fact that they are women. The very whiff that we have breasts or hips or have different genitalia sends patriocentric men into a seizure because they are created by God to NOT be able to control themselves. Basically, patriocentrists teach that men are pigs and mere dogs who cannot rise above their animalistic natures and this is how God made them. Even our butts are inherently sinful and that is why we shouldn’t wear pants because pants “cup” our butts and our butts cause men to lust. I can’t figure out why a man’s butt isn’t sinful and a point of stumbling in a pair of pants?
The patrios tell me that a woman isn’t turned on by the physique of man! Oh, those poor dears! The sight of a man dressed in a nice pair of form fitting jeans, a t-shirt that tightly hugs his biceps and chest………Well, let’s just say that I could be turned on by the sight of a good looking man. No touching necessary. No romance is needed. I could lust with the best of our brothers just by looking.
But, what does the Bible say? It doesn’t teach that men are animals who are unable to control themselves. It teaches the very OPPOSITE! And, why do we want men in control of society, church and family when they are nothing but animals who are helpless when it comes to the sight of an attractive woman?
Also, Eve was the one who was attracted to the forbidden fruit because she SAW that it was good. It seems there is more Biblical proof that women are drawn into sin by what they see and there is no biblical support to say that men are.
So, men should cover their butts and not wear pants that cup their butts. Because, as I woman and a daughter of Eve, I might be drawn away into temptation because I see the forbidden fruit and I see that it is good.
Maybe we should pass out pamphlets about men who flaunt french fries and brownies and cause women to lust after these fat-filled goodies?
I don’t care how modestly I dress, there is always going to be some religious nut who thinks I am not modest enough. They use religion to cover up their own perverted thoughts and fantasies. I would love to know how many of these modesty zealots are secretly addicted to the nastiest of porn available?
I would have to put a bag over my head and wear a shapeless sack in order to be considered “modest” according to their standards. If men look at me, it must be because I am dressed like a harlot. If I am raped, it was because I was asking for it. After all, I shouldn’t have been wearing those form fitting running pants and running around outside minding my own business! Don’t I know that men just cannot help themselves!
Just ask Abraham’s wife, Sarah, and just ask Rebeccah, her daughter in law. They must have been dressed immodestly to cause men to lust after them so many times! If they would have just covered up Abraham and Isaac wouldn’t have had to lie in order to save their own skin.
Rape is not about sex. It is about power and hatred of women and domination and control.
Lust is about the heart. And the Bible clearly states that getting married takes care of burning with lust. Why don’t they take that verse literally? Why are these men still burning with lust when they are married?
Why didn’t Jesus mention women dressing modestly in order not to tempt men to lust? Wow, He really missed the mark according to the patriocentrist teaching on modesty.
I was recently at a “Woman of Joy” conference in Branson this past weekend and there were two men standing out in front of the conference center with signs that read something like: “Christian Women are Meek, Modest and Silent”. They had both had their dutiful, silent, modestly dressed wives standing behind them, silently supporting their “manly” “leadership”. I asked them if I was modestly dressed, already knowing the answer (I was wearing jeans, heels, t-shirt, jewelry, make-up, etc).
I wanted to free those women from their oppressors and the ungodly yokes that those mere men put upon them, believe me. Their eyes spoke LOUDLY even though they were silent.
And, I do care about modesty. But, like I said, my standards will never be good enough for someone. I will be too modest for some (ie., not allowing bikinis, short shorts ) and too immodest for others (ie., wearing jeans, shorts, etc).
We can NEVER give license to rapists to think that they weren’t anything but 100% responsible for their actions. To place blame on the length of their victim’s skirt is abhorrent and should NEVER even enter into the conversation on rape.
One more thought, does that mean that women who wear swimming suits at the pool are asking to be raped?
Virgina, I heartily agree with you that a Christian women we should be wise in how we dress. And there ARE clothes that draw attention to the more sensual body parts that I personally believe we ought not to “advertise.” The problem is that what those are is sometimes debatable. For example, some people do not approve of sleeveless tops for women because they consider the under arm area to be part of the breast. I personally don’t have an issue with sleeveless tops but think that showing cleavage IS showing part of the breast.
As mother of sons (and a husband) I really do hate the lack of clothing that shows up this time of year. I really hate it when someone sits in front of the guys at church wearing a backless dress or one where the straps are cut so far in that it is obvious they aren’t wearing bras. But then, I also think this is interesting…do you know the reason women burned their bras in the 60′s? It wasn’t so they could flaunt bare breasts under their clothing. It was a reaction to those pointy Marilyn Monroe type styles in the 1950′s (remember the era that is so idolized by the patriocentric women?) that all the women wore that made your breasts look like missiles? They didn’t want their breasts to be admired that way or to be thought of as perfectly perky, especially since the primary function of breasts is to nurse babies, which we all know ends the era of perky! Then the opposite extreme is to wear clothing that makes you basically shapeless. So how do we decide what is appropriate? It always comes back to that. I remember that my daughter was at ATI headquarters and was told that nude colored pantyhose caused the young men to think impure thoughts so they could only wear colored stockings. A few years later she was at BJU and told that the ONLY modest stockings were nude, that colored stockings caused the young men to think impure thoughts. So how does a girl win?
I think the goal needs to be to teach our sons how to guard their eyes and encourage them to learn how to look away from things that are immodest since we have absolutely no control whatsoever over what pops out at them. Remember the big push to get all these women to confront stores about having the Sports Illustrated Issues taken out of stores? How are those magazines any different than Cosmo, which is really worse because of all the phrases on the front cover. It seems to me that dealing with the effect is fruitless, that dealing with the cause, ie the heart issues is what needs to be done. I think as long as women are told that men can’t control themselves they are setting themselves up to be sex objects. Maybe some of these ultra conservative women like that? {{{{{shrug}}}}}
I agree that Christian women need to be modest and not cause a brother to stumble, I am just not sure how that is done. Do I stop wearing sandals, for example, because some Christian men have foot fetishes? Should I stop coloring my hair because some men lust after blonde locks? Should I never wear pants because the butt men are lusting? Just not sure how to apply…..
If rape is the result of immodestly dressed and sexually enticing women, why do I sometimes hear about the rape of 90 year old women or 5 year old little girls?
I don’t think anyone is saying that we can dress however we want and that we don’t have any standards whatsoever.
All I know is that I am not going to allow another person’s sin problems to dictate all sorts of standards for me. I will do what I can to a point but where does it end if we allow every person to dictate to us what causes them to lust? Men with foot fetishes- no sandals. Men who like a woman’s neck- hair down. Men who lust after a woman who wears her hair down- hair in bun. Or should we just cover up the hair and neck with a big scarf that hangs down? Men who lust after a woman’s lips and eyes- cover face. We might as well cover up ever bit of skin and make sure that the fact that we have hips, breasts, legs, butt, arms are covered so that any form of them is indistinguishable.
Whose standards should we follow so that we don’t cause a man to lust? Because, the truth is every man is different and what makes one man lust won’t bother another man at all.
Cynthia Gee is correct:
“The bottom line is, MEN (if they are normal) ARE DESIGNED TO BE ATTRACTED TO WOMEN, and no matter HOW much women cover up, the fact that they are women will always make them a temptation to men.”
What causes grown men to lust after little girls? It isn’t the way they dress and there are actually men who do lust after the sweet, modest clothing that girls wear and want grown women to imitate what little girls wear so they can get off.
And why stop at sexual lust? How about lust for money? Shall we all live in double-wide trailers and drive older cars and wear old clothes and never go on vacations or buy anything new in order to keep others from coveting which is a HUGE problem and it is a huge issue in the Bible. Why isn’t a big deal made about how reckless we are when it comes to the possessions we have and how they may cause another person to covet?
Or gluttony? Should we be more careful about what we eat and make sure there are no desserts and church functions. What of all the brothers and sisters who lust after brownies and potato chips? Why are we so reckless about laying bare on banqueting tables all sorts of tempting foods in front of people with no regard for their struggles?
What are the standards for owning possessions and the standards for eating food so that we don’t cause another brother/sister to fall into temptation?
Where else are we causing others to sin in their lives?
Why is it that men and sexual temptation is the only area where we try and control and dominate the target of their lust?
Virginia,
I hope that nothing I posted here lead you to believe that I advocate women who purpose in their heart to dress for titulation.
If covering from head to toe would eliminate all sexual sin from the world, I would be the No.1 advocate. But the inconvenient truth is that that is not the source of sexual sin. All we have to do is ask the victims of incest, or child prostitute slaves, or a burqa clad rape victim.
The bottom line is that responsibility for the sin lies squarely on the shoulders of the sinner, in the case of either a man or a woman.
What I see is a need for each adult believer to be led by the Holy Spirit in all aspects of life, including our dress codes. And any time we begin defining what that code is for one another, instead of allowing the Holy Spirit to do that it fails for a host of reasons. The number one reason is because our “insides” dress our outsides.
(“The Pharisee was amazed to see that he did not first wash before dinner. Then the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? So give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you.” Luke 11)
Just for an example, what you mentioned about wearing T-shirts and blue jeans reminds me of my friend who regards that as wrong for her personally. It is her “code” because, she says, that for years she wore that combo with “malice aforethought.” But she’s not telling me that I can’t wear that combination and I’m not telling her she needs to “get over it.” I hope you understand what I’m trying say here.
And I agree, that it is a parent’s responsibility to teach their children what the Holy Spirit has led them to do in the area of dress and decorum with the opposite gender. But again, I must temper that with the fact that the responsibility for the sin lies squarely on the shoulders of the sinner.
Most especially, no child should ever be made to think that they were in any way responsible for their sexual violation.
As the mother of three grown/nearly-grown sons, I have spoken repeatedly and at-length with that about what they will come across out in society, and how different people have different standards (and sometimes no standards), and no matter how a young lady is dressed, it should never be interpreted as an invitation for anything, and how ultimately, only they can truly guard their hearts.
Thank you Savannah!
It really is so true that different societies have different standards. Only America makes such a big deal about breasts, as far as I know. Certainly my Brazilian foreign exchange students are far more comfortable with the female form. The Brazilian boys don’t even seem to notice girls, unless they have a stunning face.
I have never seen my foreign exchange student stare lustfully at the girls at the pool in bikinis- except the one who had long dark hair and a beautiful Latina eyes on a gorgeous face.
Maybe she should have worn a veil? It sure wasn’t the bikini that caught his eye, apparently. He is quite used to those.
And what about my husband, growing up in the jungle where woman wore only grass skirts and men tied up their anatomy with a string around the waist? LOL
It’s not the body, it’s the heart of the observer. That’s where the sin resides.
“I remember that my daughter …was told that nude colored pantyhose caused the young men to think impure thoughts so they could only wear colored stockings. A few years later she was at BJU and told that the ONLY modest stockings were nude, that colored stockings caused the young men to think impure thoughts. So how does a girl win?”
Well, they could compromise, and wear fishnet stockings… (just kidding!)
Corrie, two things here – you wrote,
“Why is it that men and sexual temptation is the only area where we try and control and dominate the target of their lust?”
AND
“Basically, patriocentrists teach that men are pigs and mere dogs who cannot rise above their animalistic natures and this is how God made them. Even our butts are inherently sinful and that is why we shouldn’t wear pants because pants “cup” our butts and our butts cause men to lust.”
The interesting thing here is that most of them ALSO teach that homosexuality is a choice, and that a gay man can be straight if he wants to be.
Now, I agree with that to a point, but if homosexuality really is a choice, and if it is true that men really can’t control their tendency to lust if they see the shape of a butt, hadn’t these guys better start wearing long robes and covering their butts for the sake of their weaker brothers?
After all, lust for a woman is a sin, but lust for another man is an abomination.
I heartily agree with Corrie and Karen’s last few post. One more thing I might add: the only Christian women/girls I know who proclaim “I can wear whatever I want, the men just have to deal with it” are girls who have grown up being taught that if they are lusted after it is their fault. They have now gone the opposite direction. When discussing modesty, every other Christian woman I know knows by default that she is responsible to possess her body with honor. Nobody in normal Christian circles has to make any disclaimers when discussing modesty.
..are very interesting in relation to the argument that if a woman is modestly dressed the men will be able to control themselves.
The study found that although many believed that scantily clad women were most likely to be harassed “…in reality the study concluded the majority of the victims of harassment were modestly dressed women wearing Islamic headscarves”
To me this study highlights a failing in the premise that modest dress will solve the problem of lust and sexual advances between man and woman.
What matters is not what the woman wears necessarily, but both the heart of the man and the woman. Does the woman want to attract sexual attention? Does the man lust after the woman? Yes clothing can affect the attitude of the man no doubt (if we were to stride around in our underwear then we shouldn’t be shocked if we get some unwanted attention). But at the end of the day, God sees what is in the heart of a man – and if the full veiled modestly dressed Egyptian woman can attract unwanted advances from men – what is a woman to do?
Respect and to hold each other, irrespective of gender, in high esteem is what matters.
Here is a quote from the Guardian article:
“There are many reasons behind sexual harassment: poverty, bad education, unemployment, sexual frustration due to the social unacceptance of premarital sex and the difficulty of marriage due to economic reasons and a patriarchal society where women don’t enjoy equal rights just to name a few.
Ahmed Salah, the founder of a campaign called “Respect Yourself”, designed to target sexual harassers, believes that sexual harassment is a form of violence and anger at the current economic and political conditions that men bring against what they perceive as a “weaker” creature.”
Personally I don’t believe that unacceptance of premarital sex is an issue (as I don’t believe that this is right before God) but otherwise I think that the article makes some interesting points.
I was wondering, I think there might be mass confusion among serious Christian guys as to what is and isn’t lust. Is it wrong for me, a girl, to notice something I like about another woman’s body? Is it wrong for me to think she has nice hands, for example? Is it wrong for me to like a guy’s eyes? Is it wrong to briefly look at and notice, but then look away from, a more “private” area?
I don’t think, personally, that the above examples are wrong, but I have a feeling that the guys in my family feel that they cannot “notice” anything about a woman’s private areas. Thus, it really is a big deal to have her be super modest, because otherwise your eyes are going to eventually land on something by accident. What are your definitions of lust vs. OK glancing?
I know my parents have defined the difference between lust and not lust quite a few times over the years, but I’m not sure it was enough to balance out the whole Do Not Look! message coming from all over.
Phew! I think we’re on the same page after all then, at least from my point of view. No, I am not a fundie. I too hate legalism, and that “Women and Girls” story about the modesty tract was really distressing. To give that to someone in public? Youch! Is that what we’re going to be known for by association? I think it is up to the girl and her mom to determine what’s right, though there can be a place for a friend or a sister offering some input, especially if things seem unseemly. A friend who is on a worship team at a local church has had to say something to young vocalists who weren’t aware how much shows when they wore short skirts up on the stage where the angle of vision is different from the audience, if you know what I mean. She’s had moms snap at her for this. I think she had to say what she said, and it’s a shame the moms took offense without considering her words. She’s NOT a legalist at all and she hated to have to even bring it up. I think that sometimes Christian girls do need to be reminded once in a while — they aren’t always aware of how something comes across. Yes, it’s a heart issue, and that’s the main thing, but sometimes there are loose end pragmatics to be addressed, too.
I have a sort of funny story. We went to the beach as a family recently, and I was razzing one of my teens about her swim top after she took off her t-shirt because it was pretty low cut. But later, when I saw the pictures my son had snapped of ME, I was shocked and started hitting the delete button on the photo files really fast. Apparently the straps on my swim suit have lost their elasticity and stretched out, and I was really showing much much MUCH more than was decent. Before I wore the suit again, I had to hitch up the straps a few inches with a needle and thread. It’s only funny now because we didn’t see anyone we knew and weren’t too close to anyone else on the beach.
I am much more relaxed about warddrobe than I used to be. I went through about 4 years where I only wore dresses and skirts because I had been visiting Teri Maxwell’s Titus 2 Mom’s web board. I stopped that about 6 years ago and generally wear what I want — basically modest stuff.
Thanks for clarifying your views for me! I love this board. This one thing had been bothering me, though. I figured if it came across that way to me, how much more so would it appear to someone who was new to the board and didn’t know any of you at all. It sort of shoots credibility if you go too far in the other direction when you are reacting to something. So thanks for balancing it out again.
Shadowspring, I loved your story about the Jewish boy speaking up. That’s normal life.
Do you guys remember that modesty survey that Gregg Harris’ boys took? I was thinking about that as I read through all our comments. As I recall, many bloggers have used those results to instruct young ladies on modesty and I also seem to remember that the standards were pretty strident; a larger than you would expect number of those polled thought pants were immodest. It made me wonder which came first, the chicken or the egg. Did the guys think these things were immodest because they were raised in homes where they were taught they were immodest or vice versa?
Virginia, your funny story reminds me of something that happened to me a couple years ago. I was driving in my van with two of my sons and we were snacking on some sort of peanut granola. I dropped my bag on the floor under my feet while driving and really didn’t want it to all get ground up into the carpet so I pulled over along the road to clean it up. I was wearing a long flowing skirt and a t-shirt with a jean jacket. As I was bending over and sweeping up the mess, a pick up truck slowed down, barely rolling past us, and the driver leered at me. When I turned around he smiled at me and, extremely disgusted, I quickly got in the van and he drove away. My boys really got a kick out of that, especially because he was about 80 and hadn’t shaved for a week and looked really dirty and smelly. I guess, at 56, I must still be a sweet young thing to some people but to my sons I am mom and grandma to 10! And it just shows that it doesn’t take much to get some guy going….I was covered completely and wearing loose fitting clothes!
How does the patrio obsession with girls covering any suggestion that they possess girl-parts jive with their obsession of distinct gender roles and appearance?
I was thinking of that Rebelution survey as well, Karen. And I remember from it thinking that if young women had to dress so as to help each and every young man who responded to the survey avoid temptation, she would indeed be in a burqa – because the littlest thing could be a temptation for some of them: bare feet in sandals, capris, sleeveless tops, collarbones showing, etc. Shadowspring, your story of the Jewish boy heartened me. What a natural and healthy way to communicate!
Karen,
Maybe it was the jean jacket. Old men I know who drive pickup trucks, like jean jackets. Also a church person once told me I shouldn’t wear my jean jacket to church, but wouldn’t explain why when pressed.
Corrie,
Did the modesty protesters answer your question or did they only talk with their eyes?
Actually, Karen, your skirt was probably what turned the guy on, given the fact of his age.
Back when he was young, women only wore pants to do rough work, and when they went out in public, especially if they were trying to impress a man, they wore a dress or a skirt.
Ask just about any old-timer, and he’ll tell you that guys his age miss seeing women in dresses, and that they find skirts to be a much bigger turn-on than pants.
I personally think that more a family, religion, culture talks about modesty and women needing to cover up, the more lustful men become about women’s showing skin.
That is unless they become so misogynist in their thinking that, like the Pashtun tribal men linked to in a much earlier post, they are so disgusted by women that they have sex with each other. (Apparently to the Pashtun, it’s not a sin to have sex with other men as long as you don’t fall in love.)
There truly is that danger to young ladies raised in these uber-modest homes. The more people talk about modesty, the more they reinforce the idea that women’s bodies cause men to sin. The more they talk about it, the more these young men are forced to think about women’s bodies and immediately feel shame about doing so.
It becomes a viscous cycle of temptation and condemnation, and how on earth will these guys and gals be free to truly enjoy each other in marriage, if they have years of shame associated with viewing/exhibiting the female form?
It’s really not that big of a deal. If you grow up in a culture that shows a lot of skin, it will not be nearly so titillating to see a bare arm, belly or leg. If you grow up with burquas, apparently even the sight of an ankle is so tempting that women have been publicly beaten on the spot for letting it show.
Over and over, I keep pointing out that in equatorial tribal communities, modesty has very little to do with showing skin, since near-nudity is considered the normal attire. It very much depends on what your society considers immodest, much more so than what is actually showing.
So of course I am firmly against tightening the standard to accommodate sinful men. Every time a stricter standard is drawn up, someone somewhere will be titillated by some part of it and the standard will have to be tightened.
I, like Savannah, teach my son to be responsible for his own sexuality, including his thought life. Noticing people are attractive is not a sin. Being attracted to a person’s physical appearance is not a sin. That’s being human.
Meditating on another person’s appearance purposefully, beyond a passing appreciation for the handiwork of God, THAT is where it gets into sin.
So no I do not believe spaghetti straps are in themselves sinful, but a young man who stares lustfully at a girl so attired is indulging sin. And it so depends on the girl, whether or not she is trying to attract sinful attention or just be comfortable and stylish.
As a DD, I have not worn a spaghetti strap shirt in my adult life. But my daughter, being the total opposite of me, has more than enough support in those shelf bra-lined spaghetti straps. No bounce, no nip- she looks perfectly modest, imho.
You can’t make one rule for everyone. The more you forbid, the more titillated boys raised in such an environment will be at the slightest thing. I don’t want MY culture getting stricter and stricter. I think that results in MORE rape and sexual harassment- not LESS! Always making a big deal about clothes means that it is always on your mind.
And that’s where the problem starts, the MINDS of the LUSTING! Not the first look or the appreciation of beauty, but the continuation of that look/appreciation by carrying it further and thinking of actual sexual fantasy based on what you see.
What one sees is never the problem, it is what the viewer does in their own minds with what they see, that is the problem.
Having stricter and stricter standards makes it okay for men to have lustful thoughts over more and more of a women’s body and dress, because that man has been taught that he should think that way.
Americans sexualization of breasts is a glaring example. Most of the undeveloped world sees mammary glands as nourishment for children, not sexual at all. But in America, we have sexualized the breast to the point that some people only think of breasts as sexual and are literally disgusted by the thought of nursing.
So please, let’s stop demonizing women’s bodies and start teaching men to relate to women as people and set their minds ON Jesus and OFF of personal sexual gratification. That is the solution to the modesty issue.
“He blamed the increase in sexual harassment on what he said were “three decades of incitement against women” from the pulpits of some of Egypt’s mosques.
“This verbal incitement is based on the extremely sordid and impudent allegation that our women are not modestly dressed. This was, and still is, a flagrant lie, used to justify violence against women in the name of religion.”
The British foreign office says Egypt is one of the countries with the highest number of cases reported to embassy staff regarding sexual offences against visiting women.
It warns them to be extra cautious in public places especially when alone because of the risks. ” From the BBC link and exactly what I was saying…
And the more you tell people NOT to think about something, well, the more they think about it! Sheesh.
You would think that people could just use common sense, but, as my grandfather used to say, “If it really was *common* sense, then everybody would have it.”
And what were the distinctives in men’s and women’s clothing in Biblical times? This website (http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/clothing.htm) that cites Deuteronomy 22:5, but their descriptions of men’s and women’s clothing sound almost identical!
I don’t want to get defensive about Egypt, but I just want to point out that if you are a wise woman traveller and don’t go around ALL ALONE, no one will bother you.
My husband lived in Egypt (as an Egyptian, mind you) until he was 17. He did not return between 1997 and 2009. When we visited last summer, he was absolutely shocked by one thing: 1000% more Muslim women had their heads covered. His family’s answer to this: Influential visitors from Saudi and other more strict Muslim countries are to blame (mostly) for this shift. Egypt has been known for being one of the MOST LIBERAL Muslim countries in the Middle East. Obviously, the shift toward conservativism, at least in the general Muslim populace, not necessarily the gov’t, is marked by making your women cover up and shut up. Even the Christian community feels the squeeze, because, as mentioned above, it is not as safe as it used to be for women to go out alone, or to wear clothing that is deemed unacceptable by the Muslim community around her.
As a white woman (pale, with blonde hair and blue eyes), I was not nearly as affected by this as the young Egyptian women around me were. There’s a cautiousness, more out of fear than a desire to be “modest” among women to keep them from being targeted by sexual offenders.
Don’t rule Egypt out as a travel destination based on one area. Just be wise about it. After all, there are a lot of amazing treasures there, and if you were considering going there at all, you should not let that deter you too much.
I read that entire Rebelution survey and what I got from it was that it is impossible to please everyone. That everyone is different and there is no one standard for what is modest to the men of America. Instead of clarifying anything, I thought the survey was more confusing and hopeless to girls trying to be modest. I felt like saying “Nice try, but that wasn’t helpful.” I don’t understand the girls that say that it solved everything for them. They’re going to get pretty tired and disillusioned as they spend their time and energy trying not to offend anyone.
“And what were the distinctives in men’s and women’s clothing in Biblical times? This website (http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/clothing.htm) that cites Deuteronomy 22:5, but their descriptions of men’s and women’s clothing sound almost identical!”
Here is a picture from a wall mural in the tomb of Khnum-Hotep III, dating from the beginning of the second millennium BC:
If you want to know how Hebrew women dressed in Biblical times, look at the four women on the left. On the right are four Hebrew men, and only difference in their costume is that the men are carrying weapons.
This bears out the wording of the injunction in Deuteronomy 22:5, The woman shall not wear “that which pertaineth unto a man”, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
The phrase, “that which pertaineth” is ” כְּלִי “(pronounced “keliy”,) and it does NOT refer to garments at all, it means:
1) article, vessel, implement, utensil
a) article, object (general)
b) utensil, implement, apparatus, vessel
1) implement (of hunting or war)
2) implement (of music)
3) implement, tool (of labour)
4) equipment, yoke (of oxen)
5) utensils, furniture
c) vessel, receptacle (general)
d) vessels (boats) of paper-reed
…and “to a man” is ” גֶּבֶר ” (pronounced “geber”), meaning 1) man, strong man, warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight).
Thus, the Hebrew women dressed in the same way as the men, but they were forbidden to bear arms, and soldiers were forbidden to put on a garment that actually BELONGED TO and had been worn by a woman.
Deuteronomy 22:5 – more than just a prohibition on the wearing of everyday clothing.
“No doubt the prohibition is not intended as a mere rule of conventional propriety,—though, even as such, it would be an important safeguard against obvious moral dangers,—but is directed against the simulated changes of sex which occurred in Canaanite and Syrian heathenism, to the grave moral deterioration of those who adopted them.
There was in Cyprus a statue of a bearded Venus who was considered to be of both sexes and to whom sacrifice was offered by men dressed as women, and women dressed as men: and noisy processions of Galli, or eunuch-priests of Cybele, the mother of the gods, paraded the towns and villages of Syria, Asia Minor, and other parts, attired as women, and soliciting the populace to unholy rites.
In the fertility cult of Baal and Asherah there were two groups of functionaries called qedēšim (קדשים) and qedēšot (קדשות). In Hebrew the two words literally mean “the holy ones.” Many English Bibles translate the word qed šim as “male cult prostitutes” (1 Kings 15:12) and the word qed šot as “female cult prostitutes” (Hosea 4:14).
It is clear from 2 Kings 10:22 that the temple personnel, both the male and the female sacred prostitutes wore special garments that identified them with the worship of Asherah. Since the practice of fertility religion involved the sexual act between the worshipers and the temple functionaries, such a practice was an abomination to Yahweh.
Thus, Deuteronomy 22:5 is more than just a prohibition on the wearing of everyday clothing.
The verse is much more than a simple prohibition of particular wardrobes, and indeed in no way addresses the issue of women wearing masculine garments, since in the culture of ancient Israel the clothing of men was less associated with gender than was the clothing of women.
The law in Deuteronomy 22:5 is a prohibition against Israelite men and women wearing the garments that would identify them as worshipers of Asherah. Since those garments were dedicated to Asherah and since the servants of Asherah wore identical garments, any Israelite man or any Israelite woman who wore these garments would be committing an abomination against Yahweh.”
-Dr. C. Mariottini, N.B.S.
shadowspring,
I really appreciated the bulk of your #387. I think you summed it well saying, “The church is no longer about sharing the life of Jesus with the world.” Sadly, it’s plain to see that many Christians view the Bible as a “rule book” instead of a “Love Book.”
Also appreciated your comment #415 – it put “meat on the bones” of what I was trying to get across in #401.
Karen,
As long as I’m in “appreciating” mode here – let me include you and your blog in general. You make it so easy to stay informed about homeschooling, patrio issues, and all the side tracks. Thanks!
Batik sounds fun to me, CynthiaGee. I love my bright happy tie dye t-shirt. I wore it to a garage sale one day and a beer-guzzling chain-smoking biker chick took one look at it and said, “I can really relate to you wearing that shirt. You’re my kind of person.” The same clothes say different things to different folks. She equated it with hippy. I equate it with happy. It’s my “I got my joy back” shirt, courtesy of a midlife crisis. I milked the shirt thing for all it was worth and made friends with her. A bridge made out of fabric: clothes bringing two people together instead of wedging them apart. That’s what we want here, isn’t it, even if I’m not a biker chick after all?
Thanks for sharing the Betty Tisdale story. I had never heard of this woman and was also so moved by her story. She is what I call a “monstrous woman” one of those women whom the Lord uses in miraculous ways but who doesn’t fit into the patriocentric paradigm. I did a whole series of blog posts about these women one time. Perhaps it is time to bring them back and begin with Betty. Poor woman, she didn’t realize that her foreordained role was to make sure her feet were abiding in her own home and giving birth to her own children as part of her husband’s 200 year plan.
What do patrios want to do with women like Betty Tisdale? Force them into American burqas, keep them in their daddy’s house until daddy dies, unless marrying them off makes sense to daddy, then add to the American burqa and the housework the added strain of repeated pregnancies.
What do patrios care about the orphans of the world? Nothing at all, unless there is some glory to be had in showing an interest in them at some time. *cough* *cough* *earthquake in the news*
Betty Tisdale, Betty Greene, Marilyn Lazlo, Anne Graham Lotz- there are so many women whose contributions the world would not have known if patriocentricity/complementarianim had taken root earlier in the American evangelical community.
I know that many of you women consider yourself complementarians and I called myself complementarian for many years. But the proponents of that label, CBMW, are more and more firmly patriocentric.
Plus I have learned so much more: about the pre-Roman meaning of concepts like head (source of life and love, not ruler) and what Timothy was up against when Paul left him in Ephesus (a cult that preached female domination)and wrote him all those words to help him combat a particular false teaching/teacher, words that sinful men have used to subjugate godly women who are NOT and HAVE NEVER BEEN part of the cult of Diana of the Ephesians!
The idea that an ezer (ally) was a subordinate (KJV “helpmeet”)was not the idea behind that word at the beginning. Nowhere does the Bible itself teach that woman is a mere derivative of men or needs any man (other than the Lord Jesus) to guide her life or mediate between her and God.
The fact that people who had faith encounters with the living God in the Old Testament were also patriarchal agricultural and polygamist does NOT MEAN that any of that is pleasing to God! And if people start down that road, and they have, polygamy is not far behind and neither is prostitution. After all, the patriarch Judah frequented prostitutes publicly enough for his daughter-in-law to know that she could use that ruse to get pregnant, and Jesus is called the Lion of the tribe of Judah! I can hear the justifications, er, sermons to come.
Jesus revealed the Father to us- the mighty-breasted (don’t know how to spell El Shaddia) Father who would gather his children under his wings like a mother hen,if only we would run to him when he called.
It is Jesus we are called to follow, not the patriarchs.
Jesus, who had women in his entourage, whom Anna the prophetess preached, who sent out the woman at the well to evangelize, who healed the women with ostracizing ailments- the issue of blood, the deformed back; Jesus who was tender to mothers, healing one Gentile woman’s daughter, raising a widow’s son back to life; Jesus who praised Mary of Betany for sitting at his feet to learn, Mary Maghdalene for pouring expensive perfume on him in worship, and the prostitute who washed his feet with her own tears of gratitude; Jesus who refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery and appeared first to Mary at the tomb on the morning of his resurrection, and corrected the male disciples when he appeared to them for not believing the women. This same Jesus, who poured out the Holy Spirit on both women and men on the day of Pentecost, who said marriage was meant to be an expression of love and mutual support between man and wife- the MAN being told it was not good for him to be alone, not the other way around; the MAN being told to cleave to his wife, which sounds pretty strong to me that he is to make his life dependent upon hers, not the other way around….
Complementarian the way women mean it, the way a home decorator means that colors complement each other, making something new and pleasing of the combination that is better than either alone? Sure, count me in.
But the current doctrinal position of complementarian, that started out so sweet (only pointing out there ARE differences between man and woman, and long live the differences…) has morphed into a position where men can easily come to believe they are close to God and approved by him merely by the existence of their Y chromosome. They are excused for their ungodly behaviors toward women, because if the woman would just never cross him, he wouldn’t behave unrighteously. If she would only dress more modest, he wouldn’t indulge in rape. A woman (who probably is seeking God and inspired by the Holy Spirit, as women are encouraged to do) can never be heard or make her case against her brothers who are sinning against her, because they won’t listen. Paul would not suffer a woman to teach, why should they? (Bad translation- not at all what the original words convey.)
Ladies, I am going to follow Jesus and so is my husband, thank God for his tender heart cause he could sure go in the other direction if he wanted. There is plenty of support for the subjugation of women in his family’s mainstream fundamentalist doctrine, as well as their personal practice.
So why do I care how others choose to live? Because I have a daughter and a son. I don’t want them to a)either swallow this and live in a way that is NOT pleasing to the Lord b) or just as bad, leave organized religion behind because the church teaches such blasphemous lies about salvation/the church/Jesus himself.
And for all the abused women out there, who should have found refuge in the church, will instead have their husbands use religion to convince them it is God’s will for them to live subjugated by men, and that failing to please a husband is failing to please God.
Sorry for the sermon, but I am just now waking up to the times we live in. Ugly fundamentalism is on the rise in all the religions of the world, and it is no prettier in Christianity than it is in Islam or Hinduism or any other faith.
In fact, its uglier, because it lies about the Christ, the Son of the Living God and the Savior of the world, who so loved, who SO LOVED, that he came to redeem us with his own precious blood, male and female, Jew and Gentile, oppressed (slave) and those seemingly doing well on their own (free).
I personally will not identify myself with those who so distort the life, love and teachings of my Savior. I realize that other women on this forum, including our gracious hostess, have not come to the same conclusion I have, but that’s where I stand.
Perhaps the rest of the UN members are thinking that by including Iran on the Women’s Commission, they will gradually draw them into the twentieth century (the twenty-first being too much to hope for….)
Speaking of Iran (which used to be Persia), I wondered, on the whole trousers are for men skirts are for women issue (and the premise that any variation from these is a sin). At what point did trousers become manly? Here’s a quote from the Independent’s review of Persian Fire by Tom Holland: ‘[T]he ancient Persians. They were regarded by the Greeks as “hilariously effeminate” because they wore trousers, and their kings and nobility even sported platform heels and luxuriant false beards and moustaches.’
So I imagine St. Paul and fellow apostles probably weren’t attired in trousers, but a very manly skirt.
“A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt”. Deuteronomy 22:30.
If we are to base our gender specific attire strictly on scripture, then one must surmise that skirts are manly!
I will, forthwith, pass all my skirts onto my husband and pop on a pair of trousers.
On a more serious note:
Shadowspring writes: “Ugly fundamentalism is on the rise in all the religions of the world, and it is no prettier in Christianity than it is in Islam or Hinduism or any other faith.
In fact, its uglier, because it lies about the Christ, the Son of the Living God and the Savior of the world, who so loved, who SO LOVED, that he came to redeem us with his own precious blood, male and female, Jew and Gentile, oppressed (slave) and those seemingly doing well on their own (free)”.
Amen. It was for freedom that Christ has set us free. For ALL of us to strive to be humble – man and woman. Not for one to subjugate another.
“But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.” Mark 10: 42:44
I’ll add this to the discussion about this new evangelical emphasis on modesty and “purity” (which I submit is not purity at all, which would be a pure love for the brothers and sisters in Christ, but is instead a pre-occupation with self and self-righteousness)-
I know two male cadets in AFROTC who openly identify as “Christian” on facebook -one as a Baptist, one as a Calvinist (also home schooled).
Neither will answer my daughters texts when she has a question, neither has responded to her calls for someone to run with on campus for her safety, both act uncomfortable around her, and when they have been forced by AF protocol to give her a ride, neither has ever walked her to the door of her apartment but just waited in the parking lot until she texts that she is in. >:[
On the other hand, self-identified atheists run with her, open doors for her, walk her to the door of her apartment, and generally act in a manner that I would call Christian love, even though they are not Christian. They are not zealously guarding against “sin” (i.e. kindness to a sister could lead to temptation!) nor do they at all resent that a woman is among their peers also qualifying for a position of leadership and authority.
And I, unfortunately, by putting her in Sunday school, camp and youth group all those years, have set her up for misery. She pines away for the attention of those (imho self-centered and ungodly) Christian men who ignore her at best and probably also resent her. Certainly there is nothing in the way they treat women that points to the love of Christ in any way, my daughter not being the only pariah. They are equally dismissive of and distant personally from all women.
I hate that my daughter has internalized the idea that professing Christ is supposed to mean more than anything else in a partner, and it would be a sin for her to marry someone who treats her with love and respect if he didn’t also confess Christ. I personally no longer feel that way. As long as the guy isn’t active in a false religion, I would much rather her marry a man who LOVES.
I think there is more hope for the centurion/Cornielius types of the world, who have honest and sincere hearts, than those well-indoctrinated Pharisees whose chief concern is their own righteousness.
I have too many friends in this leaky boat of a relationship. A devout, committed young Christian lady is going to marry one of these religious louts, and feel herself lucky because he professes Christ, and there is such a dearth of men who confess Christ compared to women who confess Christ.
These women will live in long, miserable abusive marriages (I and name half a dozen such home school marriages off of the top of my head) thinking that because their men profess Christ, SOME DAY they will start living a life of Christian love. Even though the only evidence of Jesus that was ever in their lives was fleshly evidence- going to church, studying the Bible and knowing doctrine, sometimes that’s where it ends. They act arrogantly, hold grudges, are cruel and self-centered- some also commit adultery, or drink excessively, smoke, secretly look at porn, etc.
But they confessed Christ, so their earnest Christian wives, who were holding out for a Christian man, thought they were marrying true disciples.
Jesus, please don’t let my daughter join their ranks!!!! I believe I have set her up for just that, and I repent with all my heart.
Goodness, typing while waiting for my ride to church is not conducive to clear communication. Let’s just redo the last three paragraphs of post 442 in their entirety.
“These women will live in long, miserable abusive marriages (I can name half a dozen such home school marriages off of the top of my head) thinking that because their men professed Christ, SOME DAY they will start living a life of Christian love. Even though the only evidence of Jesus that was ever in their lives was fleshly evidence- going to church, studying the Bible and knowing doctrine, that’s where it ended- they kept telling themselves that one day these men would walk in Christian love.
Instead they continue to act arrogantly, hold grudges, are cruel and self-centered- some also commit adultery, or drink excessively, smoke, secretly look at porn, etc. But they confessed Christ, so their earnest Christian wives, who were holding out for a Christian man, thought they were marrying true disciples.
Jesus, please don’t let my daughter join their ranks!!!! I believe I have set her up for just that, and I repent with all my heart.”
We’ve seen some friends of ours divorce. The ‘perfect’ Christian man (whom we all thought was a little ‘intense’) turned out to be more than just intense, but physically and emotionally abusive to wife and children.
However, I’ve also seen the pain of many marriages that are ‘unequally yoked’. The believing partner is mocked for their beliefs or their moral outlook, pressured into leaving church, etc. (BTW my mother and father are ‘unequally yoked’ but he has always supported her faith – so it’s not always the case).
With marriage there is always the danger that you don’t truly know your other half until after marriage, until it’s too late. Hopefully the danger signs are there before…but not always.
I would always hope that my daughters marry Christian men who love. Being ‘unequally yoked’ I wouldn’t call a sin, it just puts extra pressure on a relationship.
The two most abusive (dating) relationships I have had in my life were with non-Christian men who laughed at my faith and treated me like dirt.
Not sure what I’m really saying. Human love is fallible, fickle and often fails; God’s love never fails. I can only pray that my daughters are blessed with marriages that work.
It doesn’t really matter what our opinion is about what is or is not sin….it only matters what the Scripture says.
Both the Old and New Testaments state that it is a sin for Christians to be yoked to unbelievers. In fact, I believe that if a Christian wants to marry, she ought to only date (or court or whatever you call it) someone who is also a Christian. Missionary dating is wrong. There may be all sorts of reasons to avoid becoming entangled with someone who is a Christian (immaturity, temper etc,) but the VERY FIRST reason to avoid those entanglements with someone who is not a Christian is because the Bible says it is a sin. n It really doesn’t matter how nice, polite, loving, etc. that person is.
Here is a terrific link to the transcripts of the sermon my pastor preached on this subject from three years ago:
I’ve always believed that it is wise for Christians to marry Christians rather than an unbeliever. However, I don’t think that the “unequally yoked” scripture is necessarily a law that Christians can only marry Christians otherwise the relationship is sinful; although I used ‘unequally yoked’ in my previous comments (because most people use it in this context) I don’t necessarily think the scripture applies to marriage.
14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
I rather think Paul was continuing in the light of the Corinthians mixing up pagan temple activities (sexual immorality, idol worship, etc) with Christian life. The two do not mix and can never mix.
Maybe Paul was talking about marriage and other close relationships, but I rather think that it was more about Christians defiling themselves with pagan practices amongst idol worshipping pagans. The next chapter (7) starts:
“1Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. ”
Paul’s main concern was that the Body of Christ keep itself from the worship of idols and associated sexual immorality or even association with those practices.
Another thought, it does say in 1 Corinthians 7 that:
14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
So rather than the unbeliever defiling the believer, the believer actually sanctifies the unbeliever and the children from that relationship.
However, it makes sense for Christians to marry Christians. There are usually less complications, and the raising of children is less fraught with moral/faith related disagreements.
On a totally different topic I wondered if your discussion had covered the Duggars and the ‘buddy system’ and the negative effects this may have on the children.
The post links to an Examiner article which mentions the ‘buddy system’ whereby it is suggested that rather than Michelle Duggar being ‘Mother of the Year’ it is the older girls who should take equal share in the prize. I was particularly interested in this observation made by Elise Wiebe at the Examiner:
“This system is allegedly just the big kids lending a hand, but listen to Michelle explain how the big buddy gets the little ones up, dresses them, feeds them their meals, and supervises their homeschooling, baths, and bedtime. Then watch those little details, like Jackson clinging to Jana for comfort after he was lost in the airport (while his parents laugh blithely in the background) or Jennifer crying for Jill whenever she’s upset. You can call it being a buddy all you want — the truth of the matter is that those girls are parenting their little siblings (on top of running the household). Commentators are already dreading what will happen to little Josie once she goes home to the chaos of the Duggar household and is passed off to one of the older girls for rearing. Let’s hope it’s twenty-year-old Jana who is put in charge, and not twelve-year-old Joy Anna.”
I have been rather taken in by the Duggars, they seem to be such a lovely family. But, although it may seem nice, is it damaging for children in such a large family where there just isn’t enough mother and father to go around? Are the children forced to grow up too soon and take on responsibilities that they shouldn’t have until they are parents themselves?
I’m glad your parents love each other, Sarah. I know of other marriages like that too.
And why on earth would Peter counsel women married to unbelievers if it was a sin to be married to an unbeliever?
What evidence do you have that 2 Corinthians 6:14 is talking about marriage? It isn’t discussing marriage in the preceding or following verses. It never uses the word marriage.
The pat fundamentalist answers don’t cut it with me anymore. Show me some real proof.
Also, are you saying the centurion was unworthy or Cornelius? Unapproved by God? Jesus commended the centurions faith, as well as sending the Holy Spirit to fall on Cornelius and his household to prove to Peter that God had accepted him. Not sure how you jumped to missionary dating from that…
“And why on earth would Peter counsel women married to unbelievers if it was a sin to be married to an unbeliever? ”
there is a difference between currently being in the state of a believer being married to an unbeliever and someone planning to and they marrying an unbeliever The former is not a sin; the latter is. Did you read to the sermon I linked to? I didn’t see any “pat” answer there.
Okay, I don’t expect anyone to agree with me on here, but I am seeking the truth from God’s Word as it was written, not Scofield’s interpretation or fundamentalist doctrine.
Chapter six, indeed the whole book of 2 Corinthians, is referring to the false teachings of the self-called ‘super apostles’ that were challenging Paul’s authority and teachings. That passage, in context, is saying you can’t mix doctrines of idolatry with the teachings of Jesus, or merge the religions as they are completely incompatible.
The commentary of the Scofield Bible links from I Corinthians 7, where a widow is allowed to marry “whom she will, only in the Lord” to 2 Corinthains 6. I Corinthians 7, does talk about marriage, including marriage to unbelievers. Just because Scofield makes a connection doesn’t mean it is there.
I Corinthians 7:39 is the closest to coming out and saying that Christians should only marry Christians.
“39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”
The addition of the clause “only in the Lord” could mean “as the Lord leads” as the phrase “in the Lord”- used only in Paul’s letters as far as my research is showing- often means what I would call “in the Spirit”, as in “children obey your parents in the Lord, as this is right”.
There is no clearly spelled out doctrine anywhere that Christians should only marry other so-called Christians. It is at the best implied but it is taught as if were as plain as Jesus saying “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except by me.”
Jesus had no trouble speaking plainly about important matters. He plainly spoke about marriage that God intended a union between man and wife that superceded the man’s family of origin and meant something spiritual, something important. He plainly spoke that God’s intention for marriage was complete unity, and that divorce was not what God had intended. He also plainly spoke that marriage was only for this life, and not consequential in the next when he told the Sadducees that in heaven there is no marriage, chosen or arranged.
Also in 2 Corinthians, chapter 9, in the NIV the translators added the word “believing” as an adjective to the word “wife” which Paul says that the apostles were allowed, but I am not finding evidence of it in the original text. Still looking, but it’s not in KJV at all. I need to go talk to my pastor, who will at first be inclined to parrot what he has heard coming out of the pulpit his whole life, but will also search for the original meaning honestly and get back to me.
Whatever is not led by the Spirit, “whatsoever is not of faith” is sin.
As far as the Old Testament, Rahab and Ruth, both in the lineage of Jesus and Rahab in the hall of faith (Hebrews 11:31) were not Jews by birth. Rahab, identified as a harlot in fact, would clearly not pass the I Cor 6 test!
The kingdom of God is so different than fundamentalist religion. It is so much bigger, and so much more constrained. It is not about who you marry but how you walk in the Spirit;not about vocabulary or dress or meat or drink, but about the sincerity of your love: for Jesus, for others.
I swallowed so much that at first glance looked to be plain truth, but only because it was explained the fundamentalist way and not come to with open eyes and heart.
Now I am determined to question everything, and only hold fast to that which is truth. I only want the truth. I only want Jesus. I don’t want any less than God’s truth. I don’t want anything in addition to God’s truth.
No doubt I will continue to challenge widely accepted but in my mind, poorly supported, doctrinal positions.
So, “only in the Lord” makes more sense to me to translate it in keeping with other places Paul used the phrase, to mean “only by the leading of the Spirit”. I do not see that the best interpret I Corinthians 7:39 is “only the man must confess Christ”. Though it could also mean “only a man who is also following the leading of the Holy Spirit” which would make it an even more narrow field, leaving out the ranks and ranks of religious men who confess the name of Christ but do not walk “even as Jesus walked”.
Okay, I’m done with that rabbit trail. I know that most of you will still make the Scofield connection, and we are still brothers in the Lord even though we disagree on this very peripheral doctrinal position. So peace and love to you all in the name of our Lord Jesus, who through the apostle Paul called us to accept one another as Christ has accepted each of us.
Shadowspring, thank you for sharing your insights here. I agree with your point of view. The context of that passage is important! I think the idea that Christians can only marry Christians is one of those assumptions that isn’t always carefully measured against what scripture actually says – sort of like the assumption that the husband is head of the household, which also has no scriptural support.
Having said that, do I think it’s wise to marry a non-Christian? Maybe not. But I would rather my daughters marry a kind, gentle, respectful, considerate man who is not a believer rather than a domineering, disrespectful, self-centered Christian.
Karen,
I totally agree with you about missionary dating. Very dangerous territory for an impressionable teenage Christian (girl or boy). But I’ve also seen similar situations actually work. Not “dating” but when a non-Christian pursues a relationship with a Christian, and is serious about it, it can be a great opportunity for the Christian to draw that person to Christ, provided they stand on principle and do not actually *date* the non-Christian in the meantime. My pastor is an example of this. He was an atheist and was in love (seriously in love) with this girl in college, and he pursued her constantly. She used this opportunity to turn him to Christ. They’ve been married for 37 years and he’s the pastor of a church of 7,000 plus. All because she *wouldn’t* date him as a non-Christian.
“Why is such marriage wrong? It is wrong because spiritually-mixed marriages disrupt God’s plan for Christian
families to be centers of worship unto God, centers of discipleship in leading others to faith, and for the glory of God
and of His Son Jesus. They often, also, not only limit the opportunity to continue to produce generations of
worshippers unto God, but they also put in front of the believing member the temptation to enter into idolatry itself
and begin to turn away from the Living God.
Ezra, as you may recall, is a contemporary of Malachi. In Ezra 9, he speaks as well of this deep problem of the people
of Malachi’s day,
1 After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, “The people of Israel, including the
priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable
practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and
Amorites. 2 They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have
mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this
unfaithfulness.”
The priests were involved in this, but look at righteous, godly, Ezra’s response. Did he say, “Oh, that is too bad,” no,
he said,
3 When I heard this, I tore my tunic and cloak, pulled hair from my head and beard and sat down appalled.
Do you think that this is a very significant sin of God’s people when they practice it? Ezra certainly thought so.
Nehemiah was also a contemporary of Malachi, and in Nehemiah 13 we read,
23 Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab. 24
Half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not
know how to speak the language of Judah. 25 I rebuked them and called curses down on them. I beat some of
the men and pulled out their hair…27 Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and
are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?”
This issue of spiritually-mixed marriages has to do with faithfulness to God. It has to do with apostasy. The bottom
line here is, Christian, if you marry an unbeliever you are acting unfaithfully to God. Someone may ask the question,
“What about dating an unbeliever?” Let me say, to date an unbeliever is to invite powerful temptation to sin and to
idolatry itself into your life. It is impossible for you to pray the prayer that Jesus taught us to pray while dating an
unbeliever. Why is that? It is because, in the prayer that Jesus taught us to pray, we say, “Father, who art in Heaven,
lead us not into temptation,” and we cannot pray that prayer, all-the-while saying, “Lord, lead me not into temptation,
but in reality I am going to direct myself and walk myself right into the path of temptation that I know is going to be
there for me.” I encourage you to be wise, Christians, so that God might bless you fully.”
“Someone may ask the question, “What if I am presently married to an unbeliever?” There is a great word of hope. The
Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7, speaks to that great word of hope, when he says,
12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to
live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is
willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through
his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children
would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
In other words, Paul is saying that God has placed the believer as a sanctifying element, but please understand, do not
presume upon God’s grace ahead of time and do not say, “I am going to get married in the hopes that this person will
become a believer and in the hopes that I will be a sanctifying influence in their life.”
God is gracious and we have to acknowledge that sometimes, when a Christian marries one who is not a Christian,
God does graciously draw that non-believer into His family. We praise God when that happens and we rejoice over
that, but, friends, please understand the teaching of God’s Word: this is not the usual outcome. More often, the mixed
marriage brings great sorrow and pain to the believer.”
The thing is, when our children are making these decisions, they are adults. We can teach them this as they are growing up and that’s all fine and well, but I honestly can’t say what our sons will do with regard to this. So far, they have mostly dated girls from church (which by the way, does not mean that the girls are necessarily Christians, just like attending Christian college does not mean you’ll be surrounded by true Christians), but when they are adults and independent and in the marketplace, it will certainly not be our place to tell them who they can marry and who they shouldn’t. We just have to hope they have the discernment to determine the right woman on many different levels, including the spiritual one.
Your viewpoint is certainly making me think, Shadowspring. I know for me it would be wrong to consider dating a man who does not claim Christ since it would really, really hurt my parents. Whatever might be allowed by God, it would make my parents extremely upset and feel like failures, so I won’t do that to them, but it is a very interesting topic.
A while back I asked what you ladies considered lust vs. harmless noticing and now I am wondering, how would it be possible to rehab young men who believe even the noticing should be avoided and frowned on as it will easily grab them into sin? I really feel for my brothers and other young guys I know. I realize it’s probably not my place to try to help in this area, but I keep wondering how the guilt and anxiety can be diffused. I know God has to do it, but how can people be involved in teaching/showing a better and more relaxed way?
As far as the lust vs. noticing thing, I think there is a real difference.
No expert here, but my take is that when boys and men view girls and women as real human beings, not objects for their visual pleasure, this solves a lot of the problem. It’s hard to engage in real lust when you’re appreciating the person for who they are inside and what they have to say, etc.
I live with a house full of men, and we are very open with each other, and when I hear one of my boys say something that makes me uncomfortable about a young lady, I quickly remind them that she is not here on this earth for their pleasure. She is a human being in her own right, created by God in His image, not some barbie doll.
Probably not a total solution but I think it offers a different way to think about women than society generally offers. And the patriarchals are no better than society at large, as they seem every bit as obsessed with sex and sexuality, only as thing to be “feared” and “hated” (particularly female sexuality).
I, too, believe the 1 Cor. passage to not be speaking of marriage. I agree with Shadowspring’s comments above. I was raised in a church who made scriptures say things that God never said because they failed to take context into the picture. Karen, in the transcript you listed, his “reasons” for not marrying an unbeliever would fall into practicalities, not issues of sin. There are many practical reasons why I would never marry an unbeliever or encourage my kids to do so. But I don’t believe you can make a good case from the Bible that it is SIN. God has lists of what is sin and marrying an unbeliever just isn’t on them.
As for the Ezra verses, the Law of Moses clearly stated that Israelites were never to marry someone of a different race, unless they were converts. I do not believe that, under the new covenant, you can make a parallel between Ezra’s situation and marrying an unbeliever. It doesn’t even fit: they were commanded not to marry a different race, therefore that means we shouldn’t marry an unbeliever?
#456 Shadowspring wrote: The kingdom of God is so different than fundamentalist religion. It is so much bigger, and so much more constrained. It is not about who you marry, but how you walk in the Spirit; not about vocabulary or dress or meat or drink, but about the sincerity of your love: for Jesus, for others.
Amen – oh my goodness God is so much bigger than every rule, every law – Jesus said: It is written – BUT I TELL YOU – oh it’s so much more! Jesus said that the two greatest commandments were: To love God will all your heart, mind and soul and the second is like it, to love your neighbour as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on these. And secondly Jesus was the fulfilment of all the law. In Him and Him alone will we find the ability to obey God in these two commandments. That is the Good News of Jesus Christ. He lived a life we could never live and died a death we could never die so that His Holy Spirit could live within us. Thus we fulfil the law in God’s eyes because we are IN Jesus Christ and He is IN us – when God looks at us He sees the life of Christ and He sees that our sin has been put to death. IT IS FINISHED!
So, unlike in the Old Testament, marriage cannot sully us Spiritually (like it could for Israel) because we are made whole in Christ – the commandments – all the laws – are fulfilled in Him. However, it can affect our spiritual walk if our conscience – our love for Jesus and for others – is damaged by the marriage. Paul recommended not marrying at all; however, if we are filled with lust then OK get married so that you’re not consumed by desires of the flesh to the detriment of the walk in the Spirit. It is quite true that it is unlikely that a Christian walking completely in the Spirit could marry anyone whose Spirit is unclean – it would be too uncomfortable – but this is a matter of conscience not a matter of law; we can neither judge not condemn someone who we believe has married incorrectly. It may be right to counsel and advise as to the consequences and difficulties of a Christian marrying a non-Christian, but that is the limit to the matter. Nothing can separate a Christian from God.
We have to remember that, though Paul wrote to Jewish Christians he also wrote to Gentile Christians who had no knowledge at all about Jewish laws or customs. They wouldn’t have had easy, regular access to the scriptures either (unless they were rich or well connected). We too, must be careful not to take on Jewish laws as our own, but to instead pray to yield more and more to the Holy Spirit and reject the desires of the flesh. We can only do this in Christ, by His power and by His love. If we remain in His love, He will remain in us. If we walk apart from His love we will quench and grieve the Holy Spirit and the walk will become hard.
The question therefore is never ought we to obey this or that rule (filthy rags); but what is our desire born from – the Spirit or the flesh? Whatever does not come from faith is sin; how does faith express itself? In love. Love for God and love for fellow man. Where do we get that love from? Jesus Christ Who fulfilled the law. I’m back to the beginning again.
I realise this is long and rambling – and I’m certainly not there Spiritually – but it’s what I desire more than anything for everything to spring from His Holy Spirit otherwise it’s just fleshly old me trying and failing to obey a list of rules.
We also have to remember that Jesus did NOT say that merely experiencing desire was a sin – He said that looking upon a woman IN ORDER TO lust after her was a sin, and was the same sin as going ahead and lying with her in the first place.
This suggests to me that the sin being spoken of is that of DELIBERATELY watching a woman in order to experience sexual enjoyment, in much the same way that a peeping tom does; NOT merely noticing that a woman is attractive and feeling desire for her in spite of intentions to the contrary.
Savannnah, thanks and I do agree with the view people as PEOPLE bit – it’s just that I know my brothers DO view girls as people (they have very good friends who are girls and I have never seen anything worrying as far as objectifying women). However, they do seem to feel very upset with themselves whenever they can’t help noticing something about a girl’s body and I was just wondering if anyone has any idea how to help stop the unrealistic expectations of themselves and angst. I know it’s a hard question and I don’t really expect an answer, I guess. I’m just wishing, really, since so much of my own (different) hangups have vanished that I wish I could get rid of theirs, too.
“Amen – oh my goodness God is so much bigger than every rule, every law – Jesus said: It is written – BUT I TELL YOU – oh it’s so much more! Jesus said that the two greatest commandments were: To love God will all your heart, mind and soul and the second is like it, to love your neighbour as yourself.”
think about it– these are the Two Commandments that transcend time,the same now as they were in the day of Adam,.the day will come when Jesus will say,
“Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed [are] they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
……
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
“We also have to remember that Jesus did NOT say that merely experiencing desire was a sin – He said that looking upon a woman IN ORDER TO lust after her was a sin, and was the same sin as going ahead and lying with her in the first place.
This suggests to me that the sin being spoken of is that of DELIBERATELY watching a woman in order to experience sexual enjoyment, in much the same way that a peeping tom does; NOT merely noticing that a woman is attractive and feeling desire for her in spite of intentions to the contrary.”
10If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
11These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
12This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. John 15
Beautiful.
Laughing slightly at my comment in #465 where I mention a spirit that is unclean; I meant one who had not been cleansed by the blood of Jesus – lol – not someone who is possessed by an unclean spirit.
L posted, “Savannnah, thanks and I do agree with the view people as PEOPLE bit – it’s just that I know my brothers DO view girls as people (they have very good friends who are girls and I have never seen anything worrying as far as objectifying women). However, they do seem to feel very upset with themselves whenever they can’t help noticing something about a girl’s body and I was just wondering if anyone has any idea how to help stop the unrealistic expectations of themselves and angst. I know it’s a hard question and I don’t really expect an answer, I guess. I’m just wishing, really, since so much of my own (different) hangups have vanished that I wish I could get rid of theirs, too.”
I’m sorry that your brothers feel shame at what they were created to be – appreciative of the female form, just as females were created to be appreciative of the male form. No one will ever convince me that this simple noticing and appreciation is sin. To me, that just sets young men, particularly, up for failure as it is asking them to be other than God created them to be. I think this is spiritually abusive, actually, and I wonder how many mental/emotional problems are brought on by this false expectation and shame at not meeting it.
I remember the first time I saw my husband, when I actually met him for the first time. I can honestly say that lust was not in play; however, I certainly appreciated the appearance of this tall, lanky, blonde, blue-eyed fellow. We all have different ideas of what we find to be attractive, and this was mine, I suppose. If people are forbidden to be attracted to each other, how would humankind ever survive, other than to force people into marriages where they barely know each other and their mates are picked by their parents?
Oh, yeah, that is what some of the patrio folks are trying to do.
Thanks Sarah, Savannah, Darcy, Abby and L. It was wonderful to hear people so full of love and faith and seeking real truth.
I am saddened that questioning the doctrine that Christians are forbidden to marry unbelievers has actually shut this blog down, and surprised as well. Its not like its a basic tenet of the faith, like the fall of man, the virgin birth and sinless life of Christ, his death on the cross and his glorious resurrection, his sending the Holy Spirit to dwell in us who trust in Him and love Him.
I assure everyone I believe in Jesus completely and in the inerrant Holy Scripture, but not in the inerrency of the church in formulating doctrine.
March 4, 2010 at 8:06 am
The last thread was getting way too hard to load.
Has anyone seen or heard from Savannah or Cynthia Gee?
March 4, 2010 at 8:20 am
I am really amazed at the number of Pearl supporters who don’t remember some of the outrageous things that are in TTUAC. Is it convenient memory or have they never read the book. Someone left a comment yesterday, insisting that Pearl never talks about 1/4″ plumbing supply line. Someone else insists he only says to spank on the bottom. Here is another quote from Pearl that explains what happened to Lydia Schatz and her sister:
“Where on the body?
The Bible says, “the rod is for the back.” That would include anything that is not the front—the back from the shoulders down to the feet. When training, and not chastening or punishing, any convenient place on the body is effective. When you have told a child not to touch, and he reaches out, you can thump or swat his hand. If he is trying to climb down from his chair after being told not to, you can swat his legs. But when you are engaging the child in serious chastisement, the small of the back down to the thighs is the most effective. You can spank half as hard on the back with a light, stingy switch and be more effective than spanking harder on the bottom or thighs.
March 4, 2010 at 8:23 am
Heather, how about if I confess that I just got my Christmas tree put away 2 weeks ago?!?!?
March 4, 2010 at 8:24 am
Here are some links someone posted on the thatmom blog. They are testimony from Pearl’s daughter:
http://www.7xsunday.net/forum/index.php/topic,24942.0.html
http://www.7xsunday.net/forum/index.php/topic,22007.0.html
In this post Rebekah mentions being fed cat food as a child in Michael and Debi Pearl’s home:
http://www.7xsunday.net/forum/index.php/topic,22007.msg223667.html#msg223667
March 4, 2010 at 8:54 am
“But when you are engaging the child in serious chastisement, the small of the back down to the thighs is the most effective. You can spank half as hard on the back with a light, stingy switch and be more effective than spanking harder on the bottom or thighs.”
Gads! This sounds like something from a sadist.
Engaging one’s child in “serious chastisement”?
And, the small of the back is right where the kidneys are. Isn’t that what killed Lydia Schatz and/or put her sister in ICU?
Bottom, thighs, small of the back down to the thighs……there is a sort of excitement coming through these writings on spanking.
I hope homeschooling groups start distancing themselves from the Pearls’ writings and stop selling their books at the main kiosk of the conference.
March 4, 2010 at 9:03 am
As for the Pearl’s kids, I would not be proud of a daughter who married a man who decides to quit his job, give all his money away, and live like he’s poor after a “dream from the Lord” or whatever. He doesn’t need to be begging others for their money, he needs to be earning his own and not giving it away.
They treat their kids like trash too from what I’ve read on 7x.
March 4, 2010 at 9:05 am
“To me, it’s much more believable and trustworthy to say, “I yelled at my kids today” or “One of my children has some insecurity issues we’re working through (without naming the child)” or “My living room hasn’t been dusted in a month” or “My spouse really struggles with seasonal depression.” But no, everything is always perfect, perfect, perfect…:(”
Heather,
So true!
More from Michael Pearl:
“Numbered in the millions, these kids become the models of self-control and discipline, highly educated and creative—entrepreneurs that pay the taxes your children will receive in entitlements. When your children finally find an honest mechanic or a trustworthy homebuilder, it will be one of ours.
When your children apply for a job it will be at a company our children founded. When they go to a doctor, it will be one of our Christian children that heals them with cutting edge innovation. When your adult kids go for therapy it will be one of our kids-become-psychologist that directs them to the couch and challenges them to release their self-loathing and embrace hope for a better tomorrow. When your children grow old and realize their mortality and seek to make peace with their Creator, it will be one of our children that shares with them the message of God’s love and forgiveness.”
He must have long arms in order to pat himself on the back like this! Where is any credit given to God? I am quite sure that most of the professionals I go to will NOT have been one of “his”. Most people haven’t even heard of him.
I wonder if he has heard the story of Nebuchadnezzar?
He needs to be on the couch of a psychiatrist for some serious evaluation. He is not a “Commander” type as much as he has narcissistic personality disorder or something along those lines.
Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence. Psalm 73:6
I saw the above quoted on the Well-Trained Mind forum.
How appropriate.
March 4, 2010 at 9:46 am
Well, I wrote my former support group in Florida and suggested they distance themselves from the Pearls, as they linked directly to the Pearls website in their “why homeschool” tab and links.
They took out the links (ysy!) but replaced them with a link to a site that promotes the Pearls, Nancy Campbell, Ted Tripp, and others.
http://www.exploringhomeschooling.com
I wrote the above site manager recommending he take off the recommendations of the Pearls books. We’ll see what happens.
So, some progress, but not much. :\
March 4, 2010 at 9:51 am
ps ladies, I have been laid out by pnuemonia. I thought I was getting much better but then had a bad relapse yesterday. Please pray for me. There’s a house to clean, bills to pay, and people coming over today and tomorrow. The kids are pitching in, and hubby is a help in many ways, but it really takes the whole family to keep this household going, and with my sidelined it’s not going well.
Plus it’s no fun to be in constant pain and exhaustion. XP
Darcy, you have my heartfelt empathy! My dh used to travel. Find some sort of mother’s day out program for your sanity’s sake! Seriously!
I even put my little ones in a home care setting one day a week when I couldn’t find a MDO. These days they have MOPS too, which won’t give you time to soak in the tub or run errands but will at least give you some adult companionship and a respite from 24 hour a day child care.
Best wishes! =)
March 4, 2010 at 9:56 am
Karen, I sent your open letter (http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3927)and the link to the Pearl’s arrogant blog post to my Hope Chest e-magazine list yesterday. I also gave them the link to our podcast interview on Titus 2 mentoring (http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3917). Thanks again for doing that! I had a lot of fun with it, and I look forward to hearing how segment 2 of it comes out after Clay’s expert editing. There sure were a lot of “take 2″ moments on that one as I tripped over my own tongue.
Thanks for all you do, and the much needed alternative perspective you bring to the home school community.
March 4, 2010 at 10:32 am
“s for the Pearl’s kids, I would not be proud of a daughter who married a man who decides to quit his job, give all his money away, and live like he’s poor after a “dream from the Lord” or whatever. He doesn’t need to be begging others for their money, he needs to be earning his own and not giving it away.
They treat their kids like trash too from what I’ve read on 7x.”
Debbie Pearl would say that her daughter’s husband is a “visionary man”…supposedly a trait of God that her daughter’s husband is exhibiting. I have known men like this who constantly move their families around, can’t hold down a job for more than a few months and won’t take responsibility for their irresponsible behavior. Their families live in poverty and many times off of Government aid and the aid of those hardworking, responsible people of their own church. But, Debbie Pearl tells these wives to appreciate and respect this about their husbands.
I call it sin and sloth and say that if a man WON’T provide for his own he is WORSE than an infidel. Or, as the Pearls call unsaved people- rats.
Then there is the so-called “Command Man” which is really another name for a maniacal, meglomaniac, control-freak who has to have his way or else.
Neither of these two types of personalities that Debbie Pearl puts forth in her book in any way represent the Christ who died for His Bride and sacrificed Himself for her and put aside His own preferences, desires, wants and will for her sake.
March 4, 2010 at 10:33 am
Shadowspring,
I am so sorry you aren’t feeling well. I will be thinking of you. Wish I was closer so I could come and do some of the practical things for you.
March 4, 2010 at 10:38 am
“However, recently, since February, I have been studying full time. I have not been working anymore. All I’ve been doing is studying the Word. And I did that because I think God told me to. It’s not because I wanted to… it really scared me. And we were really poor for those months. And a handful of people have supported us here and there by giving us a bag of wheat or food a few dollars. And that’s fine… And we’re happy to live poor. We’ve done that our whole married life, Rebekah and I. We’re good at it. And I should say more or less; we haven’t always lived as poor as we are now, we certainly have had more money in the past, but that is not the point, I’m just going through the situation…
We have had significant, or decent, residual income from the vitamin company from selling my share there. And it felt like God said “you need to depend on me for this work” and the implication was “don’t depend on that residual income, give it away too…” And I did.
That puts me in a kind of a crazy place. It puts me in a place where, frankly, I can’t pay for the server, and uh… I can’t pay for my own food. I work 40 – 50 hours a week and I come home and there’s no paycheck. It’s not like I have a small paycheck; I have none. Zero dollars. Hard to live that way.”
Yes, it certainly does put him in a crazy place.
What about the kids?! Its okay for him to choose to live like that but his kids have no choice in the matter and that is what makes it wrong.
To his credit, he goes on to talk about how he needs to provide for his family and that this makes him worse than an infidel.
But, I doubt that God told him to quit his job so he could study the word all day long since that is contrary to the word of God. If he wanted to do that, he should have stayed single. Since he is married he is to be concerned about how he may please his wife. 1 Cor. 7
March 4, 2010 at 11:39 am
What really gets me is that Michael Pearl never addressed how wrong it was for the Schatz parents to discipline their child to death and/or to cause such injury in the others. He never made a disclaimer nor did he condemn the discipline the Schatz’s used.
March 4, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Oh yuck. Debi Pearl’s novel “The Vision” is being turned into a movie. Debi Pearl is also writing a new indoctrination manual called “Preparing to Be a Help Meet”. Ew.
March 4, 2010 at 3:57 pm
http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3943
Don’t tell me Michael Pearl bears no responsibility.
March 4, 2010 at 4:04 pm
shadowspring, hope you are feeling better soon!
March 4, 2010 at 7:44 pm
“Visionary man,” really, is just a glorified word for, “bum.”
I’ve always thought that…
(delurking, here)
March 4, 2010 at 7:51 pm
FWIW, I’ve posted my thoughts on the case (theologically speaking) here:
http://timeheldinsepia.livejournal.com/109235.html
March 5, 2010 at 12:03 am
“Or, as the Pearls call unsaved people- rats.”
The Pearls call unsaved people rats?
My goodness — Jesus Himself called the unsaved, kynarion, meaning “little dogs”… or, perhaps, “puppy-dogs”:
Mat 15:26 But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw [it] to the little dogs.”
Mat 15:27 And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.
“Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
March 5, 2010 at 10:24 am
Off topic: Feeling slightly better and I appreciate all the prayers. =)
Even more off topic:
Rant: Why do young mothers (or is it just my experience) have so little respect for older mothers? A young mother friend of mine assumed that I am protesting the Pearls in ignorance, never having actually read their book.
õ_0
I am sure I was guilty of the same stuff, only hanging out with other women who were knee deep in diapers at the same time that I was, dismissing older moms as compromised or worldly because *we* were the chosen generation truly returning to the Lord with all our hearts, etc. Not like those older women who were not as truly devoted to Christian motherhood as *we* were.
I felt cutting edge by choosing to be a SAHM and especially home schooling! I admit I had no interest in the opinion of those gone before me who bottle fed, whose children were in private or public school, or those women who worked for the love of working instead of only to put food on the table. So I guess I deserve it. LOL
How the tables have turned. Now, since I only have two children and didn’t “trust God” for family planning, all my advice is suspect. I am obviously a compromiser. *sigh* They rightly assume I used disposable diapers. Why would anyone take advice from a mom who used disposable diapers?! What could one such as I possibly know about truly godly parenting?
End of rant. Moving on with my life. Thank you for your time.
March 5, 2010 at 10:56 am
Shadowspring, I will be 25 in a few days and have 3 young children, the oldest is 2 1/2. That’s to say, I might be a young mom, but I would take advice from you. I like to ask older moms about stuff.
The only older mom who is suspect to me at first glance is my mother in law, because her opinions are annoying. My mother in law treats me like I’m an imbecile. I’m bad because I didn’t nurse (nursing was more painful than giving birth and my milk was rancid straight from the breast), and because our kids are going to *shock horror* go to public school AND to top that off, we BELIEVE the expert who says our son is special needs. (She thinks it’s just naughtiness and we can spank it out of him).
Also she tells me when she thinks they should be wearing shoes, or coats or whatever else SHE would do with hers. We know (because of my husband) that she is an overprotective helicopter mom lol.
So, I will solicit and take the advice of older moms, so long as they aren’t my mother in law. LOL.
March 5, 2010 at 11:32 am
=) Mrs. W., thanks for the reminder that the opinionated and unteachable come in all age brackets!
Sorry for all you have to go through with your m-i-l. ((aussiemama))
She sounds like *me* as a new mom, though I grew out of it under the Holy Spirit’s loving tulelage. I wish the same for her.
March 5, 2010 at 11:33 am
PS except for the special needs part and spanking it out of him. I never woulda jumped on that wagon!
March 5, 2010 at 11:41 am
shadowspring,
Your “rant” sounded like you’ve been reading my mail – uncanny. I suppose we’d all like a “do over” on some things…but as you said “moving on…”
Glad you’re feeling better!
March 5, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Shadowspring, I think you are mostly right about many young moms. We, in each generation I think, believe that we are going to be the “revolutionaries” in all things, and it’s the same with motherhood.
I’m seeing this with friends who have children a little younger than my daughter, and the fact that some of them are absolutely clueless, yet seem to “know everything” astounds me. I know I was (and am in some ways) the same way. I have seen about 1,000 different opinions about potty-training, but what worked for my daughter is what worked for her! But I have no interest in offering that advice unless it’s asked for, because unless people want to actually TRY to use it, they don’t want it.
I figure, like other things, parenting advice was supposed to be passed down generation to generation BY parents (grandparents), but somewhere along the way one generation got lazy, and the other became stubborn, too stubborn to hear what the “wiser” older people were telling them. Really, to get back some semblance of the “passing the torch” attitude, a change needs to be made in people not to forget what they’ve learned (and to share that), and to not be so stubborn as to not hear what people who have been there, done that, have to say on the subject. Sure, I wouldn’t take advice on breastfeeding from a woman who has never done it, but I would take advice on parenting in general from someone who has raised good kids (even if they used disposable diapers!
).
March 5, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Thanks! For the well wishes and the empathy.
Actually I DO totally deserve it! LOL
Reality has a wonderful way of helping us all see the wisdom in “moving on”…
March 5, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Karen and I were actually discussing this issue about younger women appreciating the need for older women in our podcast interview at http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3917 One of my thoughts was that it depends on how deeply they are thinking about it since we usually tend to do our own thing. But then if a crisis or problem comes up and they need advice, they start realizing the value of having an older woman to listen and counsel.
March 5, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Abby, you made a great point that I always take into consideration with the advice given to me from other moms…I listen to the ones with GOOD kids, or at least some that turned out ok even if one or two are wayward. But if they are all bad apples then I don’t tend to pay much attention either.
Last week, my husband and I had a single teenager try to tell us how to raise our kids. HAHA.
March 5, 2010 at 2:35 pm
“Reality has a wonderful way of helping us all see the wisdom in “moving on”…
Too funny, shadowspring!
Now in mid-life, my current favorite saying is:
“The more I know, the less I know that I know.”
March 5, 2010 at 10:31 pm
I found recently a treasure from my grandmother — a presentation that she gave in the late 1950′s on “The Christian Home.” Here’s an excerpt:
” …there are a few things that I know and one or two about which I have strong feelings.
One is obedience. I do believe in it. I am old-fashioned enough to think that when a two- or three-year-old is given a command he should do as he is told. And I believe he can be so taught without much ado or many spankings. But not by mothers who will not discipline themselves enough to take time and pains to teach him so. A nervous, undisciplined mother will say “Johnny this … ,” “Johnny that …,”
“Susie, sit still; Susie, stop that.” She herself cannot remember all the things she has told Susie to do. (“See what Johnny is doing and tell him to quit.”) Such a mother will give a dozen commands in three minutes, especially if visiting or if she has visitors.
I believe in spankings – the right kind at the right time, but I believe (and have said so many times and for many years) that most of the spankings can be over by the time the child is two or at most three years old. You won’t agree? I have found it to be so. I have seen it work in our own home. Not all – but most. I’m sure of that.”
“Now, there is one other thing I am convinced of in this matter of children and obedience; it is that as children grow up, parents should not tell them everything to do, but the child should be considered an intelligent being and allowed and encouraged to make his own decisions.”
March 6, 2010 at 12:47 pm
That is a true treasure! I love your grandma’s words, and the fact that she still speaks to future generations.
She was a wise mother. About when did she parent young children? I would love to date this wise counsel.
March 6, 2010 at 12:49 pm
In other words, did she parent during the Depression? Was she already a grandma when she gave the presentation in the 50s?
March 6, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Yes, she raised two children — one son (born 1930) and one daughter — my mother (born 1935). Both children went on to serve in full-time ministry (my uncle as a pastor, my mother as a missionary/pastor’s wife) and both had long and successful marriages (50+ years).
When this was written she was a new grandmother, a pastor’s wife, a public school teacher, and caregiver for her mother who lived with them. She is my spiritual hero!
March 7, 2010 at 3:54 am
Scot McKnight has up a great post on legalism http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/03/liberated-from-legalism-2.html
which seems to define everything we’ve been talking about
March 7, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Personally, I LONG for a true Titus 2 older woman to come alongside me right now in the day to day details of life that the passage goes into. As it is, the many wonderful older Christian women I come into contact with is limited to Bible study and Sunday school, which is nice, but not sufficient to meet the needs that Paul obviously witnessed when he wrote the verse.
So Karen, I think you just need to move close to me.
We’d have a grand ol’ time!!
March 8, 2010 at 9:03 am
““Visionary man,” really, is just a glorified word for, “bum.”
I’ve always thought that…”
Susanne,
LOL! Thanks for delurking!
Yes, that would sum up the “visionary man” very nicely.
March 8, 2010 at 10:04 am
Alisa, now that has much appeal for many reasons!!!
March 8, 2010 at 10:05 am
I am trying to work my way through a stack of books I have been wanting to read and review and over the weekend I started Family
Driven Faith. Has anyone read this one? About a third of the way into it, I am really confused. It seems to contradict much of what I have read/heard/picked up from Voddie other places.
Any thoughts?
March 8, 2010 at 10:08 am
Another book on my list that I haven’t heard mentioned much but that sounds like more of the same Michael Pearl perspective…Withhold Not Correction by Bruce Ray. Someone mentioned it to me about 6 months ago and then it hit my radar last week in the midst of the Pearl stuff. What do you know about this book? And how is Shepherd a Child’s Heart different from this book or TTUAC?
March 8, 2010 at 6:05 pm
““Visionary man,” really, is just a glorified word for, “bum.”
I’ve always thought that…”
Susanne,
LOL! Thanks for delurking!
Yes, that would sum up the “visionary man” very nicely.
Hmmm Not an easy man to live with or deal with. Especially if a woman has been told that she must try to make it work.
I can sort of understand why women will hang on to these labels. They are trying desperately hard not to despair. Life is hard, and they feel helpless. Tell them that God made their man that way, that hanging on to him, and being his help-meet will bring her blessings (even if all they are seeing is hardship, more hardship, and shame), seems to give purpose to her life.
That is, until she wakes up.
March 9, 2010 at 2:40 am
Does anyone know if Rebekah Anast has had her 6th baby yet? It’s mentioned on NGJ site that she was due back in January. I know they’ve written in their NGJ newsletter in the past that Rebekah has her babies at home, no doctors, not even with a midwife. I hope she’s ok.
March 9, 2010 at 7:51 am
Yes, Rebekah had her 6th baby. Feb. 10, I think. A little girl they name Alitsia (A-leet-see-ah). I have been out of the loop and missed that she has had #4 and #5. So much of her life seems a mystery to me. How they live with no income, etc.
March 9, 2010 at 8:27 am
“Until she wakes up…”
No truer words spoken. And what a painful, painful truth.
As a young woman/wife/mother, I just could not understand why so many older divorced women were so bitter. I am ashamed to admit that I was sure they were at fault in most cases.
Now I am just as sure the opposite is true.
While there may be some divorced woman who quit too easily, I know believe most of them tried for years and years to make a happy life with their uncooperative husbands, until they just gave up.
Or woke up.
I remember feeling guilty once for having only two children, because a pro-life friend of mine kept going on and on with the QF spiel about children being a blessing, and you wouldn’t want to limit any other blessings so why limit children? The argument was that one wouldn’t say, “no thanks God that’s enough prosperity/health/social success for me!” and that it was a sinful lack of faith to not want all the children that the Lord (biology) would provide sans birth control.
That Sunday I was visiting my mother-in-laws church. In comes a middle-aged QF mom, looking like a wrung-out washcloth. She was wearing clothes that looked ridiculous on her (like decades old- should pads,etc.), with a nursing baby in the carrier and all the littlest ones (10 and under) in her care. She was not happy, but super-stressed. You could see it in her whole demeanor.
Her husband, on the other hand, was beaming. He had the two oldest with him up on the platform leading singing. He got to be BMOC while his wife looked like she was being crushed by the burden of caring for that large family.
I knew than that I had made the right decision. It was a leap of faith for me to mother any child, given my past family experiences! Two were more than enough. I knew that I would crack completely under the kind of pressure that QF mom was bearing. Nope, nope, nope, not for me.
I wanted to be strong, healthy, happy, and fully there for every child I *did* bring into this life.
I wonder if that mom will ever “wake up”, or if she just has too much invested to every admit that she might have been wrong. So many Christians accept numb and emotionless life, just getting by, and insist that they have love, joy, peace, etc. because they know they should. They refuse to acknowledge they are angry, depressed, unhappy because they know they shouldn’t feel that way.
Oh what a tangled web we weave…
March 9, 2010 at 8:54 am
Has anyone here heard from Savannah? I have missed her and tried to e-mail her but her e-mail comes back as an invalid address. I am concerned. Her last comment here was about a month ago.
March 9, 2010 at 9:26 am
Children are a blessing, yes. But aren’t we also supposed to be a blessing to them, and not burden them unnecessarily with things that are too “grown up” for small ones? I think I was reading the Quivering Daughters website and read that a child at the age of 4 was to change her younger siblings’ diapers! (Correct me if I’m wrong on this one) My daughter is 5 now, and I can’t imagine burdening her with that. If she wants to “help” me, that is great, but I do not hand over that kind of a job to her, because it’s not age appropriate, nor is it okay to “use” her as child labor. She is a tremendous help to me in many ways, but again, there are certain responsibilities that she should not yet have to take on. Children who are forced to care for younger siblings in ways that are not appropriate for children probably grow up thinking “I’m not doing that baby thing, I’ve already done it a dozen times.” It gets old, and there’s no joy in it. When I watched the Duggars’ show, I thought that Jim Bob’s mom seemed out of place in their brood, and that she really didn’t care for their lifestyle very much. Maybe I’m reading into it, but I felt for the poor woman. She must wonder why her son became the symbol of the Quiverfull movement and what purpose it is really serving.
March 9, 2010 at 10:52 am
Do any of you read the Domestic Felicity blog written by a Jewish girl named Anna? For years she has been writing talking about how detrimental it is for a woman to work outside the home, and how they shouldn’t do it. Then, a month or so back, she confesses that SHE works part time outside the home, and the very next day put up another post about why women should NOT work outside the home.
I wrote a comment telling her I thought it was hypocritical to bash working outside the home when you do it yourself. It was, of course, never published. The hypocrisy of these people stuns me.
March 9, 2010 at 11:46 am
I agree, Abby. Children are not only a blessing, they are a huge responsibility as well.
And unlike the responsibility that comes with wealth, or health, the way we handle THAT responsibility will have lifelong emotional consequences for other people.
March 9, 2010 at 11:59 am
Shadowspring, I think that’s why my mother’s doctor told her, after a difficult pregnancy and delivery, “You have four healthy children. They need a healthy mother. Don’t put your health at risk with another pregnancy.”
Abby, exactly. I’ve always thought that brothers and sisters make really good brothers and sisters. They make pretty poor parents. They shouldn’t have to take on the responsibility of raising children while they are still children themselves.
March 9, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Children are a blessing, yes. But aren’t we also supposed to be a blessing to them, and not burden them unnecessarily with things that are too “grown up” for small ones?
You raise a very good point, Abby.
I had to think about this not so long ago, when our 6 year old’s teachers called my husband and me down for a meeting. One of their concerns was that our 6 year-old is carrying burdens that are too heavy for him.
Parents, in our efforts to tell our children about the world, the things that burden us, like poverty, or disasters (Haiti, for example), can lay burdens on our children that they can’t carry. Our 6 year-old had been in tears days earlier, trying to cope with thoughts of paying the rent, poverty, homeless children, etc… He is very sensitive.
Sometimes we need to let our children be children. Without indulging their every whim, but without sharing our burdens with them.
March 9, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Children are not only a blessing, they are a huge responsibility as well.
And unlike the responsibility that comes with wealth, or health, the way we handle THAT responsibility will have lifelong emotional consequences for other people.
You are so right, Shadowspring!
Do you all think that some quiverfull parents (unconsciously, I hope) fail to see their children as people in their own right? I mean, they are so focused on how children are a blessing that they view them more like assets, much like material blessings, instead of seeing them as persons in their own right.
March 9, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Food’s a blessing too. Doesn’t mean I want to eat all I can get. God says a good wife is a blessing. Doens’t mean every man should have as many as he can.
He also says that mourning is a blessing. But who wants to mourn as much as possible? I have no problem with desiring to “limit” God’s blessings. That’s a silly argument. Too much of a good thing is still too much. 
I think the whole “if God wanted me to stop having babies, He wouldn’t let me get pregnant” argument is dumb too. That’s like jumping off a cliff and saying “if God doens’t want me to fall, He won’t let me”. God has set up many physical laws that He doesn’t often interfere with (i.e., conception and gravity). When He does, we call it a supernatural occurence or miracle. I don’t expect God to supernaturally intervene for me against the law of conception every time I have sex, nor do I expect Him to supernaturally intervene and halt the law of gravity every time I decide to jump off a cliff.
March 9, 2010 at 5:35 pm
I do not see how anyone could have nineteen children and know each intimately and personally the way children need their parents to know them. (Thinking Duggars here.)
Of course, many parents with less children ignore the budding people their children actually are in favor of pretending they are who they wish them to be. But it seems it would be unavoidable with large numbers of children.
I feel especially sorry for all the Duggar children in the middle. They must crave to be recognized as the unique and wonderful people they are, but being middle of the pack that isn’t likely.
I cringe when I see all those children dressed alike playing the same instrument in the same lessons all at the same time. I know that it is impossible that each one of those kids is a polo-shirt afficianado with a penchant for violin, but the lucky one that fits that role (if there is one) is lucky indeed!
Any other tastes or interests are strangled in the cradle of family efficiency and orderliness. None of the others are allowed to explore the world and decide how they want to dress or if they even like music and what instrument would they choose if they could, etc.
March 9, 2010 at 5:42 pm
You know, madame, I’ve wondered about that when I’ve known people who desperately wanted whatever gender child they didn’t have. You see people who “keep trying” for a boy or a girl, and I have to wonder how that makes the other kids feel — like they were somehow a disappointment?
Same thing with some QFers. However many you have, it’s somehow not enough, gotta keep getting “more blessings” no matter how much everybody has to suffer for it. It points out to me that part of our sinful nature is that competitive spirit that has to have more and do better than those around us. Christian one-upsmanship, if you will. I’m certainly guilty of it in other ways –
March 9, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Karen posted, “Has anyone here heard from Savannah? I have missed her and tried to e-mail her but her e-mail comes back as an invalid address. I am concerned. Her last comment here was about a month ago.”
Thanks for thinking of me and asking after me, Karen. Your heart for others always moves me!
I began a viral illness several weeks ago and ended up suffering several complications, culminating with our eldest son finding me unconscious in my walk-in closet last Tuesday morning, which resulted in a trip in the squad and admission to the hospital (it appears I had been unconscious for about an hour, although I have no memory of any event(s) leading up to it). Although I have no history of seizure disorder, it appears I *may* have had a seizure that was probably the result of my viral illness, fever, low blood pressure, and heretofore unknown issues with my thyroid levels. Tests ruled out issues like brain tumors and meningitis. I am still being “worked up” for a couple of things, so hopefully we will have some more concrete answers as to what happened in the near future.
But I am out of the hospital now, resting at home, and hopefully will return to work next week, when I am released to drive again. The men in my life are taking truly excellent care of me! I thank God that our eldest son came home from class when he did and found me and knew what to do. On a lighter note, we are also thankful that the shower did not overflow and cause a huge problem, as apparently I had turned on the shower before I lost consciousness and it had been running for over an hour!
Karen, thank you again for expressing your concern. My email address is savannahrose1963ATliveDOTcom. I don’t know why it did not work for you, but let me know if you have any further problem with it.
Shadowspring, I saw where you have been ill and hope that you are fully recovered. Please continue to take care of yourself.
March 9, 2010 at 8:09 pm
“I think the whole “if God wanted me to stop having babies, He wouldn’t let me get pregnant” argument is dumb too. That’s like jumping off a cliff and saying “if God doens’t want me to fall, He won’t let me”. God has set up many physical laws that He doesn’t often interfere with (i.e., conception and gravity). When He does, we call it a supernatural occurence or miracle. I don’t expect God to supernaturally intervene for me against the law of conception every time I have sex, nor do I expect Him to supernaturally intervene and halt the law of gravity every time I decide to jump off a cliff.”
Darcy, EXACTLY.
I saw a video the other day of the scene of Jesus’ testing, and it just struck me how Jesus was in no uncertain terms telling us that God gives us free agency in this world that we cannot release liability for. From Luke 4:
9The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here. 10For it is written:
” ‘He will command his angels concerning you
to guard you carefully;
11they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”
12Jesus answered, “It says: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”
Of course, God CAN do anything. But to assume He will is great presumption, which Jesus called putting God to the test and is not to be done. The Law of Physics does not change, nor the Law of Cause and Effect. The mechanisms (Laws) of conception are well known to us. To ignore those Laws is to not live in reality.
March 10, 2010 at 8:23 am
Savannah!!!
Can’t tell you how glad I am to hear from you.
I am praising God this morning that you are well and praying that the doctors will be able to determine what happened. I am so thankful that your son was there, too! We will be praying for a quick and full recovery! {{{{{}}}}}
March 10, 2010 at 8:28 am
While we are on the militant fecundity topic, here are a couple interesting things.
There is an interesting series of articles in the latest issue of The Economist that talk about the mandatory one child policy in urban areas in China. Though the magazine is self-pro-claimed pro-choice, it really hits the nail on the head in its discussion about the treatment and views of women that has lead to the slaughter of millions of baby girls in there and in India. I am currently reading Half the Sky that discusses these same views all over the world that have led to prostitution, child slavery, etc. Interestingly,one of the key factors that both authors identify to prevent this treatment of women is education.
March 10, 2010 at 8:32 am
And here is something else I have been thinking about the past couple of weeks. I am curious if any of you have come to this same conclusion.
I had been in a long discussion with some very pro-choice people regarding over population, Margaret Sanger, etc. I knew there were several resources that talk about the “birth dirth” and some I had seen before. But what struck me this time is that the emphasis is on the “birth dirth” of the white population. It really made me step back and look at the whole militant fecundity movement. Does it seem to you that those people advocating for raising up generations through large families are all white and are promoting this view among white middle class families? Is this really another form of kinism?
Any thoughts?
March 10, 2010 at 8:33 am
One interesting thing…Voddie Baucham promotes large families and encourages adoption even adopting his own children. But I don’t know any other patriocentrist who is promoting adoption….do you? I may have missed it….
March 10, 2010 at 10:15 am
Here is a really interesting and insightful article about Mark Driscoll and the concept of masculinity and the church.
Any thoughts?
http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2009/02/thoughts-on-mark-driscoll-while-im.html
March 10, 2010 at 10:35 am
Here is a blog you won’t want to miss:
http://defraudeddaughters.blogspot.com/
March 10, 2010 at 6:24 pm
I’m just popping in to say something then I’m out of here,
to What If, or the Deconstruct, seven point star, interesting? [yea, the Lord IS good],
anyway, after a lot of prayer I just wanted to say, that what I said, was NOT that I wanted YOU to be raped, I would not want that on Any Woman–anyone who took the Time to read my blog would see how Ridiculous that is,
BUT because I know how the Enemy works, to twist things, including metaphors and yes, strong messages, that I meant to be used as a ‘type of how would YOU feel if the tables were Turned on YOU and how would YOU feel with that whole God is a genocidal pro-ethnic cleansing maniac wink wink, type of thing,
and because I do NOT want to ‘offend’ in a way that Takes away from Jesus Christ,
I am apologizing for THAT comment Alone.
On the rest–that God does NOT wink at Ethnic Cleansing, that in Jeremiah God does WARN complacent Privilege women who care not about women of other races especially who Yes, are massed raped/oppressed in Ethnic Cleansing, partial Genocide [as written by the Holocaust Studies],
on that, I STAND FIRM.
As for being Hispanic, Ethnic cleansing and racism is NOT just a ‘white’ thing, RWANDA, is Black on Black–example,
that does NOT exclude NOR excuse, INDIFFERENCE, to ethnic cleansing, the FACT that in our world today, THOUSANDS OF WOMEN AND GIRLS, YOUNG GIRLS, are yes, being massed raped/and butchered for Ethnic Cleansing/Gendercide, and to Say [and for not Any to even balk at this, says a LOT about just how little Truth, 1 John, there is, God can DEAL with that one],
that God winks at that, well,
is Deplorable. Pathetic and sad, but I suppose, not to be too shocking…
in dedication to my daughter, to her people, Cherokee Nation, many women, who died yes, by Ethnic Cleansing, and to the Christian Native American Indians, who KNOW,
God never, winks or excuses, Ethnic Cleansing, nor takes JOY in it–Love does NOT rejoice, or winks,
at Iniquity, but in TRUTH.
Jane
March 10, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Just popping to vent, after hearing this crazy fundy logic again:
“Russ Moore makes the shocking statement that most Christians are feminists and live in ’same-sex’ marriages. The reason? Most men do not exercise Biblical headship for their wives.”
http://resources.christianity.com/details/mrki/20070501/d2de20cd-e931-4593-9ba8-71907cc50ce0.aspx
and the forum complimentarians agree with it! grrrr.
March 10, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Hi all…. this has been an unusual week. My husband Arnold (who has been diagnosed with Chronic Renal Disease) and I have been in Washington DC, taking part in peaceful protests (google ritz carlton protest) and healthcare reform rallies. Today we met with a group of Senators and Representatives, and tomorrow morning at 6:30 AM, Arnold will appear on CNN news and tell his story….
March 11, 2010 at 9:05 am
Savannah,
Oh no! I will add you to my prayers! I am so sorry to read of your devastating illness and trip to the hospital. You have my deepest empathy.
And thanks for asking about my recovery. Slow but steady. Had an awesome one hour massage on Monday that helped so much, even though I was a little timid about being out in public and possibly exposed to new different germs. I wish you a similar experience of kind touch and true compassion. It really helped a lot.
All,
I love all the straight talk about the QF line that you wouldn’t want to limit God’s blessings. Children are a blessing, yes, and a HUGE responsibility! It just goes to show how damaging it is to take verses out of context and make them life commands. And completely illogical.
It makes no more sense than taking the verse where Paul tells Timothy to have a little wine for his stomach’s sake and starting a new doctrine of wine being the divine cure for ulcers, stomach cancers, and heartburn. And if it doesn’t work for you, then you don’t have enough faith or you have compromise in your life somehow.
Prooftexting is a very bad way to build your theology.
Okay, going to read the above links now.
March 11, 2010 at 11:23 am
Ugh, mostly wish I hadn’t (checked out the above links).
On the other hand, my son is getting a great education in how to spot a con.
First, create a crisis:
Christianity is about to be destroyed! DESTROYED I tell you! Oh noooooooo!
Second, indentify a villian:
Feminist thought, that women should be treated equal to men, is DESTROYING CHRISTIANITY!! Run for the hills!
Third, promise that you alone have the cure:
Quick, get your women under your control, and then get your whole family under the authority of my doctrine! You’ll be safe here, as long as you don’t question me and submit, I’ll take care of everyone.
What a crock of crap. We took the first five minutes of the sermon clip and identified all of the above steps, and then we had a great talk about Christianity.
If building the church is the work of the Holy Spirit, can it be destroyed by any practice of men? If it can be destroyed by a human practice (say women being honored as equals) then how can it be divine in the first place?
I pointed out to my son that what is threatened by “feminism” is not the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, built by the Holy Spirit who blows where He wills (John 3), but the American fundamentalist religious paradigm.
And if it is possible for that paradigm to be destroyed by human actions, then it was a kingdom built by men and not by God. So there is no loss in seeing it ended.
Jesus, may You be glorified over all the doctrines of men, and may Your truth and the reality of You fill our lives today. Draw us all closer to you, and build your church in our nation and our generation. Amen/
March 12, 2010 at 2:45 am
The little patriarchy forum guys (Momgodin’s link in 64) call egalitarianism “A satanic revolt against God.”
Paranoid much? Oh, brother.
I did find it interesting to hear them ask each other what the egal’s interpretations of specific verses might be. They offered pretty good answers…before discounting them in ways that made little sense.
Also interesting was that two of the pastors (Baptists, I think) allow women to pray out loud in services (to the apparent shock of the third) but they are careful to keep male voices heard more.
I wonder if they track services with stop-watches to ensure the proper male/female time balance? Would a male preacher be encouraged to extend his sermon to exceed earlier soprano minutes of prayer?
Maybe the elders flash him a signal to fill any boy-voice-voids? Like a newscaster or reality show host who is given instruction to ramble to complete the time-slot?
“Fill two minutes of boy-voice!” they cry, “or else we risk… A SATANIC REVOLT AGAINST GOD!”
March 12, 2010 at 7:42 am
They have drifted so far from the gospel of Jesus Christ, adding in all their male privilege rules and preacher dominion regulations.
It would be only comic and none of my business if I didn’t know the damage they are doing to future generations. May the Lord judge between sheep and sheep, and shepherd and sheep, as He foretold in Ezekiel.
And Jesus, be the Good Shepherd to the hurting, bruised and battered sheep, the ones pushed away from the good grass and clean water by the fat and privileged. Lead them in the wilderness and provide them with manna and sweet waters and safety and love. Amen.
March 12, 2010 at 10:10 am
Debbie,
Can you provide a link to the forum? Momgodin’s link lead to a sermon audio.
March 12, 2010 at 11:52 am
With regards to Christian fundamentalism,
The problem with fundamentalists is that they fixate on certain doctrines and neglect others because these doctrines are “fundamental” while the others are merely incidental. In short, fundamentalists are more concerned with the teachings of man and man’s faulty understanding of God’s revelation than with the actual revelation itself. As a result, they chuck at least 95% of the Bible out of the window with regards to doctrine.
We must no confuse orthodoxy with fundamentalism, or else we commit the same crime as the fundamentalists: the neglect of Scripture.
March 12, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Madame, the link to the sermon is it. But I can see how you might be confused by my use of the word “forum.” They were having what I considered a forum-type discussion.
Here are a few more gems from that tape:
1. When young parents introduce their new babies to the congregation, dads should do the talking. Letting the moms do it would be “a failure of the pastor to prepare the couple.”
2. Referring to male sexual deviants in society today– “You have agressive men; hypermasculinity is dangerous. The Bible takes masculinity and channels it in these (healthy patriarchal) ways.”
3. Several references to the joys their wife’s “QUIET and godly spirit.” “My wife rejoices in my authority!”
March 12, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Aggressive, not agressive. Oops.
March 15, 2010 at 3:12 pm
So my pastor had another great sermon on Galatians yesterday, and he spent at least 10 minutes on the subject of male/female equality. He raised some good points:
1. the Holy Spirit gives gifts indiscriminantly.
2. Women were ordained and sent out as missionaries in the 19th Century, but our good friends the Fundamentalists put a stop to this around the same time as women got the right to vote. The “Holiness” churches (Pentacostal, etc.) were the biggest proponents of women in ministry at that time. D.L. Moody intentionally trained women in leadership.
3. There is a clear difference between the HUMAN view of “equality” and God’s view of “equality.” God recognizes differences in people, but doesn’t care about them. Humans recognize those same differences and criticize people for being different.
A quote by Nicholas Kristof: “Women and girls aren’t the problem, they are the solution.”
Going further, he talked about socio-economic and racial equality within the church. He talked about the church at Antioch being a multi-ethnic church, and it was also the first church to be called “Christians” because it was recognized as highly unusual for people from so many different backgrounds and classes to come together to worship. Kind of like “They will know we are Christians by our diversity”
He also painted a beautiful picture about our adoption in the family of God as “sons” and explained what was so important about the 1st century imagery of “sonship” (even for women) and how being adopted into God’s family cancels all of our debts (sin), and brings us into the family as if we were blood related. If we would all recognize even just those 2 things, it would be a radical change from most of the judgmental attitudes we see in the church today.
With all areas of equality, he made it clear that there is no reason for us to try to be all the same, or to pretend that we all look the same, but he said that it’s the VALUE we place on people that is important. God values everyone equally, but if the people in the church are not treating one another as equally valuable to God, then (as James (2:1-9) said), we are sinning against God. He then talked a little about the atrocities committed around the world against women, and that part always makes me sad, because here we are, dealing with people in America who want to put the same kinds of restrictions on women as there are in some of these very places, and saying it will cause “freedom” and yet the women in some countries are not free to even leave their homes by themselves or to have an inch of skin to be seen by a man other than their husband. The Law enslaves, but Christ sets us free. If these families who want women to be silent, submissive and obedient would go to those countries, I hope they would be appalled and change their minds about the treatment of their own wives and daughters.
March 15, 2010 at 7:25 pm
“There is a clear difference between the HUMAN view of “equality” and God’s view of “equality.” God recognizes differences in people, but doesn’t care about them. Humans recognize those same differences and criticize people for being different.”
Yes! What a gem of wisdom you have here, Abby!
March 15, 2010 at 7:31 pm
I love your pastor, Abby! Thanks for sharing an encouraging story.
I don’t know about anyone else, but the hatred spewed by that discussion panel left me stunned.
Sort of like a German Jew must’ve felt as the brownshirts got more and more powerful and Hitler got more and more popular. :/
March 16, 2010 at 7:09 am
Here is a great little gem of an article:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2010/03/a_sinking_argument_on_gender_a.html?sms_ss=twitter
Any thoughts?
March 16, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Ladies, I’m very concerned.
I have seen two of my college friends in the last week on Facebook who are using Baby Wise on their newborns. One has used it with all 3 of her kids, the other I don’t know if she used it on the first or not. What does it tell you to do to get your babies to sleep through the night, because both are saying their babies (less than 2 months) are already sleeping through the night? I can’t say that babies that young would never sleep all night, because my son did without a schedule, but to be PUT on a schedule like that (both are breastfeeding, too, I think), I really wonder what it’s doing to their body clocks and their babies. And how far they’re taking the instructions, too.
March 16, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Said a prayer for your friends, Abby.
I know a family that has used Babywise (moderated with common sense and bottle feeding) successfully, but I share your concerns. Esp about milk supply.
They do know the diaper rule, right? A breast-feeding baby should have a certain number of wet diapers each day. My youngest is 15 so I don’t remember what that number is, but if you can slip that into casual conversation it might help your friends from getting falsely complacent that a weak disheartened baby is really a well-fed content baby.
I can’t stand Ezzo. >:[
March 17, 2010 at 12:56 am
Abby,
In all honesty, I used Babywise as a guideline for my babies (simply because I needed to know how many times a day a 6 week/3 month/5 month/etc. baby needed to eat and sleep), and they were both sleeping through the night by 3 months and gained weight very well and appropriately for their age.
I was a bit more structured with my first, and she loved going down for her naps and having predictability to her day. I had to be much less structured with my second, simply because there was also big sister to work around, and I actually missed the more structured routine.
I never one had an issue with milk supply (quite the opposite, in fact). And while I know this is just my experience, the babies I witnessed who were fed on demand honestly looked dangerously close to being malnourished. Now, I TRULY do not like to play the “I did this and the opposite method is evil” game; I simply do not do that. But I’ve seen varied results from both approaches enough to know that there are no one size fits all results here.
Now, I COULDN’T STAND the hyper-structure and performance driven, unreasonable demands placed on little ones in Toddlerwise.
March 17, 2010 at 4:06 am
I checked out the Mark Driscoll link and I agree with the blogger on some points. It’s easy to focus too much on Mark’s apparent obsession with the “chickified” church and “chickified” males, and not see the real problem: male chauvinism and misogyny.
I also agree with him that this “macho male” may be more of an economic class thing. I think it’s true that more educated males are less threatened by educated or equal females. Just the use of the terms “chick” “chickified” and “dude” says volumes to me…
Just some of my thoughts. Could it be that these macho men feel uncomfortable in the “feminized church” because they unconsciously feel it’s, in some way, degrading?
Mark Driscoll’s solution is to put women back in the place he thinks they ought to stay in, so the males can take over. Maybe he feels uncomfortable if he isn’t in charge and a woman is!
March 17, 2010 at 4:15 am
Those men discussing the evils of feminism (Momgodin’s link from #64) sound like they feel threatened by women being equal to men. they need to keep them down, and they need to feel in control.
Did anyone else notice how they contradict themselves? They say a man should be the leader of his home, yet they have no problem meddling and telling them how they have to lead their homes! If a man should be the leader and hear from God, why does the pastor have to tell him to get another job or move so his wife can stay at home?
It also greatly bugged me how (I think it was Moore) counseled the man with the unhappy wife. Why don’t they tell men to go ask their wives what is going on, instead of suggesting what they think is going wrong, and then offering their solution? You can see their agenda seeping out of that advice.
I can’t listen to complementarian teachers airing their “logic” any more.
March 17, 2010 at 8:43 am
Well two of mine slept through the night fairly young but I didn’t try to force them to. They just did because they were lazy lol. But I wasn’t nursing either, I had a lot of difficulties with that. (And please, no nursing nazi’s telling me I didn’t try hard enough. You have no clue what I endured just to go along with the breastfeeding philosophy).
March 17, 2010 at 9:19 am
Mrs W.
Mine slept through the night off and on. I did nurse, but I was a lot more into getting them to feed and sleep on schedule with my 1st. My second was a sling baby, and my third still sleeps in our bed. We’re lax.
As for HAVING to nurse, you won’t get that from me.
Abby,
I wouldn’t try to talk your friend out of applying the principles in a book. Not directly. Maybe ask her how it’s going, offer her your perspective if she is open to hear it. I always encourage mothers to listen to their babies and follow their instincts, that babies need to be cuddled and held, but mothers also need a break from cuddling and holding! Both extremes are not good, but parents need to figure out what they feel comfortable doing. (By always, I mean the two or three mothers that have asked me!!!! lol!)
March 17, 2010 at 9:24 am
Our babies, on their own, all slept through the night early (the eldest at three weeks; the twins at four weeks). When I say “through the night”, I mean midnight to 6:00 a.m. This was not our doing, but just something that came about naturally. We say they took after my husband’s side of the family, who are all “good sleepers”, who can all sleep anytime, anywhere, in any position. LOL
However, I nursed our babies on demand, whenever they wanted, day or night. The twins needed to nurse nearly constantly, as they were smaller babies due to being born at 35 weeks instead of 40. I would have never, ever considered anything other than nursing them as they indicated that they needed it. They all thrived and grew appropriately and as they got bigger, they needed it less and less. I didn’t introduce solid foods to the twins until 8 1/2 months (not on principle, just didn’t – can’t remember why), so I’m sure they nursed more than their older brother, at least up to that point. But it was not a big deal, honestly.
I suppose the whole point of the babywise nonsense with regard to sleeping and nursing is so that the parents won’t be inconvenienced, that the house will not be a child-centered house, blah, blah. But when you really think about the time you spend intensively caring for an infant and his/her needs, it is a small sliver of your lifetime. I didn’t resent what they needed at the time, and I certainly don’t regret it now, now that they are all healthy young men.
And I can simply not imagine allowing an infant to cry in hunger. I have never heard of or seen a baby who was nursed on demand being malnourished. That’s nearly impossible, unless there is an underlying metabolic disorder.
March 17, 2010 at 9:28 am
Mrs. W, you should not feel bad about not nursing. If it didn’t work out, it didn’t work out. For several generations (including when I was born), it was thought that baby formula was superior. Even though I don’t believe that is true, no one can deny that whole generations of people grew up just fine on baby formula.
I’m sorry that other moms make you feel bad about this. When I was having my babies, some of my friends had huge troubles nursing. I don’t know why it is so hard for some and not others, but I would certainly never think it was for “not trying hard enough”.
I have seen you post about this several times over the months, and from that, assume that this is a hurtful thing for you (I can imagine). I feel bad about that, and hope that you will be able to have peace about how things worked out for you and your little one(s).
March 17, 2010 at 9:40 am
Madame posted, “I checked out the Mark Driscoll link and I agree with the blogger on some points. It’s easy to focus too much on Mark’s apparent obsession with the “chickified” church and “chickified” males, and not see the real problem: male chauvinism and misogyny.
I also agree with him that this “macho male” may be more of an economic class thing. I think it’s true that more educated males are less threatened by educated or equal females. Just the use of the terms “chick” “chickified” and “dude” says volumes to me…
Just some of my thoughts. Could it be that these macho men feel uncomfortable in the “feminized church” because they unconsciously feel it’s, in some way, degrading?
Mark Driscoll’s solution is to put women back in the place he thinks they ought to stay in, so the males can take over. Maybe he feels uncomfortable if he isn’t in charge and a woman is!”
I couldn’t agree with you more on this, Madame, and think you have hit the nail right on the head, particularly with regard to Mark Driscoll. I have read and heard some very offensive things he has said about women: one example is that he derides married women who are overweight for not “keeping themselves up”, etc. While I agree we should all do the best we can to look our best and be healthy, there is certainly NO shortage of married men who are overweight, but Driscoll acts as if that’s just a women’s concern.
I won’t even go into how obsessed we think he is with things of a sexual nature in marriage, not to mention his abysmal exegesis of the Song of Solomon.
My church had him speak at our summer conference several years ago. Many in our church (we’re a large, home-based-church entity) were disappointed that he was invited, and did not attend (including my husband and I). In fact, we’ve boycotted the summer conference ever since then. The weird thing is that his views are so different (and backward) compared to those of our church leadership. I think they were just kind of celebrity-pastor-awestruck and were not thinking straight.
Anecdotally, it has been very clear to us that educated men *seem* less likely to be threatened by women and their gifts. That’s not to say that there are no men without benefit of higher education who are not threatened by women, but I do believe there is something to the overall theory.
And I think many of us could do without Mark Driscoll’s surfer-boy language style with regard to gender. He’s not a teenager, he’s a grown man in a position of tremendous leadership. I just find many of his choices of words and comments overall to be unseemly.
March 17, 2010 at 9:42 am
On Monday, my husband told me that Benny Hinn’s wife, Suzanne, has filed for divorce after 30 years of marriage.
I don’t know if Benny Hinn even registers on all your radars, so for those of you who don’t know about him, he’s known for holding very large and spectacular healing crusades around the world. He’s a Charismatic, Word of Faith, Prosperity Gospel preacher. Google him and you’ll find all sorts of controversy about him.
Anyway, when reading the statement he made concerning his divorce, these paragraphs stood out to me.
- My wife has no biblical grounds for what she has done
This one just bugs me. It’s so typical! Unless he has been sleeping with another woman, his wife has no grounds to divorce him? What if he has neglected her? What if he is committing froud and driving her down with him?
But this statement nails it.
- I want you, as my partner in this ministry, to know
that I am going to continue preaching the Gospel and
praying for the sick as I have for 36 years. I will not
allow anything to slow me down or stop me.
Hum… If a man can’t take time off “ministry” to see to his own home, I don’t know what he is doing in ministry in the first place.
It also sounds like he is blaming his wife for trying to stop him, or maybe, as some commenters on blogs that have covered this bit of news say, Satan is trying to destroy Benny Hinn’s ministry through his wife, meaning that Benny Hinn should keep on, regardless, and let his wife come to her senses or let her go. But this means he is married to his ministry.
Sad.
Link: http://www.bennyhinn.org/emailletters/pbhletter.cfm?referrer=na_eb022510
CBN: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2010/February/Should-Benny-Hinn-Talk-About-His-Divorce/
March 17, 2010 at 11:08 am
No shaming going on here, momgodin!
That’s what I LOVED about Penelope Leach “Your Baby and Child”. She had a chapter on breast feeding and a chapter on bottle feeding, because ultimately the best way to feed a child is pain-free, nurturing and relaxing for mother and child.
It seems so obvious when you put it that way, right?
I demand nursed and my little ones followed pretty much the same curve- fat butterballs from five months until they started crawling, and then watch out they were on the go! I know every baby is different, but both of mine weaned themselves when they started walking. You can take a sippy cup with you! LOL It all happened so naturally…
The danger with Ezzo’s teaching and breast-feeding is the part about ignoring your child’s cries. Two kinds of babies don’t cry: content babies whose needs are all met, and despondent babies who have been conditioned that no needs will be met except at random intervals over which the child has no control.
I have actually seen an emotionally deprived/depressed baby. It is by far the saddest thing I have ever, ever witnessed.
March 17, 2010 at 11:33 am
Madame, excellent points about the “chickified” comments by Mark Driscoll.” Something about his message rubbed me but I couldn’t put my finger on it until you evaluated it so nicely.
As I think over it more, I believe Mark uses Dudes for men in an affectionate manner. I don’t get the same loving vibe from his use of the word Chicks for women. Dudes are awesome, Chicks leave a foul taste in his mouth.
Yes, I’d call that misogynistic, too.
March 17, 2010 at 12:24 pm
I’ve been reading a little lately about a lady from India named Pandita Ramabai, who lived from 1848-1922. She championed education for women, and protection for young widows and child brides. I think the ladies here would really enjoy knowing more about her. Try a web search on her name, or for starters, watch this slideshow I found. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPSZKcr8d0U.
I found a good story about her in an old book published in the 1940′s. I copied it and gave it to the students in my English class at co-op.
March 18, 2010 at 10:25 am
Heads up – Michael Pearl will appear tomorrow morning (Friday the 19th) on the CBS Early Show sometime between 7 and 8am eastern time.
Some bloggers, such as this one,
http://whynottrainachild.com/2010/03/16/michael-pearl-on-tv/
are suggesting that people contact CBS to let them know the Pearls are not representative of all Christians, and to share their insights into this abusive practice.
March 18, 2010 at 3:54 pm
“As I think over it more, I believe Mark uses Dudes for men in an affectionate manner. I don’t get the same loving vibe from his use of the word Chicks for women. Dudes are awesome, Chicks leave a foul taste in his mouth.”
I wonder if Driscoll has a problem with Jesus likening his own behavior to that of a mother hen, rather than a rooster?
“How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn’t let me.” Matt.23:37
March 18, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Light,
Thanks for the “heads up” – I just sent an email asking CBS to acknowledge that Pearl’s teachings are not representative of all Christians. I also included the fact that I view him as a cult leader whose teaching is dangerous.
March 18, 2010 at 10:08 pm
And I just heard that the interview is cancelled. I don’t know if this is true or not. I am not sure how to find out.
But this is record: the Schatzes have pleaded not guilty! Seriously!
http://www.chicoer.com/publicsafety/ci_14702664
March 18, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Just read here that the live interview with Michael Pearl is not going to happen.
http://nogreaterjoychildren.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/cbs-cancelled-interview-with-ngj/
They also reported this on their facebook page
http://www.facebook.com/pages/No-Greater-Joy-Ministries/98287219406
Makes me wonder if they were inundated with protests. I hope so!
March 19, 2010 at 12:20 am
The point made on that link regarding the education chasm between “chickified” guys and “dudes” is very interesting. It left me wondering (as cliche as this phrase is, I mean this seriously) if the “dudes” are compensating for something? Specifically, the self confidence and sense of identity that might come with education?
March 19, 2010 at 8:42 am
Shadowspring,
# 95
That story breaks my heart every time I read anything about it or think about what those poor kids went through (as far as I can imagine it).
Christians should confess their sins and then God is faithful and will forgive them. But they stil have to pay the consequences. Justice has to be done for the sake of those children and many more who are suffering under the same treatment.
March 19, 2010 at 8:56 am
Michael Pearl wrote somewhere that it is better to allow some abuse than to break the chain of command. Does anyone know where to find that statement?
March 19, 2010 at 9:41 am
Ugh. I just followed the link above to the Pearls facebook, and saw that an old friend of mine is a fan of the Pearls.
I am heartsick.
March 19, 2010 at 11:20 am
Alisa,
You make a good point and I have to agree. It seems that we humans like to cling to what we see as giving us self-worth or power. It appears this would have a great deal of appeal to men who are being taught that they are “in role” superior to “chicks,” yet know deep inside it’s a ruse. It’s simply the childhood bully’s ploy – if I make light of you, then that means that I am superior because I’m not the same as you.
Apparently, Driscoll’s “just because God says so” approach actually needs backing from certain societal norms, but educated norms don’t make the cut.
It really sad that in using this approach, Driscoll (and those like him) end up making light of many characteristics of God Himself.
March 19, 2010 at 11:58 am
Hey I started a group on Facebook called “Christians against the abuse taught by Michael and Debi Pearl”. Come join the group!
March 19, 2010 at 2:07 pm
I think you ladies will find this interesting:
http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/blog/?p=3806
Dale references a NY Times piece here:
http://www.brucebawer.com/presby.htm
“But such distinctions have faded. Since the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, theological liberals of every denomination have found that they have more in common with one another than with the conservatives in their own denominations. Responding to the research of biblical scholars and the ”historical Jesus” movement, they have de-emphasized doctrine.
Meanwhile leaders of the religious right have preached that salvation depends on believing the correct dogma, even as they have succeeded in reducing the considerable doctrinal distinctions that once divided evangelicals, fundamentalists and charismatics.
As a result, American Protestantism is in the midst of a major shift. It is being split into two nearly antithetical religions, both calling themselves Christianity.
These two religions — the Church of Law, based in the South, and the Church of Love, based in the North — differ on almost every big theological point: “
March 19, 2010 at 9:00 pm
On parenting again, I butted heads twice in the last 24 hours with my father-in-law, who is visiting us. First, basically, he misinterpreted my daughter’s lack of instant obedience as willful disrespect, when in fact, she is one of those kids who has a tendency to ignore a request the first time, but then go back and do what she’s told within 2-3 minutes (tops). He expected immediate obedience (not gonna happen!), and I told him that she is not like that, and that as long as she obeys within that time frame, then I’m good.
Second instance was tonight at the restaurant we stopped at for dinner. He was trying to get my son to hold his hand, and my son ran out into the lot. He tried to stop ME from grabbing my little boy (not yet 2 years old), where I proceeded to grab my son and tell him quickly that it was not okay to run away outside. I didn’t punish my son, but made the danger clear to him as best I could at that moment of fear.
The first incident with my daughter gave me some insight into the fact that, in general, there are people out there who will always and continue to believe that when children are told to do something, they should obey that second, and if not, they will be punished. And then there are those who are more gracious, and realize that children are autonomous human beings with minds of their own, and that they need a good reason to listen sometimes.
The real problem with the Pearls, the Ezzos and even with Mark Driscoll (they all go together) is that they see parents/men as superior beings, and children/women as inferior. It all runs together, and the basic premise is that he who has the bigger guns runs the show. It’s bullying, plain and simple, and we need more people who will stand up for those whose voices cannot be heard. Small children, abused wives, sex-traffic slaves, etc. cannot speak for themselves. They will never be heard until the justice of God comes down, and the only way that this will happen is if the church of God does something about it.
March 20, 2010 at 3:05 am
“The real problem with the Pearls, the Ezzos and even with Mark Driscoll (they all go together) is that they see parents/men as superior beings, and children/women as inferior. It all runs together, and the basic premise is that he who has the bigger guns runs the show. It’s bullying, plain and simple, and we need more people who will stand up for those whose voices cannot be heard. Small children, abused wives, sex-traffic slaves, etc. cannot speak for themselves. They will never be heard until the justice of God comes down, and the only way that this will happen is if the church of God does something about it.”
Abby, I’m so sorry you have to go through that. Not fun.
This paragraph you wrote is so true. I find it appalling how we get stuck in our ruts of what we THINK the Bible says verses what it actually says. IMO, Scripture actually tries to level the playing field between those categories you mentioned, but that might get kind of uncomfortable if we were to truly absorb that, now wouldn’t it?
March 20, 2010 at 4:51 am
Abby,
I’ve had incidents like the ones you describe above with my own father in law. He was very abusive with his children, and still abuses his wife and anyone who will let him.
You are so very right with this paragraph!
The real problem with the Pearls, the Ezzos and even with Mark Driscoll (they all go together) is that they see parents/men as superior beings, and children/women as inferior. It all runs together, and the basic premise is that he who has the bigger guns runs the show. It’s bullying, plain and simple, and we need more people who will stand up for those whose voices cannot be heard. Small children, abused wives, sex-traffic slaves, etc. cannot speak for themselves. They will never be heard until the justice of God comes down, and the only way that this will happen is if the church of God does something about it.
What is it Jesus said? Let the little children come to me, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
I think one big problem in the church and some Christian family teaching is the concept of “chain of command”, and the huge emphasis placed on authority, who has it and who doesn’t.
I’d love to expand on this one, but my 6 year old has an owie in his tummy and I’ve promissed him a tummy massage, see if it helps.
March 20, 2010 at 1:27 pm
There’s a Patrio-family relating to the homeschool community, you’ll find this discussion interesting, but sad. They’re so narrowminded, the majority have no patience for them. The ‘at home’ daughter (Miss Custer) enters the discussion on Pg 2.
http://www.homeschoolalumni.org/viewtopic.php?t=17889&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15&sid=a9f9f6c664cee7c11cba5fdd5fc728f5
March 20, 2010 at 3:54 pm
I know this is kind of random, but here are some more of my thoughts from my personal Bible study.
The story of Dinah in Genesis 34 is strange and sad, but not quite what I was expecting. When Dinah “went out to visit the women of the land” it is apparently more than just an afternoon chat. Physical departure, leaving, even abandonment can be seen from the word used (yasa’). Visit is the word ra’ah, “to see, to look, to observe.” So she did make herself vulnerable in leaving her family and her home, but I don’t see a lot of violence in her interaction with Shechem, who “took her and lay with her.” (KJV) Laqah means “to take hold of” or “to marry.” Obviously I’m no Hebrew scholar, but I don’t see any connotation of violence or force. Shakab means “to lie down” and is a common euphemism for sexual intercourse. I’m a little confused by the translations of this as “violated” or “forced” or “raped.” What am I missing here?
This seems to be followed by Shechem falling in love (or at least in lust) with Dinah. He is drawn to her (dabaq), the same word used to describe marriage in Genesis 2:24, being joined together. So, to put this in more contemporary terms:
Dinah goes to stay with some new friends, she meets Shechem, they hook up, and he becomes infatuated with her. Sounds pretty current —
There is a great deal of anger and bitterness on the part of Dinah’s brothers, but Jacob himself seems curiously uninvolved. He is angry with Simeon and Levi because their act of revenge has damaged his own reputation in the land but does not seem nearly as concerned for his daughter.
Genesis 38 begins with Judah, like Dinah, leaving his family. The KJV says he “turned” (natah) from his brothers to a man of Adullah — indicates a physical change of direction and is also used to instruct God’s people not to “turn away” from what is right. He marries a Canaanite woman and there is pretty much nothing good that comes from this. His two oldest are struck down by God because of their wickedness, and his surviving daughter-in-law becomes a problem that he does not handle well (to say the least). Judah again makes a wrong turn when he turns toward Tamar, thinking she is a prostitute. Yet God honors Tamar and her children by making them part of the Messianic line.
Both Dinah and Judah get themselves and their families in trouble. I think the problem is not so much that they left their family home, as that they left the company of the godly for the company of the ungodly.
Another thing I find interesting: Abraham assures Eliezer that God will send an angel to guide him in finding a wife for Isaac. Isaac instructs Jacob specifically not to marry a Canaanite woman. There is no record, however, of Jacob passing on any such instruction to his children. Dinah and Judah both chose to be unequally yoked, and it caused grief not just for them, but for all around them.
Again, I would love to hear from some of y’all who are more knowledgeable in this type of study. I am certainly finding it fascinating but know that I may be missing or mis-reading some things here as well –
March 20, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Annie C.,
I read both pieces, and like all generalizations, it tends to be simplistic and regionally predjudiced (can you tell I’m not from up north? =)but still has some really useful things to say.
I am learning more and more about fundamentalism. Being raised in it, I assumed that what I learned from Christianity in my church was universally accepted.
I have discovered that fundamentalism is a relatively new (late 1800s) distinctly American phenomenon. In many ways this is alarming, and yet also very freeing.
I want my faith to be authentic, and as such it is based on my personal experience and my own study of the Bible. Yet the experiences and writing of all the Christians who have gone before me beg to be read and appreciated as well.
In some circles that would mean that I am becoming “liberal”, but in actually it means I am looking for something more conservative (of the true faith passed down through the ages) than this new-fangled American fundamentalism I was raised on.
But I have never lived farther north than Virginia.
March 20, 2010 at 9:14 pm
emr,
I’ve read some interesting things about the rejection of Dinah.
Part of one of my commentaries can be accessed online through books.google.com
Not sure if this link will work:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0Z1TeANpQ4wC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=Dinah+rejected+by+Leah&source=bl&ots=YXxcEdtL1S&sig=72B8rp5LsF6BMRLii_ph90w_kzg&hl=en&ei=sm2lS9TFNZO1tgfnmo2JCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Dinah%20rejected%20by%20Leah&f=false
if so, read pages 106-111.
The name of the book is:
The Women’s Torah Commentary: New insights from Women Rabbis
- in case you need to search books.google for it yourself.
I’m looking for another book I have with some interesting things about Dinah…can’t locate it today…may have loaned to someone.
March 20, 2010 at 10:29 pm
emr,
A young unmarried woman in the Hebrew world (and the rest of the ancient near east) was NOT an independent agent. Therefore, she could NOT give consent to sexual intercourse – she NEEDED her father’s approval (i. e. marriage). Because she could not give consent to sex, any sex (with someone other than her husband) was considered rape.
March 21, 2010 at 9:17 am
Personally, I think that the story of Dinah is irrelevant beyond understanding what happened in the lives of Jacob’s family. It’s history. It has nothing to do with how we should live today, or the redemption offered in Christ Jesus.
The best I can get out of all those old stories is that God’s love truly is unconditional. If that greedy swindler Jacob is loved and chosen by God; if his immoral, superstitious and greedy son Judah gets his name/tribe immortalized by the Lion of Judah, then truly God’s love is not conditional upon the strict observance of his commands. Truly mercy triumphs over justice.
Reuben was a hotheaded violent man who also slept with one of his father’s wives, if memory serves me correctly. Just one more proof that in our flesh dwells no good thing- that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
“My hope is built on nothing less than 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; all other ground is sinking sand.”
March 21, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Interesting stuff, y’all — thanks.
Kay, that’s an intriguing take on this story. All kinds of nuances here that I would never have thought of.
What? — that is an illuminating and helpful perspective.
Shadowspring, I agree that this is not a manual for how we are to live today, and thank goodness for that! To me, it just underscores the authenticity of the Bible that God records the good and the bad in the story of His people, warts and all. It’s sad and depressing in some ways to see how little we have changed, but it also encourages me to see how God takes real people with real issues and uses them in spite of their problems and bad decisions.
The best thing I am getting out of this is a realization of how endlessly fascinating God’s word can be. I’m really enjoying the time spent in looking closely at Scripture and that is in itself a blessing to me.
March 21, 2010 at 5:27 pm
“It’s history. It has nothing to do with how we should live today, or the redemption offered in Christ Jesus.”
Shadowspring,
I have to disagree with you on that point.
On this one I agree:
“The best I can get out of all those old stories is that God’s love truly is unconditional.”
It seems to me that the way God planned for the good, bad and ugly all to be recorded about His followers, lends itself to lessons on “How Not To Walk” as well as “How to Walk.”
For instance, through the life of Dinah, we can see how damaging it is to treat people (women) as a commodity of the family. In Dinah’s case, she apparently felt so little affection from her family that she went away from home to seek friendship. Her mother seemed to be far more interested in gaining sons to win Jacob’s love. After Dinah’s rape, her own brothers seem most interested in making the family name good again by revenge killings. Jacob’s family certainly seems to be one big lesson on “How Not To Love Thy Neighbor.”
March 22, 2010 at 11:17 am
I have to agree with Kay. The Old Testament does not have “nothing” to do with the redemption offered by Jesus Christ; on the contrary, it has everything to do with it, because everything that Jesus Christ did had an OT precedent. This is why he stated himself, “I have come to fulfill the law.”
Dinah’s story is a demonstration of why people should forgive those who have sinned against them, as Jesus commands of us. Even though Shalem offered to convert to the monotheism of Jacob’s household and marry his daughter, Dinah’s brothers refused to forgive him for defiling their sister, and honour-killed the men of Shechem. In doing so, they slaughtered innocent people, widowed women and deprived children of their fathers, and placed their own family in great danger. All of this could have been avoided had they forgiven Shalem instead.
March 22, 2010 at 12:59 pm
“Personally, I think that the story of Dinah is irrelevant beyond understanding what happened in the lives of Jacob’s family. It’s history. It has nothing to do with how we should live today, or the redemption offered in Christ Jesus.”
I can see both sides on this.
Dinah has been made into doctrine for daughters by the patriocentrists on why a daughter must be kept under lock and key and not allowed out by herself- to go on the mission field, to go to dinner with friends, to go see a play with friends, to have a job, to go to college, etc. The patrios teach that the reason Dinah was raped was that she went off with her friends without her “authority” or NMR- nearest male relative.
Well, that is balogna. Tamar was raped in her own home by her own brother. Why don’t the patrios make doctrine out of that story and prescribe that brothers are a danger to their sister’s purity and that living in a home with brothers will get you raped?
So, the story of Dinah is not prescriptive nor does it contain doctrine about how unmarried women are to remain under the constant watchful eye of brother or father until they are married.
On the other hand, I totally agree that Dinah shows us what happens when women are treated like property/commodity or like cattle. Dinah’s own mother had no worth in that society unless she bore her husband sons. Can you imagine how miserable her life would have been if she were barren or had only born daughters? Leah was the unloved wife and she knew it. Also, we have no idea if she was or was not a good mother to her daughter. Also, we don’t know why Dinah went off with her friends. It isn’t just because she had a bad relationship in her family. It could be that she had a very good relationship with her mother and she was just spending time with females her own age. It isn’t as if she just ran off. It is no different than if one of our daughters went somewhere with her friends. My daughters do things with their friends all the time and it has no bearing on whether or not they have a bad relationship with me. It is HEALTHY for people to have relationships/friendships outside of their own home, imho.
Leah would have been surely banished and forgotten if she didn’t give birth to so many sons.
A woman’s total worth, basically, was in how many sons she could give birth to.
Yes, this story shows us what happens when women are treated like property and objectified as objects of sex and what happens when revenge is taken because of one’s own skewed vision of women rather than true Biblical justice.
We have to be so careful not to superimpose our own emotions on top of some of these stories and read things into them that are not there.
March 22, 2010 at 1:06 pm
“A young unmarried woman in the Hebrew world (and the rest of the ancient near east) was NOT an independent agent. Therefore, she could NOT give consent to sexual intercourse – she NEEDED her father’s approval (i. e. marriage). Because she could not give consent to sex, any sex (with someone other than her husband) was considered rape.”
This is not what the OT teaches.
It makes provision for a woman who consents to intercourse if she is unmarried. If she were to have sex with a man and she was unmarried and her father finds out about it the man would pay the father and the man could not divorce her.
So, no, not any sex was considered rape. If that were the case, then the Law commands that the rapist be put to death. And if this were so why is there part of the Law that states that this girl is to be married off to this man and the man can never divorce her.
March 22, 2010 at 4:04 pm
“Yes, this story shows us what happens when women are treated like property and objectified as objects of sex and what happens when revenge is taken because of one’s own skewed vision of women rather than true Biblical justice.”
So true, Corrie.
Also, from what I see of Jacob’s family/patriarchy is a general lack of true love and affection for one’s family members. With the exception of Rachel, everyone’s worthiness for relationship is based on their cultural value. When you get right down to it, even the sons were not simply valued for being ‘eikons’ of God, but for the cultural value and prestige brought to the parents or as a means for buying love (ie.Leah). Yuck!
March 22, 2010 at 5:10 pm
I don’t know exactly what the customs were at that time and in that place, but remember this was before the Law was given.
If I ever hear a sermon on staying at home/protection/etc. using Dinah, I guess I now have ammunition with the points about brothers and Tamar, and the devaluing of women being the problem… Of course, now it’ll be another 10 years before I personally run into someone using that story!
March 22, 2010 at 7:07 pm
I am seeing that there are not really any guidelines given in the OT (at least as far as I’ve read — in Numbers right now) that tell specifically how to “do” marriage, courtship, etc. There are some specifics on how not to do it and directions for how to deal with situations where things go wrong. But the “how-to” part is clearly left up to families. So, the Bible is not the manual on courtship — that had to wait for the internet, apparently.
March 22, 2010 at 10:31 pm
“I don’t know exactly what the customs were at that time and in that place, but remember this was before the Law was given.”
L,
Genesis 26:5 says,
“Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”
So, we know that they were living according to at least part, if not all of God’s commands before Moses wrote them down.
March 22, 2010 at 11:12 pm
So, the Bible is not the manual on courtship — that had to wait for the internet, apparently.
emr,
Patrios wouldn’t be caught using Abraham’s Biblical courtship method – sending his servant to pick out a wife for his son.
Step 1. Tell your servant to find a wife for your son not “among whom I am living, but go to MY OWN relatives and get a wife for my son…”
Step 2. Have the servant pray for guidance:
“May it be that when I say to a girl, ‘Please let down your jar that I may have a drink,’ and she says, ‘Drink, and I’ll water your camels too’-let her be the one you have chosen…”
Step 3. Have your servant give the girl “a gold NOSE RING weighing a beka and two gold bracelets weighing ten shekels.”
Step 4. Then have him ask, “Whose daughter are you?…is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?”
No,no, I think the patrios are ignoring the patriach Abraham’s guide lines.
March 23, 2010 at 12:16 am
@ Momgodin, #107-
I was involved in that discussion. Some of the mother’s comments were directed at me and my confession that I couldn’t bake my bread from scratch AND have time for my small children. It was rather a shock to the rest of us that someone’s mom could post under her daughter’s name and insult a bunch of people she didn’t even know. (I joked with a friend later that we should form a group called “Biblically Apethetic Raging Feminist”, BARF for short, where we could discuss how to poison our kids with store-bought bread.
)
But you’re right, it was sad. There was so little grace in anything they said that it made me feel sorry for them and others like them.
March 23, 2010 at 6:14 am
Here is a good article you all might want to read. Isn’t it encouraging that more and more people are seeing the same things we all have been talking about when it comes to the attitudes toward women in the body of Christ, the one size fits all promotion?
The effects of Spiritual Abuse on Women by Richard Damiani
Share
Today at 12:34am
The Effects of Spiritual Abuse on Women, by Richard Damiani
When women are trapped in an abusive church the effects are profound and deep. Single women may never marry since they can never quite measure up to the leader’s expectations. This, plus the general immaturity of many single men who are kept in a dependent state by the pastor or elders gives them very little choice in a spouse. Both single and married women are told to submit without question to their husbands, the leadership, and sometimes to men in general. Cults generally have a strict “chain of command theology.” God is the head, then the pastor who is God’s anointed under shepherd, then the husband, then women, followed by children, who are to be totally obedient and submissive.
Women are generally told that their place is in the home, that their identity is found in being a wife and mother only, that they are to be keepers at home primarily except when there is an emergency that the leader deems proper. In some groups there is no excuse for working outside the home, even if financial ruin is the option. Some churches preach a code of dress much like Amish or Mennonites as the only type of dress a truly spiritual woman would ever wear. Wanting makeup, stylish dress, jewelry, etc. are signs of worldliness, and are condemned. Women are good for marriage, sex – whatever type of sex her husband demands or the leader teaches is proper – motherhood, and not much else.
Women are kept from any meaningful ministry in the church. They are to be quiet, reserved, and even totally silent. The man is the head in all things, and his wife is to be subject to him. Single women, too, are to be subject to men, especially the leadership. A single woman is considered an oddity since marriage is the natural state of all women.
Spirituality is measured by dress style and length. Pants suits, slacks, etc. are sinful in some churches, since they are men’s clothing. Some cults demand long dresses only, much like the Muslim Fundamentalists. Indeed, there is much similarity between cultic teaching on women and radical Muslim teaching. Anything that flatters a woman’s figure in any way is considered sinful, as if Satan was the creator of a woman’s shape and not God.
All this, plus much more that many others could add leads to many ills. Women become unnaturally reserved, not expressing their individual personalities as God gave them. Women slow down or stop developing as independent persons who bear the image of God. Rather than growing toward a full maturity and individuality in Christ, women in cults are told any identity apart from men is sinful. An unnatural dependence on men and husbands is the result of this false teaching.
Instead of expressing the individual tastes and personalities that God gives to everyone, women in cults end up looking the same, acting the same, having the same interests, wearing the same type of clothing, hair styles, and lack those womanly things that make women’s femininity beautiful. A false femininity is preached which is identified as submission, housekeeping, mothering, and in some cults natural foods only, making one’s own clothing only, home schooling only, raising one’s own food only, and many other “back to earth” teachings as tests of spirituality.
Please understand that these things are not wrong as preferences, but they do not make anyone more or less spiritual than anyone else; they are just preferences. When they become marks of following Christ and being holy, they become abusive.
Women raised in cults may never know that there is anything outside of what they know to be “God’s way,” which is really the leader’s way and not God’s. They view other Christians as worldly and sinful compromisers, but fail to have a positive concept of following Jesus’ love and grace. Rather, spirituality is that “we are not like them,” just like the Pharisees.
When you go into a cultic, abusive church the women all seem alike. Just like the movie “The Stepford Wives” from the 1970′s, there is a uniformity that is unnatural. Rather than giving life in its fullness as the Gospel does, cultic churches rob women of full growth, development, individuality and identity in God and Christ. Women’s identity is found in the man, then in the leadership, then in Christ, according to the unbiblical chain of command that is imposed. They are taught that questioning their husbands or pastor is to defy God, since they stand in the place of God. Women are little more than objects for rule and subjugation in some abusive churches.
When a woman leaves a cult, whether she is a wife, a teen, or a single woman past teen years there is great confusion about who and what she is. What should she do now? What is the place of women? How can she dress and use makeup? What is allowed for a career? Are careers allowed, or is menial work the only work fitting for a woman? What is the place of sex in marriage, and how does she express her sexuality? These and so many other questions bombard a sister who has left a cult.
Many of these answers can be found as you enter a wholesome, normal Evangelical church where women are free in Christ. Finding a good church is not easy, but when one is found and you feel safe enough to begin to become a part, start making friends with women who obviously love God, but are so different from the false model you were given in your old church. Look at how godly women are serving and ministering in the church. Talk to them, spend time with them, if needed, find an older woman who can mentor you, maybe even find a Christian woman counselor to help you over the cultic inhibitions. Begin to dream the dreams you had for yourself before you entered the cultic church. Some had gifts of music, writing, business, etc. that were all smothered in error. God has given each of his children gifts and talents that are the very things we are to use to praise him and minister to others. Now that you are free from the cult, part of your healing will be to rediscover what God has given to you so you can bless him and others by using them well.
There are good books on these topics, as well. Many books on marriage, life in Christ, sexuality, ministry, etc. can be found in an evangelical Christian bookstore. Be patient, though. During all the years you were under false teaching you have been brainwashed to believe error, it will not disappear overnight. God will bring you back to truth and life, but it will take time to build a solid foundation of belief and life. Don’t despair! God will not leave you!
As a woman you are so greatly treasured in God’s eyes. Jesus defied the evil teaching about women in his day – the same type of wrong, evil teaching that is found in most cultic churches. He treated women like equals and honored them. Women were always with him – they even helped support both Jesus and the disciples! Jesus allowed the bleeding woman to touch him, and he spoke and ministered to the woman at the well – all things good Jews of the day would never do. Jesus raised women up from the false subjugation they were held in, and gave them a place of honor in his kingdom. Never, ever look down on yourself. You are highly treasured by God!
This is what I want to say to you, my sisters in Jesus. Leave off following a man and a church and follow Jesus alone; you haven’t seen anything yet!
For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord,
Plans to prosper you and not to harm you,
Plans to give you a hope and a future.
-Jeremiah 29:11
Your Brother in Jesus,
Richard Damiani
If you want to contact me you can do it by e-mail at newhopecounsel@hotmail.com.
http://recoveringfromspiritualabuse.wikispot.org/The_Effects_of_Spiritual_Abuse_on_Women
March 23, 2010 at 7:29 am
Corrie #116 and #117,
Yes! That is exactly the truth.
And the danger of using the OT for practice is exactly what is demonstrated in this discussion: reading into the text whatever supports our theories, when it is not expressly stated.
Dinah was raped because she had no NMR with her, or Dinah was raped because her mother didn’t love her enough, Dinah was raped because the only safe place for friendships is at home, Dinah wasn’t raped at all but was consenting in the way that passionate hormonal teens do, the law of Moses was in effect (just not written down) because Abraham lived a life of faith, etc.
The last line is particularly troublesome because that defies the New Testament teaching that the Law was given only as schoolmaster until the Messiah comes to make us as true sons, and implies that the Law is the Ultimate Revelation of God to Mankind- something only a theonomist would believe.
(Yes, the Law was fulfilled in Christ, and being fulfilled has passed away, and now we are to live under the perfect law of liberty. =)
Darcy, hugs to you. Sorry that someone somewhere still believes that people who use store bought bread are poisoning their children. One of the very few times an ATI family interacted with other home schoolers in my world, a young daughter haughtily told me I was poisoning my family. The arrogance is inherent in the heresy. This little girl was probably nine. I wonder where she is in the world today. *sigh*
Thank you, Karen, for posting the link to Richard Damiani. I will be checking that out today.
Remember my niece? She has had her first child. I can tell by the pictures that she had the child at home. She looks exhausted. It cannot have been easy. My heart is broken as I see how much she is willing to endure to be pleasing to God, not knowing that she is pleasing to God simply by existing and wanting relationship with him.
I remember when she was a young, happy spitfire of a child. I remember when she loved playing saxophone in band at public school. I remember when she had a bright future. And now this. It breaks my heart.
Her first child is a girl. May God have mercy on that daughter. She will never know the few freedoms her mom enjoyed as a child, unless there is some miracle intervention of some kind.
Bright news (sort of). Her little sister (who is unlikely to ever marry) has been accepted to a position to teach in Kurdish Iraq. She’ll have no problems wearing the whatever covering is required of her. On the other hand, her brand of Christianity is scant improvement over Islam, with the false Jesus they present.
It is so discouraging that this happened in my extended family, right before my very eyes, and I am so vilified by their father (and successfully done) that there is no respect at all for my faith by my nieces. I see no way to ever communicate truth to them. They are only listening to the patriarchal men/church in their lives.
Christ have mercy!
March 23, 2010 at 10:31 am
Shadowspring, your words about daughters reminded me of a comment my father in law made to my poor brother the other day. My brother has 2 daughters, and my fil went on and on to my brother about how daughters are sent to college, have their rent paid if they live outside of their parents’ home before marriage, etc, etc…, just like the sons. I think he really worries that we all think that everyone is thinking that they mistreat girls over there in Egypt (which, in Christian circles, I know is not true, girls are “basically” equal), and it just makes me think that in a country that is basically keeping women under wraps, the Christians are more free with their daughters than some of the groups we’re talking about, and it’s the kind of jolt to the system that patrios need in order to see that they are no better than strict Muslim sects when they put such harsh restrictions on their daughters.
March 23, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Re: 124
Richard Damiani is absolutely right. He came out of a high profile Reformed Baptist church. We were part of a closely tied in copy-cat work. There are so many, many things I regret about being in that environment. Being crushed was just one.
March 23, 2010 at 2:03 pm
I’m always the last to know :p but this shocked me.
my daughter just informed me that Mike Pearl asked Debbie to divorce him:
“When your state grants marital status to same-sex partners, send the state notification of your revocation of your state marriage license. And then as a couple, draw up a document that you file in your local court house that declares your marriage to have occurred on the date you were married long ago, including city, county, and state, with a brief statement about the Biblical nature of your covenant before God, and then signed by the two of you and witnessed by two friends. It is a retro-marriage covenant—not a license.
When I first shared this with my wife, she freaked out and said she did not want to get a divorce, just to be married again 38 years later. No, your rejection of the state license will not be a divorce. You are just acknowledging that the state never had jurisdiction over your marriage and that your marriage has existed, and does exist, apart from the state. We expect the state to continue to recognize our marriage, granting us all the protection and rights that marriages have traditionally enjoyed.”
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/2009/june/02/holy-matrimony-2/
halfway down, under “Proposal”
Am I just negative and paranoid, or is this just total vulnerablilty for the woman?
March 23, 2010 at 3:10 pm
This song by Don Francisco offers a very good picture of what abusive teachings can do to a Christian and what God must think when he watches her.
http://songoffaith.com/mp3s/Albums/ThePackage/TP_BirdWithBrokenWing_DonFrancisco.mp3
March 23, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Shadowspring,
I completely understand your overall concerns and it’s sad that your family members are caught in the trap of patrocentricity.
I’ve been reading here and not commenting but the homebirth comment brought me out of lurkdom. I homebirthed some of my children – one where my dh was there, one after I left him because of the abuse. If anything, these births were easier on me than my hospital births because at the hospital my husband was “on show” and he demanded the spotlight be on him. When he finally slept because of “exhaustion” my labors eased up but even there I was uncomfortable emotionally. For me, homebirth was a safer, better option both physically and emotionally. My hospital birth had many complications – all of them iatrogenic (caused by hospital/OB errors).
But… being forced into a homebirth is just as bad as the forcing that was done to me at the hospital. And feeling that you “have to” be successful at a homebirth because of the “evil hospital/doctor” or because a hospital is sinful or anything like that… that’s worse in my opinion.
March 23, 2010 at 9:15 pm
I read that link to Pearl’s article. I don’t get it – if marriage is not the domain of the church or the state, what is the purpose of drawing up a “covenant document” and filing it at the courthouse with witnesses? Why not just get married in the eyes of God? After all, it seems he’s claiming getting married and becoming one flesh is what makes a couple married. What’s up with this alternative legal document mumbo jumbo.
I’d be curious to know which one of his kids actually has a state marriage license and the reason why. After all, the other 4 shunned state licenses.
I was saddened to see some of the comments people left. Some were jumping on his bandwagon, saying they were going to revoke their marriage licenses and one even said his daughter was getting married soon and was NOT going to get a marriage license. Then they were asking about property rights and legalities if one of them dies. Good luck – how is Pearl supposed to answer that? Of course if couples get into legal issues over property, death benefits or otherwise, he’d probably deny any responsibility, just like he’s done in the case of the children who’ve been beaten to death.
March 24, 2010 at 8:49 am
Abby, I am so glad to know that Christian daughters in Egypt are loved and supported by their families!
Yes, this new extreme fundamentalism patriocentricity is very, very much like fundamentalist Islam. It is so scary.
Cary, I am glad you understood that I am not against home births as an option to be freely chosen by an informed woman (though when I looked into it for my first child, our state considered that too high-risk for a licensed midwife to do home birth, though birthing centers were an option).
I’m not against large families either. Or grinding your own flour. Or being an entrepreneur. All of that is perfectly fine.
None of it is required to be pleasing to God. All of that is being preached in ATI/patriocentric circles as the highest and best.
I doubt if they come out and say those of us who practice family planning, shop at grocery stores, work for someone else, and have our babies at hospitals are going to hell- yet.
They just make it very plain that if you are REALLY wanting to please God, that’s how you’ll live. That’s what takes it from a lifestyle choice to spiritual abuse.
March 24, 2010 at 8:52 am
Oh I was unclear in my previous post.
First time births were considered too high risk for home delivery by a licensed midwife, as were VBACs (a relatively new phenomenon at the time), history of pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, incompetent uterus and other known complicating factors.
March 24, 2010 at 10:32 am
Are they true or false teachers?
http://www.thatmom.com/?p=4120
March 24, 2010 at 10:35 am
Peaches, I remember a few years ago when Kent Hovind, who is now in jail for tax evasion, spoke at our local homeschooling convention and he taught against marriage licenses. Then, last summer, one of those videos I posted of the betrothal story had an interesting phrase in it. The father pronounced the couple husband and wife by the “authority invested in my as patriarch of the family.” I think there are many,many of these situations where marriage licenses are not gotten because of some fear of state control or whatever.
March 24, 2010 at 10:35 am
And yes it leaves a wife quite vulnerable if she is a full time mom with no income of her own.
March 24, 2010 at 12:42 pm
I just went on a 2nd honeymoon with Dan.
I can’t IMAGINE him asking me to divorce him. What message does that say to the children of that union? I don’t care if they *say* their reason is legal epediency. The strongest message they send is the woman is expendable!! Dan and I would rather suffer persecution than deny our marriage.
The Bible says there is nothing new under the sun. I suppose some of these Command men think they’re smarter than all of our forefathers.
*They* are gonna outsmart the government! Unfortunately, they end up leaving their wives vulnerable- not protecting them as they claim! Mrs. Hovind went to jail.
March 24, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Shadowspring,
THANK YOU for taking my words gently and understanding what I was trying to say.
For me, this is similar to abuse in general… often, if you try to describe a single incident, many people look at you and say, yeah, he’s a little controlling but what’s the big deal. They don’t realize how much those “little” things destroy a person and work together. The big abuses that happen don’t occur all the time but the little abuses just keep pulling you down so that you don’t fight back at the big one.
And thank you everybody else for your comments here. I am a DV survivor and though the church wasn’t patriocentric, my husband tried to use similar teachings on me to put me into my place. He also used to to justify his behavior. He still does.
March 24, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Great article, Karen.
http://www.thatmom.com/?p=4120
I have never heard of Kent Hovind. I just read about him on wikipedia. Wow.
I wonder what Pearl suggests for people who get in situations where a marriage license is required? For instance, when my husband was in the military, in order for me to get benefits, an I.D. and be declared one of his dependents, we had to show our marriage license.
March 24, 2010 at 2:45 pm
During the same presentation Hovind did at our school convention, he also said that the jet trails in the sky were really chemicals being dropped on us for mind control or some such nonsense. One of our sons was in his workshop and heard this and the marriage license stuff and it really colored the rest of his presentations for all of us. We found out the next day at church that it elicited the same response from many other parents. I keep thinking that the Pearls, like all the rest of these teachers, have a following of people who have never looked under the hood or who simply lack discernment. As I have listened to some of the moms I have heard from, it is alarming. And then I remembered hearing John Stonestreet talking about how few parents have a truly Biblical worldview so it is no wonder today’s teens are so confused.
March 24, 2010 at 2:52 pm
May I just say again how much I love this blog? Such a breath of fresh air for me! Thank you, ladies!
March 24, 2010 at 3:49 pm
And here I thought that when Jesus said “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Matthew 22:21)that he meant it. Same with Paul, and that bit about “Everyone must subject himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. … Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Romans 13:1,7) And Peter: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men … Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.” (1 Peter 2:13, 17)
March 24, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Carys,
So sorry to hear to read that you are intimately acquainted with domestic violence and abuse.
I can relate too well.
Karen,
How can people get so off-base and still have anyone listen to them? Chemicals for mind control? Really?
*I* invited a Civil War enthusiast/home school dad to come to speak at our little convention. All I had heard before was talk about Civil War reenactments. Silly me, I’m thinking hands-on immersion learning.
Boy was I surprised when he got all political on the platform, speaking about the NRA and other issues he assumed everyone in the whole room supported. I am guessing now he may have been a CR, but I had never heard of that then.
Still, I never went to a presentation of his after that. I certainly didn’t ask him to return, but then I was kicked out of that group later.
Too bad I didn’t see the importance of fighting for balance in home schooling at the time. I just thought to live and let live, you know.
Now I see that only works when both sides want to live and let live. My once vibrant Christian in-laws now live in dire poverty on a compound in the mountains. Their three children are trapped there, with no education to take them elsewhere, all working for Daddy’s business/ministry. And grandchild number four was just birthed on the grounds.
Wish I had been better informed of the seriousness of the danger earlier, but I doubt that I would have listened. It’s all too fantastic to believe.
March 24, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Carys, your birth stories just go to show how much our minds and emotional state are connected to a labor and delivery’s pain scale. Thanks for sharing.
As for Kent Hovind, I’ve listened to him in person and it was appalling. I was so embarrassed to call myself a Christian if he claimed to be one. It was just bad.
March 24, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Hi ladies,
I’m just commenting with a question:
I remember a couple years ago there was a lady whose name I *believe* was Jennifer…she had a blog called Enjoy the Journey or something like that. I was trying to find her blog again the other day, but I can’t find it…does anyone remember her/have her blog address? I used to have it in my bookmarks, but we lost all our info on that computer about a year ago, so I’m stuck. :/ Anyway, if anyone remembers her and can give me her blog address I’d greatly appreciate it!
Love in Our Lord,
Hannah
March 25, 2010 at 3:39 pm
This is one brave woman.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8587185.stm
March 26, 2010 at 10:00 am
Alisa, Hovind is a favorite among patriocentrists.
March 26, 2010 at 10:32 am
May God protect her and her family.
Fundamentalism every where is getting worse, not leading people to the God of love and the peaceful way of life we are called to live. Thanks for the link, emr.
March 26, 2010 at 11:39 am
I am embarrassed to say I bought Hovind VHS tapes at the urging of a friend. I have never presented Creation Science as truth, but I wanted my children educated about everybody’s theories.
Lucky for me, the quality of the taping was so poor (just a guy standing in one place yapping) and the content so boring and well, preachy not educational, that we never made it beyond five minutes.
Still, I wish I had my twenty bucks back. Could get my dog groomed. She needs it. :p
March 26, 2010 at 12:10 pm
emr, that was a great article, thank you.
I found this comment to be particularly saddening:
“I find the behaviour of this lady shameful. Has she never heard of not washing your dirty linen in public? Whatever issues we have with male oppression of women must be dealt with internally and within the framework of the Qur’an and Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet [saw]) not according to the licentious ethos of western liberalism.
Nasser Nathaniel, Southend-on-Sea, Essex”
It’s more of the same: SHHH! Don’t tell outsiders the truth! Fight the system from within, and never reveal the abuses that you are suffering! Yuck. More “outsiders” need to stand with this woman and show their support. Gandhi fought injustice in the same way, and had the same kind of critics, but he didn’t stop trying to make change. Good for her. May she never be silent.
March 26, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Now *this* sounds like a GREAT conference:
http://www.awomaninspiredconference.org/current-conference/
March 26, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Wow Abby. That does look good. I especially like the title of that session called, “Who Killed Cinderella, From Disappointment to Thriving.” I’d like to sit in on that one!
March 27, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Even I’ve heard of Kent Hovind, but I can’t say I’ve ever heard anything good.
Full disclosure, I’ve never read any of his writing or listened to or seen any of his presentations. But the husband and I did buy his nemesis PZ Myers a beer one night. Definitely $10 I was glad to spend.
March 27, 2010 at 8:20 pm
A little off-topic but maybe not . . .I saw on Doug Phillips website a reference to the recent wedding of Scott Brown’s son and then I saw some photos on Scott Brown’s site— does anyone know how old that boy is? Seriously, he doesn’t look more than 16. I was somewhat astonished. Of course, Vision Forum seems to have a need to have one splashy picture perfect wedding a year, but this couple looks like they are still in their mid-teens. Is this the model? (Must be because Doug Phillips has a photo on his site where he is holding up the arms of the father of the groom like he was a prize-fighter.) How does a teen-age father like that support his family? I am truly bewildered . . .
March 28, 2010 at 9:14 am
Maybe he works for his daddy on the family compound and lives in a tiny cabin that the family built with funds from the business in leiu of part of his salary? That’s how my nephew does it.
My nephew was old enough to get married (early 20s) but found out shortly after getting married that the college correspondence credits he earned from the Christian correspondence college were worthless. Since they don’t believe in birth control, the temporary job for daddy became a permanent trap with no way out. He certainly can’t take four years off to earn a degree and get his dream job of teacher now.
They are expecting their 3rd child any day, and still live in the tiny staff cabin- maybe 1000 sq ft?
And when my niece-in-law (who hates me by the way)wrote on the net for people to please pray for a bigger house for them as she doesn’t know how she can add a fourth person, wouldn’t you know, some uber-religious woman answered with a shaming post reminding her that she should be praying to be content with what God has provided instead. >:[
I’m praying for her anyway, and her hubby too! I pray my nephew will rise up like Gideon did and smash his father’s idols.
March 28, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Hey, have you all seen Shadowspring’s brilliant short story about the sap man?
Must read! Way to go, Shadowspring!
http://shadowspring-lovelearningliberty.blogspot.com/2010/03/for-my-daughter.html
March 28, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Elizabeth,as I recall, this 18 year old groom built a home for his bride and is debt free. Pretty amazing!
I have only known one other young man who did this sort of thing. He bought a house when he was 13 and paid for it all by himself with his paper route money!
My guess is that while some of us are seeing our sons go to college and pay for an education, many of these young men invest their time in starting their own businesses and building or remodeling homes. I guess I don’t see one as having more value than the other. While 18 seems pretty young, Clay and I were 20 when we got married and a lot of these homeschooled young men are miles beyond where we were at that age.
March 28, 2010 at 5:06 pm
@ Corrie
You wrote:
“This is not what the OT teaches.
It makes provision for a woman who consents to intercourse if she is unmarried. If she were to have sex with a man and she was unmarried and her father finds out about it the man would pay the father and the man could not divorce her.
So, no, not any sex was considered rape. If that were the case, then the Law commands that the rapist be put to death. And if this were so why is there part of the Law that states that this girl is to be married off to this man and the man can never divorce her.”
A rapist was NOT put to death – UNLESS he had raped a married or engaged woman. (In such a case, the woman would be spared because she was a victim of rape, not a consenting adulteress.) He’d be put to death for adultery, not rape.
There was no way in the ancient near east that a judge could determine that a young man had “violated” a young woman without her consent. It would be unjust to put the man to death (but not the woman) if the sex was consensual.
And if the man HAD actually raped the woman, putting him to death wasn’t fair to his victim.
Place yourself in her shoes (sandals?). Your parents and family hate you because you’ve brought dishonour upon them. Your whole community blames you for putting yourself in the situation in which you were raped (Lydia Sherman and Jennie Chancey come to mind here). Your rapist’s family blames you for his crime, and insists that you had consented to it – in fact, the brothers of your rapist are already planning to kill you and your family as revenge for their brother’s death.
Of course, the man is never allowed to divorce his victim because there is no else who is willing to marry her after she has been raped. The woman, however, is allowed to divorce the man.
Whatever happens, at the end of the day, the man has learned a valuable lesson: respect women and do not treat them as sex objects.
March 28, 2010 at 5:23 pm
How did the judges (do their best to) determine whether or not a married/engaged woman had been raped?
If she was “raped” while out in the wilderness, no one can determine whether or not the sex was consensual. Since the woman is the weaker sex, she would’ve been easy for a man to take advantage of, because there was no one to rescue her if she had screamed. Therefore, we will assume that the woman was an innocent victim, and that the man was a rapist. He will be put to death for adultery; she will be spared.
If she was “raped” in the city, where there are lots of people who could heard her scream (which she definitely would’ve done if a suspicious man had violated her personal space), then the only reason that she didn’t scream was to hide the sex act. In doing so, she has consented to the sex act, and is an adulteress. She and her lover will be put to death for adultery.
March 28, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Or perhaps she didn’t scream because her attacker was choking her or held a knife to her throat.
I am soooo glad we don’t live under the law any more.
If Jesus was going to endorse that portion of the law, wouldn’t he have stoned the adulterous woman? He chose not to do that.
I choose Jesus. I’m following him. I’m not a Jew from ancient history. I am a modern woman in the United States. I like our laws a lot better.
March 28, 2010 at 7:04 pm
ps Thanks for the kind words, Virginia. It was fun to write.
March 28, 2010 at 7:04 pm
“Elizabeth,as I recall, this 18 year old groom built a home for his bride and is debt free.”
Hmmmm . . .I must admit to being VERY skeptical about this claim— I know that I have seen references to it before on the Vision Forum site (or one its family of sites)and I just don’t buy it. My experiences with building and dealing with contractors makes me highly doubtful of a claim that a teenager has the carpentry, plumbing, electrical, etc. skills to build an up to code house by himself. Not to mention to pay for all the materials on his own.
I think that 18 is just too young for the vast majority of people to marry. (And I say this as the mother of two fairly mature children who have seen their 18th birthdays.) I think that is especially true when the 18 year old has been inordinately sheltered (which I think a lot of the Vision Forum girls are). And, is he even 18 yet? Honestly, he doesn’t look even that old to me.
I guess my real issue or question is with the way VF presents their world. It seems like all of these people work for each other in some way. Doesn’t VF poster boy Peter Bradrick work for Scott Brown? And what do all those interns actually do? Yet, there seems to be enough money flowing for beautiful weddings, expensive trips to Europe (the one they are advertising now is a real doozy!), sumptuous retreats, etc. And I wonder, “where does all the money come from?!” And how many people see the VF presentation of the world and get sucked into thinking they can have it, too?
March 28, 2010 at 7:23 pm
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/03/brothers-we-are-not-figure-skaters.html
Why is good preaching manly and bad preaching womanly?
March 28, 2010 at 8:17 pm
John Piper is taking a leave of absence from ministry to devote time to his marriage. He confesses to sins of pride that have affected his relationship with his wife.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2010/4555
March 29, 2010 at 8:51 am
Light, I heard about this yesterday as well. I pray that this time would open his eyes to what is happening in the world of patriarchy and the church in general and that he would be changed in a way that might make him unpopular among many of his current “fans,” but might also lead many of them away from the negative side of Christianity. an 8 month sabbatical from work and ministry might be exactly what he needs to soften his heart toward what God is doing through women.
March 29, 2010 at 8:58 am
All I have to say is, anyone who thinks weak = womanly doesn’t know any real women.
March 29, 2010 at 10:28 am
Abby, that is exactly what I am hoping happens as well. An eight month sabbatical is a long time.
March 29, 2010 at 10:35 am
That link to Phil Johnson was posted on Scott Brown’s website for the Family Integrated Church. I found several things about it to be offensive. First of all, the message is sent that women aren’t interested in deep matter of the faith, which we all know is not true. And then there is the notion that true manhood isn’t interested in “felt needs” etc. But isaiah 53 says of Jesus:
“He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”
I was disgusted at Phil’s notion that real men shouldn’t be subjected to these notions. Now, granted, I think he was employing that ever popular with the patriocentrists speaking technique of hyperbole. But secondly, what was painful for me to watch, was the reaction of a room full of pastors who obviously found it amusing that bad preaching = feminine thought.
Why are these men so afraid of thinking women?
March 29, 2010 at 2:20 pm
I just checked out Doug Phillips’ Grand European Tour. Five countries in 14 days? Yikes! They’ll be spending half their time breathing bus fumes. I’d love to hear how much he’s charging for his “motor coach” adventure.
For a supposedly Christian tour, he’s planned a surprising lack of church visits in Rome. No Vatican–museum or cathedral. An anti-Catholic bias is showing, perhaps? Their only Roman Basilica is an obscure one built over an intact pagan temple. An odd choice, I’d say.
I’m amused by Doug’s description of this tour as a “Ph.D course in Church history for the family…” Wasn’t it Voddie Baucham who claimed his young daughters earned the equivalent of a Ph.D simply by working alongside him?
What is it with these patrio guys and fake Ph.D’s, anyway? They’d never allow their daughters (and most sons) to set foot in a university for a Bachelors degree, but believe they can deliver Ph.D’s by mere pronouncement?
Reminds me of those little Napoleans who pronounced their children married “by the power vested in me as patriarch”? (I remember them well, too, thatmom.)
Maybe Doug thinks he can charge higher fees for the Grand Tour by promising Dougie Doctorates upon completion of the amazingly long bus ride?
March 29, 2010 at 5:18 pm
“Or perhaps she didn’t scream because her attacker was choking her or held a knife to her throat.”
Considering how closely guarded Middle Eastern women (especially young girls) were (and still are), that kind of an act would not go unnoticed (and it would count as a physical assault on the part of the man).
In the event that it does go unnoticed, the sex counts as “unwitnessed” and is considered rape.
“If Jesus was going to endorse that portion of the law, wouldn’t he have stoned the adulterous woman? He chose not to do that.”
Jesus DID endorse that law; he agreed with the men’s statement that the adulterous woman should’ve been stoned. What he took issue with was the corruption of the law by the men: stone the woman, but not the man, and appoint yourself judge over her when you yourself are guilty of the same sins. Jesus hates double-standards and hypocrisy.
Jesus did not kill the woman, despite having every right to do so, because he is merciful and forgiving. In this sense, he is the epitome of Jewishness. Jewish culture has always prized mercy and avoided the death penalty, and even looked for ways to execute criminals as humanely as possible. How many ancient societies made any attempt to treat criminals humanely?
March 29, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Debbie, I have to wonder who thought that “The Gates of Hell” was a good name for a family tour.
March 30, 2010 at 10:02 am
Given they also bill this tour as PhD equivalent then maybe calling it “The Gates of Hell” is about right. Anyone who has done a real PhD will tell you it isn’t a holiday.
March 30, 2010 at 10:39 am
Hebrews 8:6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
“The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”[c]
13By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
March 30, 2010 at 10:44 am
IMO tagging selective family holiday touring as “PhD worthy” is just an example of little steps reconstructionist societal redefining and revisionist thinking.
When will a series of these expensive, edited tours become the new standard for a Vision Forum PhD? Seems like it’s part of the big picture 200 year plan.
March 30, 2010 at 11:59 am
Debbie from CA posted, “What is it with these patrio guys and fake Ph.D’s, anyway? They’d never allow their daughters (and most sons) to set foot in a university for a Bachelors degree, but believe they can deliver Ph.D’s by mere pronouncement?”
I have noticed as well that as much as these patrio men deride university education and academics, they sure seem to like the trappings of education, even if they have to make up their degrees. Methinks they doth protest too much!
March 30, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Good points, Savannah and Anne2. I think these guys are compensating. In reality, many of them are probably intimidated by those with actual degrees.
Their Ph.D-worthy claims are insulting to those who have put in the actual blood and sweat to earn the real deal. I know somebody with no post-high school education who got a Ph.D by mail and now tries to go by “Dr.” The patrios aren’t much different.
Yes, emr, “Gates of Hell” just screams “bring your kids for a rousing good ole time!” to me. (They seem to have a thing for the word “rousing,” so I had to include that.)
I’m sure the children will be enchanted by their visit to the catacombs. Catacombs–but no visits to Rome’s incredible museums and cathedrals. So strange. But am I surprised? Somehow, no.
March 31, 2010 at 8:04 am
http://www.generationcedar.com/main/2010/03/contradeception-the-public-nature-of-marital-privacies.html
I would love to hear what you all think of this…
March 31, 2010 at 8:05 am
Debbie, enjoying your “rousing” thoughts!!!
March 31, 2010 at 8:06 am
BTW, I think the cost of that tour is around $5000.00 not including airfare.
March 31, 2010 at 8:13 am
I tried posting some links yesterday about rape in the Middle East, but they haven’t shown up yet.
I think they are relevant to the points made by What? essentially saying that rapists in the Middle East can’t get close enough to a woman to rape her without her allowing it. That is untrue, and the links I tried to post address both the issue and personal circumstances of real women that prove this is not a fair judgement to make.
Patriarchy is cruel to women, period. The Old Covenant is passed away (fulfilled in Christ) because God found fault with it. There is a new and better way, the New Covenant, where we are to live the “one anothers” (as Karen puts it) by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
The fact that human culture was mired in patriarchy at the time of Moses, and that the Law of Moses gave some very limited relief to women in that culture, does not make patriarchy “of God” or righteous.
In the beginning this was not so, but God made man male and female as equals. Patriarchy is a manifestation of the fall of man- sin nature at it’s ugliest. Might makes right.
Jesus defied the Law of Moses and tradition many times: in allowing the unclean woman to touch him and healing her, in speaking to the woman at the well, in calling the bent over woman up to the front of the synagogue to heal her, in showing mercy to the woman caught in adultery, in allowing women to travel with him and be a part of his ministry team, in letting the woman of ill repute wash his feet with her tears and dry them with her hair, in having angels preach the resurrection to women first, appearing first to a woman and sending women to be the first preachers (witnesses) of the resurrection.
His Words and actions say it all. The Old Covenant is passed away. The New Covenant in His blood is now in effect. Thank you Jesus!
March 31, 2010 at 8:13 am
Re: Generation Cedar, my thoughts are already over there in the several comments I have posted.
March 31, 2010 at 11:45 am
Karen–on GC. Um, what can I say?
1. very wordy, indirect arguments.
2. flawed logic.
She basically said:
Contraceptives make it easy to hide your sin (which is true), therefore, contraceptives are a form of evil.
Couples who are married and use contraceptives deceive those around them by not fully disclosing the health of their marriage (this one seemed like an even bigger leap), therefore contraceptives are a form of evil.
Couples who are infertile have to tell everyone they know because they don’t want people to think that they are using contraceptives when they are really trying to get pregnant, therefore contraceptives are a form of evil.
Parents who use contraceptives make it okay for their kids to use, which is a slippery slope, because their kids will cleverly figure out that contraceptives help you hide sexual sin, therefore contraceptives are a form of evil.
Having children is the best sign of a “healthy” marriage, therefore contraceptives are a form of evil.
Did I miss any?
March 31, 2010 at 11:51 am
The other thing I had a problem with is the author’s (and Kelly’s) belief that somehow this whole “childbearing” business should be like it was in the first century. People were shamed for not having children (because they were infertile). They were considered to be cursed by God. Thank the Lord we know that’s not true! But some people still see this as the “ideal” way. It’s just another way to judge people’s faithfulness or the faithfulness of God toward them. (If that couple can’t get pregnant, there must be some sin that God wants to remove from their lives before he gives them a baby. But shhh. We don’t want her to know we were talking about her.) I think Virginia’s got it right.
March 31, 2010 at 11:59 am
Karen posted, ” http://www.generationcedar.com/main/2010/03/contradeception-the-public-nature-of-marital-privacies.html
I would love to hear what you all think of this…
I made a rare visit to “the world according to Kelly” and could not have been more disgusted. It squarely reminded me of why I avoid her condescending, know-it-all blog and her revolting sense of entitlement.
If anybody from “church” showed up on our doorstep to question us on why we “only” have three children, my husband would show them the door in short order with clear instructions to never darken it again.
And as someone who dealt with the pain of infertility for a season, it makes me really sad for women who are dealing with that to be judged in this way. “Oh, since you have produced no ‘fruit’, you must be ‘unfaithful’ to God”, forcing them to choose between sharing a private, painful matter or being judged spiritually. What utter, complete, mean-spirited, hateful nonsense.
I keep being reminded of the “other gospel” these people are preaching. I do not consider Kelly’s “ministry” to Christian women anything but misleading and harmful.
March 31, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Okay, this discussion leads to a question: what do you ladies think about married couples who choose to not have children. Is this a legitimate choice for Christian couples?
March 31, 2010 at 1:07 pm
I just jumped over there and I was disgusted too.
Congrats Virginia in maintaining a loving tone to your clear-minded rebuttals.
Some first impressions:
*Posters/author seem to have a lot of boundary/enmeshment issues! I would guess that the churches these woman attend have many cultish traits and are probably not safe places to get involved.
The scriptures about not being a busy-body in other men’s affairs was nowhere in sight.
*I think these people WANT the church to “grade” marriages based on how many children the family is having because they will get As! If they can frame a healthy marriage in those terms, then they don’t have to look at the dysfunciton and unhappiness inherent in their patriarchal system.
In other words, they live for and encourage the praise of men, rather than the praise of God, like the parents of the blind-from-birth man whose parents valued their synagogue reputation above all.
* They seem to believe that living fruitful lives as children of God means being physically fruitful i.e. having lots of kids. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, etc. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world, else my followers would fight.
That is a pretty bad confusion. I grew up hearing Catholics disparages for trying to build the kingdom of God through pro-creation, but good evangelicals know that the kingdom grows when new people hear the gospel and receive the message in faith. Now it seems the shoe is on the other foot.
I am saddened to see more and more people falling for this false gospel. Very, very sad. Too late the mothers will realize they did not choose the best part, and that their efforts as workhorse for the kingdom turned out to be only filthy rags.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having no children, few children or many children. There is everything wrong with bearing children in a misguided effort to be more righteous. There is everything wrong with judging others by this misguided standard.
March 31, 2010 at 2:27 pm
“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.” Hebrews 13:4
This is the passage of Scripture that keeps coming to mind. I think whenever someone seeks to get into the middle of someone else’s marriage bed, that is, the sexual aspect of the relationship, it violates this verse. Of course, counseling against an abortion or using abortifacients is another thing. And even, in general, talking about some of the dangerous choices for women is not only ok but is wise, especially as a pastor or a counselor or an older woman. (I am thinking of women who are told never to have surgery if they have an ectopic pregnancy.) These are issues of life and death.
BUT, imposing your own convictions about having children, family size, abstaining, etc. onto someone’s else’s marriage is the real sin.
I believe it is true that these people think they are getting Brownie points with God by having many children and it makes them feel better about themselves if they can paint themselves in this light. They do the same thing with all those issues that, once again, cannot be applied to all people in all places and at all times. Don’t these people ever get tired of themselves? I mean, really, graceless rhetoric is exhausting and makes me tired just reading it. I don’t know how they have the energy to continually prop up this paradigm. Where is the resting in Christ and the sufficiency of His grace for all of life?
March 31, 2010 at 2:31 pm
My sons’ youth pastors are a married couple in their late 40′s who never had any children over the course of their 20-plus year marriage. I don’t know why and would never even remotely consider inquiring, as it is none of my beeswax.
I have often thought, though, that one of the reasons they do such a totally incredible job is because they are able to focus fully on their ministry. They are salt and light to many, many young people over generations. Beyond my husband and I, they have been the largest spiritual influences in our sons’ lives. When our eldest graduated from high school, he spoke very movingly of the people to whom he owed great debts of gratitude, and immediately after he mentioned his father and me, he spoke about G. and L.
On a side note, I do not believe that a couple has to have a “good reason” (such as ministry or whatever) or explain themselves in any way to others regardless of what their childbearing decisions are. I’m sure we can all think of people who for many hosts of reasons should perhaps forgo parenthood. Not everyone, frankly, is cut out for it. Or whatever. The bottom line to me is that this is a highly personal decision, and if the church is as involved in this decision as Kelly and her ilk seem to imply that it should be, perhaps it is time to do an “Am I In A Cult?” checklist/survey.
March 31, 2010 at 4:12 pm
So if having children is a sign of a healthy marriage, having a dozen must indicate an uber marriage. How does this make sense? I think thatmom is correct that it’s just another way for the patrios to feel superior.
“Look at us! We need a bus to drive our passel about. We’re holier than you because of it!”
Back to the Holy Gates of Hell Grand European Tour… $5000 per person (w/o airfare) is a lot. I’ve planned longer European vacations for half that, staying in nice places.
We do, however, stick to one or two countries per visit, not five. (Still shuddering at the thought.)
The Holy-Hell tour’s added expense must be from all that bus time. Those must be some incredible buses.
Oh, those patrios and their holy buses….
March 31, 2010 at 4:41 pm
I just found it. Official cost of Holy-Hell Tour: $5,700.00 per person. You may have to share a four-person room at their discretion–no discount.
Fee doesn’t include airfare. Other than breakfast and three rousing banquet dinners, you have to pay for all your own meals. You do, however, get some cheese fondue once in Switzerland, something they seem inordinately excited about.
March 31, 2010 at 5:24 pm
I read the Generation Cedar article and the replies.
Virginia Knowles, you made some excellent points very graciously.
If the topic hadn’t been the evils of BC, I think I would have agreed with one point: the church is not supposed to turn a blind eye to sin, or encourage sin and covering it up. If the church cared more for her members, if we truly loved each other enough to get our hands dirty helping restore the broken, the church would be a place of refuge and healing.
But what that article seemed to be getting at was not exactly the church being loving, protecting and restoring of hurting people, but the church’s right to know about married couples’s sexual life, and how contraception keeps the church from knowing whether a couple are keeping their vows or not.
As Virginia Knowles (I think it was her) pointed out, continuing to have babies could actually be covering up the disastrous state of a marriage! I know one such marriage, where the wife kept having baby after baby, with an alcoholic, substance abusing, wife and children abuser. When she sent him away for a year, the pastor berated her for denying him his marital rights and putting him in the way of sin.
The article also confirms our suspicion that patriocentricity is obsessed with sex. Becoming one flesh is about SO MUCH MORE than sex! (hm… another book for the Botkins to write?)
And Kelly et-al are romanticizing a time where women died in childbirth, children died at birth or shortly after, often because the family was poor and couldn’t pay for health care. A time where girls who got pregnant out of wedlock disappeared, their babies given up for adoption.
It frustrates me how they focus so much on “modesty” for the sake of sexual “purity”. Why not teach their daughters (and sons!) about the value of human beings, how every man and woman is an image bearer of God, and how they are to honor each other as such?
The comment where Kelly (I think) boasts of how she would turn around to her pregnant daughter and tell her “I told you so”, calling it tough love, was very sad. It just misses the point.
March 31, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Savannah, what a wonderful testimony about your sons’ youth pastors. I love how your eldest honored them (and you!) at his graduation. You’ve shown grace and wisdom in not putting your nose into their childbearing “beeswax,” as you aptly put it.
Sometimes when I meet somebody new I’ll ask if they have children. If they say “no,” I immediately move onto other conversation. Not only are the details not my business, but oftentimes the answer is deeply painful and personal.
Eventually, my new friend may volunteer information about a genetic disease or an absence of reproductive organs that prevent conception. I listen and empathize.
In my experience, most couples want children. Those that don’t, well, usually they’re upfront and pretty vocal about the subject. No need to ask.
So why ask anybody at all?
March 31, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Just have two things to say:
shadowspring said:
” The Old Covenant is passed away (fulfilled in Christ) because God found fault with it.”
I would have to disagree with you on the phrase “because God found fault with it.” If God was the One who created the Law, how could there be any fault in it? Rather, I think it’s because *we could not live up to it*, that He did away with it. The Law requires perfection, which we as humans can never attain (this side of heaven *wink*). We couldn’t live up to His standards, so in His mercy He gave us a different way. Make sense? I’m not trying to say you were wrong; perhaps I misunderstood your wording. I just couldn’t let it go unnoticed, though, since it’s something I’ve been thinking about recently.
And secondly: they must be crazy thinking parents will want to bring the kiddos on that tour. Just think-they tell people they should have as many kids as possible, and now they want you to shell out 5 grand for each of them on that tour? They must think they have some seriously wealthy followers!
March 31, 2010 at 8:10 pm
“If the topic hadn’t been the evils of BC, I think I would have agreed with one point: the church is not supposed to turn a blind eye to sin, or encourage sin and covering it up. If the church cared more for her members, if we truly loved each other enough to get our hands dirty helping restore the broken, the church would be a place of refuge and healing.”
If you mean the church (large group of people meeting together once a week or more) needs to get involved in struggling marriages, I strongly disagree.
If you mean, as I think Virginia pointed out on the GC blog, that a very few close Christian friends or perhaps a pastor be invited to pray, care and counsel a couple in a struggling marriage, I agree.
March 31, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Several things came to mind as I forced myself to finish reading the contraception article over at Generation Cedar.
a. Subject seems a bit undignified and unhealthily fixated for folk who generally pride themselves as doyennes of gentility.
b. How many people are in a marriage?
c. Boundaries anyone? Busybodies?
1 Peter 4:15
d. Prooftexting s.v.p.
I think this kind of church, of which I’ve been a part, does more damage than good. The focus turns inward individually and corporately and the group resembles more that of an ingrown festering hair than a soothing healing outpouring balm. We are so busy staring at our bellybuttons, chasing our own and others’ sins, real or imagined, that we forget about the lost.
April 1, 2010 at 3:55 am
Shadowspring,
I mean the church as the Body of Christ.
Not every part of the body has to know about every other part of the body, but nobody in the body should be struggling alone.
Sin usually affects other members too, as the author of the article pointed out. For example, the children of a struggling married couple are going to be suffering. Should the church “mind it’s own business” and let them suffer, or should they care enough to reach in and help?
Of course, you will need wise people helping the hurting couple and their children, not people who will talk with everyone else about how deeply troubled the family is.
As I said, I don’t agree with meddling, making public announcements from the pulpit when the issue is not one that concerns everyone. Love should be the drive, not nosiness.
April 1, 2010 at 6:58 am
Post #173 is a direct quote from the Bible (NIV). Past #180 is entirely based on it.
For further commentary from the Apostle Paul about the value of keeping the law, see the book of Galatians.
For a clearer picture of the value Paul placed on studying the Law, knowing the Law, zealously keeping the Law and demanding others uphold the Law, see the book of Philippians chapter 3:
3For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4though I myself have reasons for such confidence.
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
7But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
The word translated “rubbish” in the NIV is actually the word for excrement. Paul was not putting it delicately.
April 1, 2010 at 8:21 am
Okay, this is what the whole article and discussion reminded me of:
watch the first video that comes up.
http://www.sermoncentral.com/Videos/SearchResults.asp?Keyword=victoria+jackson
April 1, 2010 at 8:29 am
I quote I found in my devotional today (about marriage):
“Esther trembled in the presence of Ahasuerus, but the spouse in joyful liberty of perfect love knows no fear.” Charles Spurgeon
I just thought that was a beautiful quote, not just about our relationship with Christ, but what a marriage should look like, too. And it’s not at all what I’m seeing when I see the young girls being pushed into “marriages” (if you can call an arranged living situation without legal paperwork “marriage”).
April 1, 2010 at 9:24 am
Anne 2 posted, “Several things came to mind as I forced myself to finish reading the contraception article over at Generation Cedar.
a. Subject seems a bit undignified and unhealthily fixated for folk who generally pride themselves as doyennes of gentility.
b. How many people are in a marriage?
c. Boundaries anyone? Busybodies?
1 Peter 4:15
d. Prooftexting s.v.p.
I think this kind of church, of which I’ve been a part, does more damage than good. The focus turns inward individually and corporately and the group resembles more that of an ingrown festering hair than a soothing healing outpouring balm. We are so busy staring at our bellybuttons, chasing our own and others’ sins, real or imagined, that we forget about the lost.”
Couldn’t agree more! I have always been struck by the fascination these people exhibit about other people’s private sex lives. It’s very unseemly, in my view.
On your letter c, any authority on cults will confirm that healthy boundaries are the first thing to go in a cult/cult-like setting.
As far as the church sticking its nose in, let’s remember that the only “sin” (as I remember, and I can’t force myself to read such drivel again) that was the real topic of article on Kelly’s site was the “sin” of married couples being “unfaithful” to God by making the choice to not pop out baby after endless baby. I personally do not believe there is any place for the church in this discussion/decision of a married couple. It is not widely accepted among all Christians that birth control is sin (I do not accept that and most Christian couples, including most Catholics, I know have limited their family to 2-4 children, give or take, so obviously this is not a widely-accepted “doctrine”).
This is not to say that there is not a place for the church/church leadership to address sin in the lives of its members. Clearly, the NT speaks to this and how it should be approached.
April 1, 2010 at 9:59 am
The focus turns inward individually and corporately and the group resembles more that of an ingrown festering hair than a soothing healing outpouring balm. We are so busy staring at our bellybuttons, chasing our own and others’ sins, real or imagined, that we forget about the lost.
Anne2,
You are right that a church which is always focusing on the sin of her members is like an ingrowing, festering hair. Great image!
On the other hand, there are churches that are so focused on reaching the lost that they let their members deal with their weaknesses alone, expecting a degree of maturity way above the on they have reached. I was part of two such churches. It was just expected that you’d be out evangelizing, welcoming the lost in your home, etc… It’s taken some time to heal from the pressure to do things that were “uncomfortable”. Besides, both those churches failed to grow. One shrunk significantly and the other disintegrated.
April 1, 2010 at 11:50 am
Great little video, Abby. Excellent points in a humorous fashion.
April 1, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Karen,
I wish you had a search engine for this site. It’s so huge, I can never find what I’m looking for! :p
I’m looking for a good sample of Baylyism. Something that says it all.
“Kamilla”? lol.
April 1, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Momgodin,
Your wish is my command!
April 1, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Karen, one of my comments is still in moderation for some reason. I posted it right after the video link. It doesn’t have a link, and I can still see it (since I posted it). Let me know if you need me to resubmit.
April 3, 2010 at 8:21 am
Be sure to read shadowspring’s awesome post this week:
http://shadowspring-lovelearningliberty.blogspot.com/2010/03/bonhoeffer-iguanas-and-jesus.html
April 3, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Question for everyone: Does anyone know what the Patriocentric/Gothard following/people we discuss think about autism or autistic behavior?
April 3, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Blessings to everyone on this Easter Eve.
April 3, 2010 at 9:31 pm
I am curious about how they view autism, too, Annie C. I watched a special program on autism and autism research last night on television (I think it was Autism Awareness Day (could have been Week or Month), and it made me wonder if the patrios/Pearls/Ezzos and that ilk believe these kids are just misbehaving. . .
April 4, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Oh, that is too sad to contemplate, Annie C. and Savannah.
I know the Ezzos teach that being shy is a sin and merits public shaming , i.e. telling the adults around that ‘we’re working on it’, and private spanking when you get home.
My daughter was shy and everything I read said that shyness/introversion is a genetically inherited trait. How sad that these parents are trying to train biology out of their children instead of loving them for who they were born to be.
April 5, 2010 at 8:04 am
Shadowspring, I know what you mean about the whole “we’re working on it” thing. I remember being very timid as a child, and though my mom and dad would encourage me to speak, I was never punished for being shy. That was just how it was. It’s the same with my daughter. I’m pretty frank with people, because sometimes, she’s shy, and other times, she just doesn’t like certain people. I will usually say “oh, she’s just shy around new people.”
Oddly, though, and I think most people miss this, being shy is not the same as being introverted, in reality. My daughter, once comfortable in a setting, is outgoing and makes friends very easily, even with adults. But *I* was very introverted, and to a large degree, I still am. I’ve gotten more bold as I’ve gotten older, and I’m not afraid to talk to new people, but again, I think shyness in children isn’t something to be punished, it’s just something most people have to grow out of. Encouraging kids to talk to new people when mom and dad are around, and not shaming them publicly because they are nervous, is really the best way to go.
On the autism thing, I think that there’s a real lack of understanding from *most* people who aren’t around it often, and yes, I think it’s quite possible that most people think children with autism are just misbehaving or being rude, but I also don’t think that is exclusive of certain patrios or any one group, because we adults have not all figured out how to talk to children in the first place! I remember a child in one of my classrooms that we were all sure had some form of Ausperger’s, but his parents had not told us anything, just from the way he acted at certain times. Knowing that there might be something there, when he acted a certain way, we didn’t punish him for acting out, but tried to calm him down, etc. We would have done the same with any other child, too, not because of any suspected disorder, but because what children usually need is help calming themselves, not more reason to get worked up.
April 5, 2010 at 10:59 am
“My daughter was shy and everything I read said that shyness/introversion is a genetically inherited trait. How sad that these parents are trying to train biology out of their children instead of loving them for who they were born to be.”
Interesting. My first “papoose” was born with this quiet personality. (I called Kristian and Charlotte “papoose” because they looked like little indians compared to all the other blue eyed toe-heads!)
I had to stand on my head to make her smile, and when she did, it gone as quick as it came.
Today, Kris is eighteen, with an imagination bursting with stories to write. But she’s still quiet. I love her personality! I wouldn’t have her any other way. (I often think Charlotte would have been like her.)
She quietly observes everything, but you can see how she is enjoying herself by her broad smiles.
I told her, “You can’t use any of my material for your books because I’m too ridiculous!” lol.
April 5, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Are any of you familiar with anyone who is a licensed counsellor who has experience working with patriarchal issues? I am looking for a counsellor for myself, and potentially someone who might be able to provide counselling to my parents as well. I have found that a lot of counsellors aren’t really familiar with the issues in patriarchal families and it’s hard to get them up to speed. I’m looking for someone in Illinois, though the surrounding states would be possibilities as well.
April 5, 2010 at 1:21 pm
There are some great links on this page:
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/search/label/exit%20counseling
plus you might want to email Cindy Kunsman personally. There is a link on the site that allows you to do that.
April 5, 2010 at 2:45 pm
I have read that Jeff Van Vonderan has done some really useful things regarding spiritual abuse. I don’t know that he is specific to patrio stuff, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he or his colleagues are familiar with it.
Here’s his website:
http://www.jeffvanvonderen.com/?page_id=87
April 7, 2010 at 7:41 am
This is interesting:
http://vimeo.com/10536827
April 7, 2010 at 7:42 am
As is the “great authors” webinar:
http://www.visionforum.com/booksandmedia/productdetail.aspx?productid=32740
April 7, 2010 at 8:30 am
That is truly disgusting that they all themselves “great authors”. Shameless braggarts bent on self-promotion, that’s what that is.
It is an insult to all the truly great authors out there” William Shakespeare, Voltaire, Homer, etc. and even the niche Christian greats like C. S. Lewis, Bonhoeffer, Augustine, etc.
I hope no new and poorly educated home schoolers fall for their advert.
I might have just starting out. Due to my personal public school experience, I did not know much about “great authors”. In my quest to become better educated in order to better teach my students, I had to rely a lot on other people’s recommendations in the beginning.
Oh, Lord, expose these blowhards publicly in front of all those currently impressed by their slick advertising and elitist appeal! Show their fruit for what it truly is; put it on display as openly as this ad is on display. May your name and your name only, Jesus, be magnified in the home of those calling themselves “Christian” home schoolers. Amen.
April 7, 2010 at 8:43 am
Haha I *snorted* out loud when I read that they had a “poems for patriarchs” session. Hilarious!
“One reason men lack vision is because they lack poetry in their lives.”
It is still as funny the second time around. Are they selling a comedy routine?
April 7, 2010 at 8:50 am
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with celebrating life, but I do think the conference is a little self congratulatory. I can think of many other mothers who are just as deserving of the “mother of the year” award, and having lots of children isn’t the only way to be a champion in the fight for life. It’s like they’re pretty much saying that the best way to “prove” that you care about children and babies is to have lots and lots of them, and anyone who doesn’t do that must not care as much about children. Is it a thoughtfully given award, or is it a political move? I just think the Duggars are once again being used as the “Poster Family” for this sort of thinking, and it certainly doesn’t make me feel any better when I see this right after that post on Generation Cedar.
April 7, 2010 at 9:45 am
I’ve been wondering how a man concludes that the creative order shows that woman is “under” man because she came out of man?
I’ve birthed 13 babies, and I am as concerned about my duty to them as any responsible parent. But just because they came out of me does not obligate them to submit to *me* in particular when they reach adulthood. :confused:
So I was thinking, if that is not true in the most natural sense, how can the point be made in the broader sense of creative order?
I started wondering when the forum patrio suggested his parental authority extended into his children’s adulthood. Why can’t they tolerate maturity and autonomy in others?
April 7, 2010 at 10:55 am
“Great Authors”–please!? Once again, the humility of Doug Phillips and Vision Forum floors me…
April 7, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Okay, I mean this in all seriousness with absolutely no vitriolic sarcasm, but…
Is it just me, or is Doug Phillips looking creepier and creepier??
I’m serious. There is just something about him that just crawls under my skin and sends shivers down my spine. Perhaps it’s because I’ve seen the depths of evil he has been an instrument of (in fairness, I know he believes he is doing God’s work, but evil masquerades as light, after all… even to him. His best intentions are being used against him).
April 7, 2010 at 2:42 pm
“One reason men lack vision is because they lack poetry in their lives. Men no longer sing or recite inspirational verse. Our boys are no longer required to memorize the great psalms, hymns, and poems of Christian manhood. Poems for Patriarchs seeks to resurrect manly poetry through timeless poems designed to address the various biblical roles, relationships, and seasons in a man’s life — from early boyhood to his twilight years.”
From the Great Authors info
Even poetry has gender now? Who knew?
I saw a post on Scott Brown’s “Marriage Blog” recently in which he too touted the benefits of inspiring poetry. He cited an example when his wife met him at the door when he arrived home from work and started reading poems to him, to inspire him. I am happy that works for them, but I can tell you that if I met my husband at the door after a difficult workday and started reading poetry, he would not be inspired.
I swear, you couldn’t make this stuff up.
April 7, 2010 at 3:24 pm
“I am happy that works for them, but I can tell you that if I met my husband at the door after a difficult workday and started reading poetry, he would not be inspired.”
*snort* (I really did snort when I read that
)
I can’t even imagine doing that to my husband. I’m having giggle fits just thinking about it.
April 7, 2010 at 3:54 pm
For those who may have followed the blog of the “Internet Monk” (Michael Spencer), he passed away on Monday. I am just very sad, as he inspired me and many others to hang on through serious doubts. I will miss him very much.
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/mourning-the-passing-of-a-friend%e2%80%94some-thoughts#respond
April 7, 2010 at 5:34 pm
What on earth is R.C. Sproul, Jr. doing leading a course called “Bibilical Economics”? This is the same guy who got de-frocked by his denomination for stealing another congregation’s tax identification.
What is R.C. Sproul, Jr. doing teaching ANYTHING for that matter?
Alisa, interesting about your reaction to Doug Phillips. I can see how you feel that way knowing what we know about him, and I agree with you there. Oddly enough, I find him fairly charming and attractive on screen. He is quite well-spoken, and the soaring music inspires, darn it. This all just makes Dougie more dangerous, in my opinion. An attractive little package like Doug P. can influence those who don’t know any better.
emr, you cracked me up about Scott Brown’s wife greeting him with poetry. My husband would think I’d lost it entirely were I to answer the door reciting verse. (He’d also think I’d lost it if I greeted him wearing cellophane–if you remember that old suggestion–but at least he’d find that fun.
April 7, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Ditto on the idea of reading inspiring poems at the door after my hubby’s long, tough workday. I would get a look that probably wouldn’t be appreciation. It might be tempered by a good backrub, but that’s the only way it would be well received at that time.
I think the patrios are going to be doing more webinars–they seem to have been profitable for the Botkins. Makes sense financially and pragmatically for large families to listen in weekly around the PC, rather than pay for the whole kit and kaboodle to travel to a conference, including meals and lodging.
Plus Doug, RC Jr., and Kevin don’t even have to put on their vests and bowties for an audio webinar–they can sit around the mike in their “wifebeaters”* and slippers, puffing on their stogies between pontifications.
*slang for item of men’s clothing–no insinuations of domestic abuse are intended
April 8, 2010 at 1:18 am
Jeanette,
A good counselor for those coming out of patriarchy, who truly does understand (because she lived in the Gothard-type camp for years) is Sandra Harrison. She will do distance counseling, and she is VERY good…Very wise, very insightful, and a great listener….and well-trained (MA in Marriage and Family Therapy, w/ lots of diverse experience).
Phone is (865) 206-3185 and she’s in the Eastern Time Zone. She does have a new website, but I can’t remember what it is. Sorry about that.
April 8, 2010 at 10:54 am
re: The Duggars at the baby conference.
I watched the show once, and it made me feel almost physically ill. A little girl was in pure terror as she waited to have her wisdom teeth pulled, sobbing as the cameras zoomed into her face.
Her father was sitting beside her, and did nothing to protect her or her dignity.
It seems symbolic of the movement in some ways. It’s ostensibly about protecting women/protecting daughters, but it seems like much of the time, it’s the weakest who get damaged in protection of the paradigm. I’m sure the father feels like he’s doing this for the greater good, but I can’t imagine the pain for the little girl that could come out of having the whole world see her humiliation and tears. And this was only one moment of thousands that have been filmed for public viewing. What about allowing cameras and camera people into a NICU unit, as I have heard happened (correct me if I’m wrong)? What about the potential physical risks to the smallest one taken to maintain the image?
It feels to me that just like many in the quiverfull movement, the welfare of the children and women are less important than the image/the product/the lifestyle/”the vision” that’s being marketed.
April 8, 2010 at 11:21 am
That is exactly the truth, concerned.
April 8, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Concerned, I have friends who are parents of preemie twins, and this was right around the beginning of the H1N1 “epidemic.” Had we made it to see the babies in the first two weeks, we would have been allowed to see them. But around Sept. 1, Maternity units and particularly NICUs were locked down. No one but adults in Maternity, and no one but the parents in the NICU. To have a hospital make “exceptions” for this family (if that’s what happened) is despicable. I don’t care if they are doing a tv show, there are other babies in that unit who are just as important, and their safety is important, too.
But I don’t know their hospital’s policy, and we dumped our cable at the beginning of the year, so I haven’t been able to watch the Duggars’ life unfold.
April 8, 2010 at 1:05 pm
And I absolutely agree about the exploitation of the weak.
April 8, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Ladies, I don’t know if this is the right place to put this, but I need to bounce something off of you wise, homeschooling moms.
I just moved and today I visited a Christian homeschool co-op that I was told about. Even though my “authoritarianism antenna” were in place, it seemed all right. Nice, actually. The ladies teaching my daughters’ classes were great, the leader was awesome and very helpful in showing me around, and nobody was wearing denim jumpers. 
They all looked like me…pretty normal.
But then I got home and read the handbook and membership requirements and my mind has been shooting red flags. I don’t know if I’m just being ultra-sensitive to what I consider abnormally controlling or if these sort of “requirements” are normal in most HS co-ops. So I was hoping I could put a few of the requirements up here and you wise people can tell me if I’m freaking out for no reason or if there really is something fishy going on here.
Under “Membership Requirements”, here’s what’s bothering me:
“Parents must have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, profess Christian faith, agree with our statement of faith, and agree to uphold [name of group] in prayer.
“Co-op participants are expected to attend church regularly/weekly.”
Maybe it’s just me, but I fail to see why this matters in the context of a HS co-op. However, I DO understand if they’re trying to build an exclusively conservative christian group. Just not sure that’s what I want in a co-op.
“We are a covenant community. We enter into a covenant (a binding agreement) to maintain our group’s faith, integrity, and discipline.”
Sounds a little scary to me, but maybe I’m just commitment-phobic.
The dress code really got me (probably a reaction to my past):
“Generally try to cover up and avoid being extreme in dress, hair, or jewelry. Our goal is to draw attention to the Lord.
1. Clean, appropriate and modest dress is required at all times.
2. No low necklines
3. Shirts must cover the stomach completely (even when raising hands)
4. No short shorts please. Walking shorts permitted
5. Shoes are required at all times
6. No shirts with writing. Many or our studenst/teachers will have an opportunity to be in front of an audience and any writing can create a listening distraction. (???)”
Then they have an Etiquette Code and an Honor code, mostly which state that everyone is be perfect models of behavior, quiet, clean, and honoring to those in authority. Something about it just seems…off to me.
Is this normal for homeschool co-ops? I’ve never done this as a mom before, only as a student so I have no idea. Perhaps I am suspicious for no reason???
April 8, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Oh, man! I’ve got a problem with #5 right off!
April 8, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Darcy, this is actually pretty standard stuff for home school co-ops. The only thing that was unusual was the rule against writing on T-shirts — I never saw a problem with this sort of thing, and it seems picky. Also, the thing about weekly attendance would seem a little controlling; I would prefer to see regular attendance, because there are extenuating circumstances (work schedules, etc.) that would hinder weekly. Other than that, those are the kinds of things I would appreciate seeing in a co-op agreement. And trust me, my antenna are currently on ULTRA-mega-high alert about the authoritarian issues.
If that’s not what you want in a co-op, then move on, like you said. At any rate, try talking to the leaders about how serious they are about enforcing this, and also get a feel for the general atmosphere over a longer period of time if you’re still interested.
April 8, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Darcy,
I don’t post here very often, but I read here everyday. Also, I’m not a homeschooling mom. However, I have been a homeschooling student, and have attended private (Christian) and also public schools, so take the following for what it’s worth:
Please listen to your gut instincts!
Sincerely,
Mary from Tennessee
April 8, 2010 at 5:55 pm
It is not the norm for the co-ops that are home school co-ops, but it is the norm for Christian only co-ops.
My son belongs to a speech club that has no rules relating to religion. The religious folk started their own club, so they wouldn’t have to rub shoulders with the unclean.
I wouldn’t join such a group unless there were absolutely no other groups around that could meet my need and no other way (like the internet) to get it done.
Let’s say your children go, make friends, and then word gets around that your family just doesn’t measure up in some way. Will the later shunning be worth the initial welcome? Something to think about.
April 8, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Darcy, the “covenant community” admonition raises the greatest concern for me. What exactly does that mean in a group setting? Seems like they could interpret that pretty widely according to their whims.
Shadowspring, your “rubbing shoulders with the unclean” comment made me laugh, mostly because I noticed an obession with cleanliness in the holy rules. The clean vs. the unclean.
I wonder how many of these moms run around with their arms raised above their heads, checking themselves in the mirror as they do home test runs to make sure their shirts don’t sneak up. Wouldn’t want any unclean glimpses of tummy flesh out there.
April 8, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Formerpatrio – thanks for the nice words.
My new website is skfcounseling.com. I’m still working with women coming out of patriocentricity as well as doing even more work with abused women and children along with my general practice. God is good and I’m still enjoying my calling. 
April 9, 2010 at 8:35 am
Darcy, re: co-op,
I have some thoughts about co-ops based on what I have seen as an outsider, since we have never been part of one. I have taught speech classes at two co-ops and am currently teaching a speech class for a local group of homeschoolers but it really isn’t a co-op. But I have heard plenty and observed much as well.
Each one seems to take on a life of its own and eventually many of them tend to replace the actual “home” aspect of homeschooling. One mom I knew told me about the co-op she had been involved with that was so academically intense that it took one day each week (at least) for her children to prepare for the one day of co-op each week. The co-op agenda ruled and if she wanted to take advantage of some interesting opportunity that came along (one of the benefits of homeschooling in the first place) she would always feel that she couldn’t because she had made a commitment to the co-op and her children needed to be prepared etc.
There was also a sense of competition in that co-op that was apparent between those who had children with learning disabilities and those who had children they felt were “exceptional” or “gifted.” It was even worse than in public schools because the moms were the teachers and the pressure was more intense. It also caused some students to compare their own homeschooling experiences with others and I know of much discontent that was caused when one family of children planted seeds of doubt with their friends, telling them that they weren’t prepared enough for college and their the mom wasn’t educated enough, etc. I would steer clear of that sort of co-op. They seem to take much of the natural, organic ways of learning that are the benchmark of good homeschooling and replace them with public school formulas. It makes no sense to me.
Other co-ops I have seen functioned more as a resource for enrichment, giving children opportunities to learn things that were more easily learned in a group setting, like speech for example. There isn’t the same type of pressure to perform or the comparison of families, children, etc. when there are more hands-on opportunities. Also, when a mom has a certain specialty to share, like a craft skill or speaking Spanish, etc, there can be good opportunities for a co-op group without the problems that can pop up in more academically minded ones.
To me, the real danger in the co-op model is not the list of rules about dress or etiquette etc. Even in the best of situations, those will all be subjective and our kids will eventually learn anyway that all places of employment or the military or colleges have their own rules for these sorts of things.
I would be more interested in knowing how theological differences are approached. I would want to know if, for example, the group considers Mormons to be Christians. (Some groups do and I certainly would feel uncomfortable having my children taught by Mormons.) What do you do when one teacher approaches the material from a sovereign grace perspective and another one from a free-will perspective? How do they approach the issue of the Civil War or the role of women’s suffrage? One co-op I know had all the children put on black face for a presentation at the end of their study of the Civil War. Seriously, if I had been there…..
Using the word “covenant” is also a warning signal to me. While I am “reformed” in that I hold to the doctrines of grace, I am very leery when I hear that phrase tossed about because it can be a code word for all sorts of patriocentric/ecclesiocentric teachings. I am not sure what they mean by that (if they even know themselves) and don’t know how they determine this. Are you asked to make vows to this group? Do they see themselves as their own ”church” in some ways? I know some patriocentric leaders have taught that para-church groups are supposed to function as a group and can exert church discipline in the same way. Wanting you to commit to a certain number or church services is weird to me, too.
I also think the big question you need to ask is if the time you spend in a co-op (preparing, participating, driving back and forth, etc.) is the best use of YOUR time for YOUR children. If you feel like they are missing something by not being in a co-op, would they really miss more by doing those activities with other children and their moms than by doing them with their siblings and you?
This whole thing is part of one thing I have been wanting to blog about for a long time…how homeschooling has gone from the lovely, simple way of learning to a “movement” that includes all sorts of things that aren’t really homeschooling at all but moms feel a pressure to do.
I am certainly not saying all co-ops are bad for all people, but sharing what I think about the direction this all has gone/is going.
Just off the top of my head…..
April 9, 2010 at 8:46 am
One more thought…one of the reasons we homeschool is because we want to inculcate a Biblical worldview into our family’s life. We don’t see the place of educating them to also be a place of evangelism per se. Not to mean that our home isn’t for that purpose but that those who are teaching them are to be seen as a mission field. So a co-op for the purpose of reaching out to those who aren’t saved was never an option for us. We were in a homeschooling support group once who wanted to provide teaching opportunities for the children and the first thing that happened was that one of the mothers wanted to not call the group “Christian” so as not to offend those who weren’t. I think there is room for all sorts of homeschooling groups and if a group desires to call themselves “Christian” then there should never be expectations that it must be inclusive to reach out to the lost.
Hope that makes sense.
April 9, 2010 at 8:49 am
Don’t you think this “inspiring poetry” business is just more role playing?
I had to chuckle at the “webinar” with “great authors.” Why not take that money and invest it in some really great books written by truly great authors?
I once bought an entire set of the Great Books at a garage sale for $10.00.
Think about that.
April 9, 2010 at 9:48 am
“What do you do when one teacher approaches the material from a sovereign grace perspective and another one from a free-will perspective?”
Karen, seriously? Christians who believe in free will can’t learn beside or teach academics with Calvinists? You wouldn’t let your child learn Spanish from a Mormon? Seriously?
Wow.
If people in your world have to all believe the same things you do in order to be part of your world, that says to me that you feel that your beliefs won’t stand up to honest questioning or scrutiny.
If your children are not drawn to your faith because the Holy Spirit has convinced them that it is truth, then they won’t hold to your beliefs forever, only as long as you control their environment.
I know the power of God and the truth of God’s Word, and I know He is able to keep His lambs close to his heart. I believe that his sheep know His voice, and the voice of a stranger they will not follow.
I am not afraid of Mormons, Armenians, Calvinists or atheists. An atheist can teach my children math, even science, and I am not the least bit concerned that they will turn my children’s hearts away from God.
After all, for the one or two hours they listened to a person with different beliefs than mine, they have spend fourteen waking hours with me. No contest there, if that much time with a committed believer isn’t enough, their faith isn’t real faith, but only an outwardly enforced belief system.
While I wouldn’t want a Mormon to teach my children religion (or any one else in a co-op, for that matter) I would have NO PROBLEM with a gifted math teacher teaching them math, or history, or literature or anything else.
Isolationists confuse me. How much sheltering do your children need? Many kids go to public school every day and follow Jesus. If all the extra time they spent being discipled by you has not been enough to firmly establish their faith, if all the way to adulthood you keep them from ever hearing anyone else’s point of view, they are not ready to follow Jesus out in the big wide world.
My God is able to keep his sheep without micromanaging on my part. Sounds to me like isolationists don’t trust Him that much.
You shared your opinion, now I have shared mine. It’s obvious we disagree on this issue. To me, your logic is the same as that used by the patrios. The patrios have just run a little longer and a lot harder with it.
April 9, 2010 at 10:31 am
Shadowspring, every single person has a worldview that is expressed in how they teach, how they live. I don’t think it is fair to label someone an “isolationist” because they seek to learn all the disciplines from a Biblical worldview perspective. I would not want my children to be taught subjects by teachers who don’t share our faith in Jesus Christ as the only way to God. That doesn’t mean they don’t know about and learn about opposing views. But those views are taught from the perspective that the Bible is the word of God and is the standard for all truth. John warned the Christian mother in 2 John that discerning truth is crucial to remaining in the faith.
Sadly, in the post Christian culture we now live in, truth is fluffy and nebulous, even within the church. I would steer clear of Mormons as I would of patriocentrists or any other group like them because they teach a works salvation. Grace is absent in word and in deed. I would not even put myself under that sort of teaching. Look at all the testimonies women have shared here about the influence they were so easily swept under in these patriocentric teachings. Look how lovely and enticing it looked to so many of us. Look at the damage to families. Would you honestly want your daughter to study Spanish or any other subject with a patriocentrist? By their own admission, they seek to influence ALL areas of life, not just “religion.”
The point I was trying to make in the previous post is that when you get a group of Christians together who form a co-op, there are certain “Christian” expectations. Some people think you MUST be a Calvinist to be saved. Some people think you “MUST” speak in tongues to be saved. Some people think you “MUST” have your children baptized to be saved. ETC. ETC. ETC. So if you choose to participate in a Christian co-op, you need to be prepared to know what the expectations are and how differences are addressed. Is there a statement of faith that allows for those differences, for example? If not, you could be headed for some real problems. And theology isn’t just for a religion class. For genuine believers who hold to a Biblical worldview, it most certainly will permeate ALL areas of life. There is no neutral, benign area of life for a Christian.
April 9, 2010 at 11:03 am
“And theology isn’t just for a religion class. For genuine believers who hold to a Biblical worldview, it most certainly will permeate ALL areas of life. There is no neutral, benign area of life for a Christian.”
Well, it doesn’t permeate our Pre-Algebra book!
And there’s little to no mention of religion in our Spanish IV, though using Bob Jones University Spanish III last year we got enough of it to last a lifetime!
(I did not find it presented a balanced picture of life in Latin America at all. We had to do a lot of supplementing to make that course practical.
Even though our chemistry text is written by a Christian, it’s all about- you guessed it- chemistry! No little nuggets of religion slipped in, just plain science. (Beginning Publishing House Spectrum Chemistry for interested readers.)
And there’s not a hint of it in our history textbook either. Any religious interpretation comes from our conversations as we discuss history together.
We use regular textbooks and sometimes internet classes from state colleges. Evolution is presented as fact in a public/secular science book, it IS a fact that most scientists find the evidence for evolution compelling. I don’t have to hide that fact from my children, we experience it and talk it about head on.
Long and short of it, I still disagree. Yours and Virginia’s stated methods of home school do fit my definition of isolationist. An isolationist in my book is any one who deliberately weeds out people from their children’s lives: those who have different ideas, doctrines, cultures, beliefs.
There are more extreme isolationist of course. Some isolationists carry on longer than others (patrios keeping their adult children under their thumb). Some isolationists have a more narrow list of who they will allow in their world. They could exclude girls who wear pants or people of a different race, something I know you would allow. But to me, the philosophy behind the excluding is still the same.
That’s me, though, not you.
Doesn’t mean we aren’t still sisters in Christ though! I can happily keep company with people who don’t agree with me. =)
April 9, 2010 at 11:08 am
“And there’s not a hint of it in our history textbook either. Any religious interpretation comes from our conversations as we discuss history together.”
I don’t think I even mentioned textbooks, but rather, instructors. And you just made my point.
April 9, 2010 at 11:11 am
“An isolationist in my book is any one who deliberately weeds out people from their children’s lives: those who have different ideas, doctrines, cultures, beliefs. ”
Come on, Shadowspring, you can’t tell me you don’t ever do this ever. Seriously? We aren’t talking here about having a son mow the grass for the Muslim doctor (ours did this) or chat with the pro-abortion woman in our neighborhood (we do that, too) or share cookies with the atheist. Hiding from those people would make someone an isolationist. But being careful where you place yourself or others for instruction and mentoring is a different thing. You have never done that?
April 9, 2010 at 11:31 am
Shadowspring, I’ll gladly keep company with you here! We are in a co-op that is explicitly Christian and evangelical, and that’s the way I like it. I wouldn’t have a problem with a non-Christian teaching my child math, but science and history are another story. I personally teach English from a distinctly Christian point of view, not bashing other perspectives, but explaining the difference. We’ve been doing a series on world religions lately that’s been quite interesting, and we’re observing Holocaust Remembrance Day this Monday.
In fact, if I’m going to take a pot shot about anyone during my class, it’s going to be hyper Christians who are making idiots about themselves in the name of God — like Michael Pearl, or the street evangelists screaming about filthy wicked Sodomites, or the obnoxious teenager who posts a YouTube video of her trying to convert a Hindu friend (but in which she herself acts like a completely bigoted jerk). Yeah, my students have heard about all of them lately.
I’m trying to speak God’s heart of truth and compassion. I think that’s a huge difference from what they would get in a public school classroom. But I wouldn’t call it isolationist.
Plus, keep in mind that one of my daughters is in co-op one day a week and on the college campus two days a week — and that is anything but sheltered. We’re actually pulling out of our co-op Shadowspring, I’ll gladly keep company with you here! We are in a co-op that is explicitly Christian and evangelical, and that’s the way I like it. I wouldn’t have a problem with a non-Christian teaching my child math, but science and history are another story. I personally teach English from a distinctly Christian point of view, not bashing other perspectives, but explaining the difference. We’ve been doing a series on world religions lately that’s been quite interesting, and we’re observing Holocaust Remembrance Day this Monday. In fact, if I’m going to take a pot shot about anyone during my class, it’s going to be hyper Christians who are making idiots about themselves in the name of God — like Michael Pearl, or the street evangelists screaming about filthy wicked Sodomites, or the obnoxious teenager who posts a YouTube video of her trying to convert a Hindu friend (but in which she herself acts like a completely bigoted jerk). Yeah, my students have heard about all of them lately.
I’m trying to speak God’s heart of truth and compassion. I think that’s a huge difference from what they would get in a public school classroom. But I wouldn’t call it isolationist. Plus, keep in mind that one of my daughters is in co-op one day a week and on the college campus two days a week — and that is anything but sheltered.
We’re actually pulling out of our co-op this next year anyway. I think I can do better at home. More books, less paperwork. Sort of like what Karen was saying about getting away from what home schooling was really all about in the first place.
April 9, 2010 at 11:32 am
Oops, it looks like I accidentally pasted a duplicate of part of that last post within the post. Sorry!
April 9, 2010 at 11:34 am
Millenniumwoman,
“Grace is absent in word and in deed.”
I’m honestly confused. Will you please explain you theological definition of “Grace”?
Sincerely,
Mary from Tennessee
April 9, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Virginia,
Glad to keep company with you too.
And glad to hear that your students are on college campuses. And that they are engaging their world on the internet as well as in person. There is so much to learn!
One of my close friends was a public school teacher who grew up in the Bronx surrounded by Holocaust survivors. She used to invite one of her former neighbors to come and speak to her class on Holocaust Remembrance Day.
I don’t have to go far at all to discover many other faiths. We have a Hindu family next door, two Jewish neighbors, two Catholic neighbors, a couple of evangelical neighbors and some with no religion at all.
My new next door neighbors are Sikhs. When they moved in with those ceremonial drums blaring and all the men wearing turbans, I knew they were different from my other Indian neighbors. Sure enough, they are- very different! I took them a welcome gift of tangerines in a cute basket with a nice card, and they left a card and a potted tulip at my house a few days later. I haven’t met them face to face yet though.
Karen you wrote “But being careful where you place yourself or others for instruction and mentoring is a different thing. You have never done that?”
I do not consider learning about one area of skill or knowledge to be the same as mentoring. Nowhere close.
And yes, I have learned Creative Writing from an atheist, Moroccan cooking from a Muslim, and how to make Rhoti and about Indian culture from a Hindu. We learned about Brazil by having Brazilians live with us, neither of whom were particularly religious. Our Japanese students were agnostic. Our Turkish student was non-practicing Muslim. We learned about belly dancing and Turkish cooking and history from her.
My daughter’s Japanese instructor of two years was a typical Japanese. She had a shrine to her deceased relatives and traveled to Japan on the anniversary of the mother’s death every year for some sort of ceremony.
My daughter loved her, shared the love of Jesus every week and the gospel as often as conversation allowed. (Unfortunately, her in-laws were isolationist Baptist who did not want her as a daughter-in-law, so Mariko was pretty closed to the gospel because of them.) She prayed for Mariko regularly. My daughter was in no danger of losing her faith.
I mentor my children. The music director and the Sunday school teachers mentor my children. The many, many hours of living, instruction and prayer I spent with my children are/were enough.
After all, I went to twelve years plus some college of public school, and Jesus was faithful to me. My faith was genuine and stood the test of time and exposure to this big wide world. Jesus will be faithful to my children, and I believe their faith is genuine and will also remain.
April 9, 2010 at 12:41 pm
“Grace is absent in word and in deed.”
The traditional definition of “grace” in these terms is “unmerited favor” which means that we have nothing of any particular value that we bring to the table that causes God to save us from our sins. His gift of salvation is just that, an undeserved gift.
Ephesians 2:8-10: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” The grace of God means that everything we have is given to us by His gracious hand.
What I have noticed is that often those who claim this grace as their own as Christians and who teach i in doctrine, will turn around and be loathe to extend that same grace to others, either in what they say to them or how they treat them. There are lists and regulations and rules that ago beyond the standards established for us in the Word of God. And those things become works-salvation, a check list for determining whether or not someone is a Christian.
April 9, 2010 at 1:07 pm
“Would you honestly want your daughter to study Spanish or any other subject with a patriocentrist? By their own admission, they seek to influence ALL areas of life, not just “religion.” ”
Oops, missed this. If that patrio had some useful skill to teach (not history for their revisionist history is the equal of any secular revisionist history) like math, chemistry, automotive repair, then I would.
But let’s be real, they would never let us in their group. We’re Lutherans!
April 9, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Millenniumwoman,
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary from Tennessee
April 9, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Dear Shadowspring,
LOL! They wouldn’t let me in either: I’m Eastern Orthodox Christian.
April 9, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Here’s a copy of my son’s speech club rules:
I agree to the following:
1. I will be on time and prepared for meetings. I will notify the Toastmaster if I am sick or plan to be absent.
2. I will give the Counselor a list of vacation days when I will not be available. (Note: Gavel Club will run from September – Mid May).
3. I will respect each speaker by being quiet and attentive while he/she has the floor.
4. I will accord the same respect to all of my fellow Gavaliers and any guests.
5. I will help out where necessary – moving tables, setting up and putting the room back into the condition it was before the meeting.
6. I will not bring food or drink to the meeting.
7. I will silence my cell phone for the duration of the Gavel Club meeting (usually one hour).
8. I will not chew gum during the meeting.
That’s all they have to agree to at our club. I think it is a junior toastmaster’s type thing. There is a set of workbooks the teens have to work through about giving different types of speeches, and there are very specific roles assigned. Plus the emcee is called the Toastmaster. That’s the biggest clue.
It is a good mix of kids: evangelicals of different stripes, Catholic, Jewish, agnostic, atheist. It’s for one hour a week. My son is really loving it.
April 9, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Kevin Swanson has responded to the Michael Pearl.Lydia Schatz case.
http://generationswithvision.com/Broadcasts/broadcasts/17586
April 9, 2010 at 3:11 pm
BTW, that was on March 30th.
April 9, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Thinking back to my personal public school experience, I can recall the atmosphere being very eclectic, in the sense that we had teachers who had a lot of varying beliefs and faiths. I don’t recall anyone being Muslim or Mormon, but I’m sure that most were either non-Christian or some varying degree or denom. of Christian. I knew that several were church-goers, as they went to my own church, and others were involved in our outside parachurch activities (like the afterschool Christian group that met in the science lab–our Bio. teacher was a Christian).
As far as homeschooling goes, I’m one to think that the whole “organized co-op” thing goes, it’s not for me. If a group of friends who all homeschool want to get together at random and do outings or help one another teach different subjects, that’s a “co-op” in a sense, but not formal or organized–I’ve always thought of homeschooling as somewhat “anti-establishment” and having these “organizations” seems counter to the movement, but that’s just my personal feelings and observations. It doesn’t bother me at all that there are others who do this.
What I get out of the idea that Christianity permeates our whole lives is probably slightly different from both the perspectives Karen and Shadowspring gave, at least in how I would put it. Maybe not in reality, just in writing. I believe that being a “Christian family” whether in homeschooling or public school means that you teach your children how to reflect Christ. That means if they disagree with someone else’s beliefs, they disagree in a respectful (of the person, not necessarily the idea) way, rather than how I’ve seen in some of my former Christian *College* classmates, who blasted professors who they didn’t agree with and one even got kicked out of class one day for the disrespect. Totally unChristlike and inappropriate behavior coming from someone who had to sign a document that she professes Christ. But if the same person would have done so in a public school classroom, who would ever have known she was a Christian, or if they knew, how would they ever seriously listen to her beliefs about God again?
I wasn’t, and am not, a perfect reflection of Christ, but the point is that wherever your kids are learning and whomever they are learning from, you should be teaching them what it means to be like Christ, and love one another.
I like homeschooling not so much so that I can add the “Christian” worldview to whatever I teach, but because there is freedom to teach what is interesting and then some, rather than teaching “to the test” or dumbing down the curriculum to the lowest level child in the class, but teaching the children each exactly where they are at. As a parent, if I have to squeeze in worldview into every subject, then I may not be setting a good enough example of Christ to let Him speak for himself through my everyday actions.
And remember, this is coming from someone who pretty much *has* to allow people from an opposing faith teach my children if I move to Egypt. It’s not a choice, because homeschooling is not really an option, at least not one that will be taken seriously by the state. If my children are going to have Muslim teachers and are going to have to learn Quranic verses, then it’s best that I give them the best example of Christ that I possibly can to influence them against that.
April 9, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Thank you, ladies, for you replies. I’ve really been thinking this thing over in my mind. You know, it’s not really the actual dress code and requirements that I have a problem with (though a few things are a little silly), it’s the fact that the leaders feel the need to dictate every little detail about the families that are involved, even how often they go to church. To me, that is indicative of a controlling mindset that could be problematic. Why can’t they just leave some of these details that really don’t matter that much up to each individual family? (I’m a libertarian, what can I say?
)
Also, I have issues with the whole “don’t be extreme in your dress, hair, or jewelry; we’re trying to bring attention to the Lord”. Who decides what’s “extreme”? I have a friend who is thinking about homeschooling. She loves the Lord with all her heart. But she has dreadlocks and dresses like a hippy. I have a sneaking suspicion that she wouldn’t be welcome in that group. And that bothers me. I’m actually lothe to introduce her to the dark side of homeschooling and I can’t imagine explaining to her why she wouldn’t be welcome. It doesn’t make sense to anyone outside the conservative homeschool elitest movement.
I guess I’m having issues with the exclusivity midset that I’m seeing in the handbook. I would prefer a group that wasn’t so focused on outward details and was more inclusive of people with different lifestyles and tastes. I can conform, I’ve done it all my life. I can fit in to these circles anytime I feel like it (until I start talking
). But I got tired real fast of being one person in group A, another person in group B, and yet another person in group C. I could totally see myself freaking out before co-op and checking to make sure my skirt is long enough, my shirt covers everything, and there’s no writing my mine or my kids’ clothes. And that I DON’T want to do. Been there, done that, I’m done with all of it.
Another thing is the emphasis on teaching from a Biblical worldview. Meaning….?? I can’t stand the history books that have been rewritten to show that God has always been on the side of white Europeans and Americans, the suffergettes are evil, man-hating feminists, birth control was the downfall of America, etc. (“The Light and the Glory” comes to mind). If that’s teaching “from a Biblical worldview” then you can have it.
Anyway, I’m trying to figure out how much of my aversion is due to a reaction of the ATI/elitist mindset of my past, or really is God telling me to keep looking. Of course, the fact that they charge $40 to join and I don’t have that right now might decide for me. Of the fact that I could fail the application process and/or the personal interview (seriously, an interview to join a HS co-op? Is THAT normal?).
April 9, 2010 at 5:50 pm
“Of the fact that I could fail the application process and/or the personal interview (seriously, an interview to join a HS co-op? Is THAT normal?)”
flunking a homeschool co-op interview. That cracked up up and made me really sad at the same time!
April 9, 2010 at 5:51 pm
BTW, when I use the phrase “Biblical worldview” I mean it in the proper sense of the word not some trumped up revisionist, legalistic way.
April 9, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Ditto here on the Biblical worldview definition.
April 9, 2010 at 11:08 pm
What is the proper view of the phrase “Biblical worldview”? No disrespect, but that is a very loaded phrase (think The Light and the Glory or Wallbuilders). What DO you two ladies mean by it? What do others think it means?
April 10, 2010 at 9:37 am
Shadowspring, this article is the way I would express the concept of having a Biblical worldview. I first was exposed to this idea about 30 years ago when I began reading Francis Schaeffer. Interestingly, though Schaeffer thought that Christians ought to look at life through the lens of Scripture and ought to seek to influence the culture as believers, he was also opposed to theocracy and trying to impose the Old Testament law.
What in the World is a
Christian Worldview?
By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.
It was no surprise that a recent report by the Barna Group confirmed that America’s culture “continues to evolve through new worldviews.” This is clearly evident as our pluralistic society offers a smorgasbord of various philosophies to choose from. Some of the many perspectives on the ‘worldview buffet’ include Naturalistic Atheism, Eastern Pantheism, the New Age Movement, Marxism, Nihilism, Existentialism, and Postmodernism. The influence of these worldviews has been so great that only four percent of Americans today are said to possess a biblical worldview as the basis for their decision making.
Not only are more people opting for non-Christian worldviews, but many Christians are adopting all or parts of philosophies that are not Christian. According to Barna, only nine percent of born-again Christians have a biblical worldview. That is why Christian philosophers and apologists of the past like Francis Schaeffer and more recently Charles Colson, James Sire, and Nancy Pearcey, have rightly trumpeted the urgent need for Christians to understand and articulate the Christian worldview and refute non-Christian philosophies.
Worldview—The Mental Roadmap for Navigating Reality
So just what is a worldview? As a college professor I find that a lot of students have heard the term “worldview” but very few actually know what it means. So let’s start with a basic definition of “worldview” and then discuss what constitutes a “Christian worldview.”
The term “worldview” comes from the German word Weltanschauung which literally means “look onto the world.” In today’s usage, “worldview” refers to the overall perspective from which a person or group both consciously and unconsciously understands and interprets the world. A worldview includes presuppositions and beliefs about issues such as the existence of God, the origin of the human race, our purpose in life, ethics, and life after death. As Nancy Pearcey in her book Total Truth asserts, a worldview is like a “mental map” that, if accurate, “will enable us to navigate reality effectively.” To summarize, we can affirm that a worldview is any philosophy, ideology, religion, or movement that provides an all-encompassing approach to understanding reality.
Naturalistic Atheism, for instance, is a worldview that offers a comprehensive understanding of reality. It asserts that our existence is the result of random chance and the evolutionary process. Thus, humans hold no special place in the universe since we are just one random part in a chaotic cosmic community. Our problem is that we rely too much on a mythical God and religion and not enough on human reason and potential. The solution is to throw off Christianity and embrace secular humanism and ethical relativism. Naturalistic Atheism asserts that we have no future beyond the grave since there is no God and no immortal soul.
The Christian Worldview
What, though, is a Christian worldview? The Christian worldview is a comprehensive understanding of reality based on the teachings in the Christian scriptures. In particular, the Christian worldview hangs on four strategic events: (1) Creation; (2) Fall; (3) Incarnation; and (4) Restoration. Together these events explain the Christian philosophy of history and offer a blueprint for living.
First, the Creation addresses how we got here. A perfect and eternal God created the universe by speaking it into existence without the use of preexisting materials. This God also directly created the human race. This means that this universe is the result of intelligent design; it has meaning and purpose. Creation means people are God’s image bearers and, thus, have dignity and a special role in mediating God’s will over this planet.
Second, the Fall explains what went wrong. It explains why there are things like evil, death, suffering, and natural disasters. Through Adam and our participation in his sin, the world is experiencing the results of God’s curse. Things are not as they should be because the human race has separated itself from its creator. The image of God still remains in us but it has been marred and all parts of our being have been tainted with sin.
Third, the Incarnation explains the solution. It is God’s Son—Jesus Christ. By becoming a man and paying for the sins of the human race, the God-man, Jesus, removed the barrier between God and humanity and a relationship with God is possible.
Fourth, Restoration tells us where history is going. It is headed for a New Heavens and New Earth in which righteousness dwells. Sin, death, and evil do not win. The curse will be removed and a perfect world will arise and God will dwell with his people forever.
These four events encapsulate the Christian worldview and offer a comprehensive perspective on reality including how we got here, what our problem is, what the solution is, and where we are going. Paul, in his Mars Hill address to the Athenian philosophers presented such a Christian worldview (see Acts 17). He started with an explanation of God’s role as creator and sustainer of the world. He then introduced the issue of sin and the need for repentance in light of the coming judgment.
Other essential truths also lie at the heart of a Christian worldview. For example, a Christian worldview includes belief in the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, the Trinity, the deity of Jesus, salvation by grace through faith alone, and a literal second coming of Jesus.
How Now Shall We Live?
The Christian worldview has significant implications for how we should live. For example, since God created the world everything we do has significance since we are accountable to him. Also, since all people are God’s image bearers we must treat all with respect including people of different races, the unborn, and the helpless. Understanding the Fall means understanding that we are tainted with sin, have the capacity to do evil, and are in need of a Savior. Understanding the Incarnation means believing in Jesus Christ, for salvation. Understanding restoration means living with the hope that evil, sin, and death will some day be vanquished.
As Chuck Colson said in How Now Shall We Live? a Christian worldview is “intensely practical.” It makes a huge difference in how a person lives. While many bemoan that Christians act ‘just like the world,’ research by the Barna Group actually shows that that those who truly hold a biblical worldview evidence a life that is radically different from those who do not. In addition to experiencing the saving grace of God and knowing the essentials of the faith, those with a biblical worldview are much less likely to engage in non-marital sex, use profanity, gamble, view pornography, get drunk, or approve of same sex relations and abortion.
Refuting Non-Christian Worldviews
Properly understanding the Christian worldview also means refuting non-Christian worldviews. It means refuting Naturalistic Atheism’s assertion that everything is the product of blind random chance. It means refuting Eastern Pantheism’s views concerning reincarnation and the belief that the main goal in life is to escape all desire and merge with some impersonal Absolute. It means refuting Nihilism’s pessimistic assertion that there is no meaning to life. It means refuting Existentialism’s claim that obtaining certain knowledge is impossible and that all truth is subjective. It means refuting the assumption of Postmodernism that there are no foundations for knowledge.
Having a Christian worldview is not just some nice exercise for Christian scholars and seminary professors—it is an absolute necessity for all Christians. Much is at stake. Pearcey points out that other worldviews are “connecting all the dots” and giving people a full explanation of their perspectives on reality. That is why Christians better connect the dots as well. The Barna Group is correct when it asserts that unless the church starts presenting a coherent worldview to our society it “will lose influence” and Christianity will represent “one more option among the numerous worldviews that Americans may choose from.”
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/christian_worldvidew.html
I would really encourage anyone who has never read Schaeffer to do so. It is life-changing stuff.
April 10, 2010 at 11:17 am
That’s a very thorough explanation, Karen, which gives some good sources to explore it further. A friend who is a well-educated, passionate homeschool advocate and mentor, and who stresses the necessity of a biblical worldview, really likes Total Truth by Pearcey. I can’t vouch for all of it, but will move it up on my reading list.
When my daughter went to a classical Christian school for her high school (a much better education than I could have given her, and she thrived there), they continually stressed having a biblical worldview. The essence of that, as I recall, is that all truth is God’s truth: literature by non-Christian authors can also be valuable to study (some works have less nuggets of value to find amidst the “muck”, however). And because God is sovereign over His creation, true and unchanging, mathematics, science, music, PE, etc. under a biblical worldview will all point to Christ as Lord. Not just history and literature, but all of it, and they did not go with the “From Sea to Shining Sea” view of history. This tenet wasn’t just given lip service; her math teacher especially made sure to bring it into play.
2+2 is always 4 because Christ is Lord, but I have heard that now in Canadian schools, for example, students can come up with their own answers and this is not the case. Sorry I don’t have the source for this, but I don’t doubt it.
April 10, 2010 at 11:55 am
Kathy, I appreciate your insights.
One area that Schaeffer felt so adamantly about having a Biblical worldview was in the area of the arts. He basically said, though I am paraphrasing, “The world doesn’t need more artists who produce Christian art, it needs more Christians who are producing good art.”
How true this is…if I see one more Thomas Kincaid knock-off I will scream.
April 10, 2010 at 12:19 pm
“The world doesn’t need more artists who produce Christian art, it needs more Christians who are producing good art.”
This describes CS Lewis’ and Tolkien’s books. They didn’t set out to write great Christian allegories. They just wanted to tell great stories.
April 10, 2010 at 1:19 pm
When you recommend reading Schaeffer you mean Francis Shaeffer not Frank Shaeffer, I assume?
http://www.frankschaeffer.com/
His son paints a very different picture of Dad than his father portrayed himself to the world. If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, maybe you should read his son’s book Crazy For God and see how F. Schaeffer Sr.’s ideas have fared in reality.
I haven’t read it yet, but it is on my list.
My husband’s parents subscribed to the same fundamentalist religion Schaeffer lived, and I am left picking up the pieces of my husband’s broken heart.
April 10, 2010 at 1:26 pm
I have read Edith’s book (quite long…The Tapestry) and would consider that a better resource than Franky. Also, the testimony of the rest of the family through the years seems to contradict Franky’s writings. I would highly recommend Shaeffer’s writings.
What denominational background are/were your inlaws?
April 10, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Wow. I just read all of the interviews on Frank Schaefer’s web site. Very impressive man, a humble man, a brother in Christ. He now attends Greek Orthodox. By all accounts in the book reviews I just read, he writes with great affection and appreciation for his parents.
None of his sisters contradict Frank’s testimony of his life and family. In fact, they get along well as far as the interveiw on his web site records. You should really read the interview with John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute. It’s about a third of the way down the page under the heading Oldspeak.
Frank is the one behind the “How Then Shall We Live” and “What Ever Happened to the Human Race” documentaries. He convinced his dad to put them out there, and personally worked on those projects. He does not go by Franky anymore, and I can’t imagine why you would reject his current work after praising his early projects so profusely.
I have What is a Family by Edith Schaefer on my book shelf. Very interesting read. So Frank Schaefer was the man throwing the potted plant in anger mentioned in her book? LOL Now we know.
My husband’s father’s fundamentalist pedigree is immaculate: Dallas Theological Seminary, Unevagelized Fields Mission, pastor of his own independent fundamantalist Bible church, currently in a Southern Baptist church as retiree and Sunday school teacher, strong supporter of Al Mohler in fact.
Why? What bearing does my husband’s father have on Frank Schaefer’s experience of growing up at L’Abri and his regret at what the religious right has done with his and his father’s work?
April 10, 2010 at 6:39 pm
I did appreciate reading How Then Shall We Then Live? by Schaeffer, think I might have checked out the videos from the library and discussed it some with our children. Lots of good thoughts there.
Since Francis is not here to defend himself, it’s hard to know what the truth about the Schaeffer family might be–all of our leaders are merely mortals, with feet of clay. Making an ad hominem comment about Francis Schaeffer doesn’t mean that his writings on a Christian worldview are not worth thinking about. From what Franky says, his father was not in total alignment with the Christian Right, although he was gladly co-opted by them.
April 10, 2010 at 10:23 pm
I enjoyed both Francis and Frank. I don’t see their views as mutually exclusive. One is the product of the other, and it is clear that Frank loved his parents very much, and they loved him. I’ve seen how some claim he is “bitter” and a bunch of other stuff. I have to wonder if they really read his books with any real attempt to understand what he was trying to express. He describes real people, including himself, who are flawed and complex. There is always a desire to lionize some of the big “Christian minds” and not want to hear about their struggles or flaws, but that’s not reality.
And yes, I imagine that some of the Schaeffer family members weren’t all that excited about Frank writing about his family’s real life situations. That doesn’t surprise me, nor does it make his perspective not true.
In several email exchanges with Frank, I have found him to be a caring, thoughtful person.
April 11, 2010 at 7:45 am
Hello ladies,
I have been lurking, but not posting. First of all, thank you from the bottom of my heart for your prayers. My husband has fully recovered from his heart attack, and my 82 year old has fully recovered from legionnaires disease. My mom was in the hospital for two months, and then in rehab. She is now back at work! Good as new.
The hospital called our family three times to tell us my mother was about to die and we should get there fast so we could say goodbye. She survived every crisis, to the amazement of the doctors. When people ask her how she got through the ordeal she says “A lot of people were praying for me.”
I have a question for you. What are your opinions on treating post-partum depression? Are there any groups that don’t believe in treating ppd with medication? Do you know if Quiverful Movement allows psychiatric treatment (including meds) for ppd?
I’m a nursing student, and I wanted to get input from you.
April 11, 2010 at 8:23 am
I think that Kathy is right, we can’t really know the full truth of the Schaeffer family, at least from Francis’ perspective. It’s entirely possible that he had a temper, but we don’t know the full extent of that.
I think it’s interesting that people on both sides of the political spectrum (why’s it always political???) have taken his words for their own use, because it’s not the first time in Christian history that has happened, and doubtfully will be the last. I have a pastor who is admittedly more “democrat” in his political ideals, but who never talks politics from the pulpit, and honestly, I think half our church has no idea what his real political affiliations are, though some could guess fairly easily. But he loves Francis Schaeffer’s writings. He’s a staunch “pro-lifer” but also promotes social justice and even environmental responsibility. But this is all interconnected in his mind as every soul matters, and we are to be good stewards of what we have been loaned.
I’ve not read anything by Francis Schaeffer, but I can say that I’ve taken church history classes that show that there are many Christian leaders in the world whose views have been misconstrued by someone in order to take an entire denomination a different direction. For example, the “Church of Christ” movement began with the “Restoration Movement” in northern Kentucky/southwest Ohio. There are now several denominations or brotherhoods that claim to be the child of this movement, and yet have striking differences, so much that there’s hardly any similar DNA in them anymore. The United Church of Christ is different from the “non-instrumental” Church of Christ, which is different from the “instrumental” Church of Christ/Christian Church brotherhood. The point I’m trying to make is that there was a small set of church leaders who set out to do one thing, and now there are multiple churches claiming to be the product of that one thing.
Maybe Schaeffer was trying to set up the church as more politically “right” or maybe he was just being a Christian, and certain people who had more political motives took his work and put it into the political arena. Either way, I think that if his works are taken from a Christian perspective (which is what we’re talking about), there are good things that can be gleaned from it. After all, he is not the controversial figure that the Pearls or other patrios are.
April 11, 2010 at 9:33 am
I think insisting on calling him Frankie when he is a grown man who prefers to be called Frank is mean-spirited. It belittles the man, and I expect better from the posters here.
Come on, sisters, you are sounding defensive, questioning my husband’s family’s credentials, insinuating Frank is attacking his father and/or being dishonest when all he is doing is sharing his experience of life. As the child star of fundamentalism, he deserves to be heard.
None of his sisters are on record disputing what he says. And if you read his interviews, you’ll see that he was intent on being transparent and honoring both the truth and his parents. He loves his parents!
Plus he is very plain about reminding everyone that people are complex and multi-faceted people. Nowhere does he claim that his book is the sum total of his parents as people or the only definitive truth about his parents.
It is their only son and youngest child’s perspective on what life was like growing up with them at that time.
If you don’t make heroes out of anyone but Jesus, then their feet of clay won’t offend you.
I have been thinking about the Barna group statisitics only nine percent of born-again Christians have a biblical worldview and I am floored by the arrogance and exclusivity in that statement.
Only nine percent of the people Jesus accepts are acceptable? Only 9% of “born again” Christians believe in Creation, the Fall on Man, the Incarnation of God in Christ and the Restoration to fellowship with God of all those who put their faith in Jesus?
You can’t be born again without believing those things!
Sign me up with Jesus, who is not too pure to hang out with the other 91% as well. I am appalled by the concept.
So the Christian only home school support groups exist for the 9%. I get it now. Indeed they ARE the 9%. Well isn’t that special?
Makes me ashamed that I was ever president of one of these groups. Thank God for true home school support groups like SHARE- Support Homeschool Activities Reaching EVERYONE!
April 11, 2010 at 1:37 pm
I am not writing to incite people to anger, but rather to think.
If ten waking hours a day, 365 days a year, for even only the first ten years, is not enough to deliver a faithful witness of the gospel-
if instead you must exert total milleu control so that your children don’t play with, learn from or come into any unsupervised contact with someone who thinks/believes differently from you-
then, I would think something was very wrong.
As a child I would wonder why you think your faith and beliefs couldn’t win out over any competing ideas and beliefs.
As one who believes that everyone who is saved has been born again by the power of the Holy Spirit, I would wonder if you think that conversion was really not a supernatural rebirth but simply an embracing of the right doctrine.
Because if, as I believe, it is the beginning of a lifelong relationship with the Living God, how could anyone ever give that up just because they met someone with a different idea about God?
The whole idea of home schooling as discipleship I can see. Your kids are with you all day. They are learning from you all the time. They ARE being discipled by you.
But precisely because of that, because I believe that conversion is work of the Holy God whom I worship and serve, I do NOT feel the need to exercise total milleu control over my children’s lives.
It reminds me (this need to have strict control of all outside influences) of this Pink Floyd song from The Wall. I think the urge to control all influence has more to do with natural human fears and insecurities than any mandate from the Bible.
After all, I have had far, far more time with my students and, as mother, I hold a place of influence in my students hearts greater than any one else ever will.
Mother (Waters) 5:32
Mother do you think they’ll drop the bomb?
Mother do you think they’ll like this song?
Mother do you think they’ll try to break my ba**s?
Mother should I build the wall?
Mother should I run for president?
Mother should I trust the government?
Mother will they put me in the firing line?
Mother am I really dying?
Hush now baby, baby, dont you cry.
Mother’s gonna make all your nightmares come true.
Mother’s gonna put all her fears into you.
Mother’s gonna keep you right here under her wing.
She wont let you fly, but she might let you sing.
Mama will keep baby cozy and warm.
Ooooh baby ooooh baby oooooh baby,
Of course mama’ll help to build the wall.
Mother do you think she’s good enough — to me?
Mother do you think she’s dangerous — to me?
Mother will she tear your little boy apart?
Mother will she break my heart?
Hush now baby, baby dont you cry.
Mama’s gonna check out all your girlfriends for you.
Mama wont let anyone dirty get through.
Mama’s gonna wait up until you get in.
Mama will always find out where you’ve been.
Mama’s gonna keep baby healthy and clean.
Ooooh baby oooh baby oooh baby,
You’ll always be baby to me.
Mother, did it need to be so high?
April 11, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Shadowspring, I wanted to be sure you understand that I asked about your father-in-law’s background only because you brought it up, saying it was the same fundamentalist background shared by Francis Schaeffer.
“My husband’s parents subscribed to the same fundamentalist religion Schaeffer lived, and I am left picking up the pieces of my husband’s broken heart.”
I wasn’t looking for any credentials, only clarification so I could better understand the point you were making. Why would you think I would want credentials?
April 11, 2010 at 3:11 pm
“Only nine percent of the people Jesus accepts are acceptable? Only 9% of “born again” Christians believe in Creation, the Fall on Man, the Incarnation of God in Christ and the Restoration to fellowship with God of all those who put their faith in Jesus?”
I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make about the Barna research, in the article I quoted. It isn’t that only 9% of born again Christians “KNOW” these things to be true, it is what they do with that truth. Do they live it? Does the walk match the talk? From what I understand of this research, the results of the questionnaires showed that about 91% of people who professed to be believers still would think certain things were “ok” even though they were things that the Bible calls sin. I believe that would probably be a fairly accurate response. I am amazed at the people I know who profess to be Christians but who think it is ok to have sex outside of marriage or to steal from their employers or to get drunk. This is how I understand those stats. A Biblical worldview has to do with sanctification rather than regeneration. The moment someone is saved, they don’t automatically embrace all Biblical truth. That is part of the growing process. That is why discipleship is so important.
April 11, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Or to put it in the terms that Nancy Pearcey used, someone can be a Christian without using the “mental road map” to discern truth and to obey it.
April 11, 2010 at 3:16 pm
“I think insisting on calling him Frankie when he is a grown man who prefers to be called Frank is mean-spirited. It belittles the man, and I expect better from the posters here.”
I have never read where he said he didn’t want to be called by the name that is still on the credits of the DVD’s I have seen. Why would you assume it was a slam at him?
April 11, 2010 at 3:29 pm
“As the child star of fundamentalism, he deserves to be heard.”
I don’t know what this means.
When I think of fundamentalism, I think of the independent Baptist churches, Hyles-Anderson, BJU,etc. Schaeffer was a mainline Presbyterian as I recall and refused to get bogged down in the infighting in the denomination back in the 30′s,calling for peace and reconciliation. He was Presbyterian all his life. The audiencs he addressed were those who were struggling to maintain a rational, biblical perspective when they saw modern influences fueled by science and industrialism produce things like abortion in the church. He sought to warn evangelicals that theirs would be the same future if they weren’t careful. At this point in church history, his words are prophetic.
The religious right were far more influenced by Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Cal Thomas, who worked for Falwell in helping to start that organization, has now renounced it, not because he has different doctrinal views or that he thinks Christians ought to steer clear of influencing government policy but because he thinks that the only way to true biblical genuine reformation is through evangelism, salvation of the lost, and discipleship which produces a Biblical worldview.
After spending 30 plus years as a pro-life evangelical, I don’t recall Frank Schaeffer as having barely any influence within this movement. In fact, all I remember are the two episodes of the film series that he directed and the book he wrote on Christians and the arts. Help me out here. Where was all the influence he had, what form did it take etc?
April 11, 2010 at 5:46 pm
“I have never read where he said he didn’t want to be called by the name that is still on the credits of the DVD’s I have seen. Why would you assume it was a slam at him?”
In the interviews on the web site I linked to he explains his desire to be called Frank instead of Frankie. I assumed you read some of his web site, and also all of the books he has had published list him as Frank, not Frankie.
If you DID know this (and you state that you did not know this, which I accept) then to continue to call a grown man by a name associated with his childhood and which he expressly has left behind would be rude.
Since you DID NOT know this, then it wasn’t rude.
April 11, 2010 at 5:52 pm
“Help me out here. Where was all the influence he had, what form did it take etc?”
Please go back and read, if nothing else, the interview with the Rutherford Institute that I linked to and referred to earlier.
Frank (not Francis) was apparently the author of the idea to do the series “How Shall We Then Live” and the one about the human race being endangered(haven’t seen it, don’t remember the title). He is the one who convinced his father about the importance of taking an anti-abortion stance.
I am in the middle of a good book right now, Four Views of the Atonement, but i will bump Crazy for God up to the top of my list, if you want to also read and discuss it.
April 11, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Shadowspring, I called Frank Schaeffer Franky (Frankie?) because that was all I remembered him as, and because Karen referred to him as that. I have read reviews of his book and couldn’t remember what name he went by as author.
I briefly googled him, did skim the Rutherford interview, which I found interesting. I have other books I need and want to read before I read Crazy For God.
I barely have time to take part in this discussion and did so because I feel that a biblical worldview is important, although I obviously don’t know as much about it as I want. I thought that was where the discussion was heading, although it seems to have gone in another direction.
I am spending 3-4 hours a day helping my elderly parents with very basic things since recent health setbacks. Tonight I’m finishing getting their business records together (which are all over the place) to meet the accountant to file their taxes, then taking my mother to a lengthy doctor’s appointment, THEN finishing filing our taxes, hopefully. I don’t know if you are also accusing me of being mean-spirited, but if so, I assure you it was unintentional. I don’t know much about Frank Schaeffer, so I had NO CLUE what the heck he prefers to be called.
It would be nice to take the discussion here down a notch or two emotionally–perhaps I will find it that way when I have time to return. Grace and peace…
April 12, 2010 at 8:55 am
Discussions on this board go anywhere the conversation goes. Not sure where you think it’s heading, but all you have to do is ask a question or make a comment to send it in a different direction. The title is all things patrio.
One aspect of cults (Cynthia Kunsman’s cite, thatmom did a podcast with her) is total milleu (sp?) control. That pops out at me in bold when I hear a Christian home school parent say that they will only allow Christians (doctrinally correct Christians at that!) to teach their children any subject.
Now all parents exert some control over their children’s environment with the goal of helping them grow until they are ready to engage the less pleasant realities of life. We don’t sit our five year olds down and go over the family budget and talk about the economic uncertainties that lie ahead, for example. It never even crosses our minds to do that for most people. On the other hand, I believe you should certainly do that with your teenagers who will all too soon be facing these realities and need to be prepared.
So while sheltering of the very young is loving, good and proper, it is not necessary or desirable in my opinion to continue to exert total control over their environment. Is the only difference between the “normal” exclusive Christian home school community and the patrios the EXTENT of the ideas/people/practices they work to exclude and control?
Also this Christian world-view idea, it sounds like the goal is to produce children who never sin. I mean, if one accepts the premise that 91% of born again Christians ARE born again, acceptable to God and in relationship with Him, then what differentiates them from the other 9% that “Biblical worldview” adherents think they are among?
According to Karen,those who have not had their environment strictly controlled “think it is ok to have sex outside of marriage or to steal from their employers or to get drunk. This is how I understand those stats. A Biblical worldview has to do with sanctification rather than regeneration. The moment someone is saved, they don’t automatically embrace all Biblical truth. That is part of the growing process. That is why discipleship is so important.”
I believe that sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit and can not be accomplished by parents carefully screening what people/ideas their children may be exposed to. Jesus is our sanctification and the Holy Spirit is the agent by which this is accomplished. I Corinthians 1:30, I Thess 2:13, I Peter 1:2.
So this is something we clearly disagree about. I can not sanctify my children. One who has had no exposure to temptation in life is not sanctified, he is untested. Big difference.
I do not think it is needful to exclude non-believers or believers who believe the Bible teaches a different perspective than I believe, form my children’s lives. I can let life happen naturally to my children, without my strictly controlling what they are “allowed” to experience. The Lord is with them.
Plus as they grow the more freedom and exposure to the world they need to experience while we parents are available to discuss it with them.
Further, I do not believe that wrong teaching or exposure to other ideas is WHY some Christians don’t accept the Bible as authoritative in their lives. It is far more complicated than that.
If any one thing is responsible, it is the hypocritical posturing of those who say they believe the Bible that turns many away. If/when a young lamb sees more love and acceptance among the worldly crowd, that is the fault of believers not practicing the words of Christ to love as He has loved us. I have heard this many times from many straying Christians.
Then also, there is the sin nature to contend with. Knowing does not translate into doing. Adam sinned, and he lived in Paradise and experienced the literal presence of the Living God every day. If God’s sheltering could not accomplish purity of devotion to Him, mine certainly will not accomplish it.
Thirdly I already spend much, much, much more time with my children every day than any parents who utililizes institutional education. If all the hours I have spent with them in the early years were not enough for them to “catch” my passion for the Living God Jesus Christ our Lord, and my deep respect for His Word as it is actually written, then the battle is already lost.
I think I harm my cause by insisting that no one who is not living/believing as I think is right be allowed in our world. It screams insecurity in my beliefs, my children, and in the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives. It says I expect them to fail if they are tested.
Further, what then happens to “God so loved THE WORLD”? If I treat the rest of the world like outsiders to be avoided, how is that the love of God for all people? It becomes God so loved me and you and all the people who think/believe like we do. That is not the Word of God.
Those are the reasons that I expressed so much shock at what I was reading here, about being careful not to let anyone who doesn’t pass the doctrine test teach your children. It seems very cultish to me- relying on the efforts of people rather than the power of the Spirit to effect salvation and sanctification in our children.
I brought Frank Schaeffer into the discussion because it was his video series (that he and his father produced) that was given as the inspiration/justification for the milleu control. As I wrote earlier, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So it is thoughtful and intelligent to ask, “how did that work out for the producers of that series that is so foundational to this parenting style”?
I was asking honest questions and sharing the honest conclusions I have come to regarding total milleu control. It is a parent’s responsibility to keep out harmful influences when they are very young, and a parent’s responsibility to allow them ever-increasing exposure to the world in which they will one day venture off on their own.
But then I sincerely believe that I could do that if my children were in public school as well. My children’s faith and sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit and He is always with them. My prayers and my emotional, spiritual, practical advice and support are here to help, as all the publicly schooling Christian parents also provide. But it is not my work, nor could I accomplish it if I wanted to do so.
April 12, 2010 at 10:13 am
“According to Karen,those who have not had their environment strictly controlled “think it is ok to have sex outside of marriage or to steal from their employers or to get drunk. This is how I understand those stats. A Biblical worldview has to do with sanctification rather than regeneration. The moment someone is saved, they don’t automatically embrace all Biblical truth. That is part of the growing process. That is why discipleship is so important.””
Shadowspring, please stop misrepresenting me. You repeatedly take what I am saying and turn it into something else. As Christian parents, we are to raise our children in the “fear and admonition of the Lord.” In my home that means training them to discern what it means to be obedient to Scripture. I am not talking about the man made lists of rules. I am talking about what the Bible actually teaches about the core issues of life and how they are applied when we one another each other. You don’t have to agree with me. You are free to do as you wish. But do not reconstruct what others here are saying or interpret us in the worst possible light.
April 12, 2010 at 10:18 am
“Those are the reasons that I expressed so much shock at what I was reading here, about being careful not to let anyone who doesn’t pass the doctrine test teach your children.”
I don’t know where anyone said that a teacher has to pass the “doctrine” test. I certainly don’t hold to that if you are talking about orthodox Christianity or unless you are talking about Mormons or others who are in a cult or are cultic. What I DID say is that when you place your children under someone else for teaching, you need to know how they will interpret the material and in a co-op situation, how those differences will be handled. And that all disciplines have a worldview; there is no neutrality in education.
April 12, 2010 at 10:21 am
Who here is advocating all interaction between Christian children and unbelievers? There is a difference, a HUGE difference between building relationships between Christians and nonChristians and Chrsitian children being taught and mentored by nonChristians.
Is it me who isn’t communicating properly? if so, someone please tell me.
April 12, 2010 at 10:21 am
that should have said “advocating no interaction”
April 12, 2010 at 10:32 am
Arabella asked:
“Are there any groups that don’t believe in treating ppd with medication? Do you know if Quiverful Movement allows psychiatric treatment (including meds) for ppd?”
I am not sure that there is a definitive answer for this. I would imagine that nouthetic counselors would not want to encourage women to take meds for PPD and that most QF families would go to a nouthetic counselor. It is like the response to ADD etc. However, I think there has been some changed thinking since several cases of severe PPD that resulted in tragedy have come to light. I am thinking of that mom who drowned her little ones in the bath tub. I would be curious to hear what anyone else knows.
April 12, 2010 at 10:36 am
I want to be very careful here not to misrepresent anyone, but I have to agree with Shadowspring’s main points here. What actually concerned me, though, a couple of days ago, was when someone posted that they would never allow a non-Christian to teach their children. I think it was history – sorry, I can’t find it right this second, but I clearly remember it.
That certainly is that person’s choice as a parent, and I would not argue with the choice, but with the reasoning behind it. I ran this by my husband, who teaches American history (in an “institutional” school – LOL), and it was kind of eyebrow raising for him, too. Historical facts are historical facts. There are not “Christian historical facts” and “secular historical facts”. Christians do not have some corner on the market of historical facts (although I agree they should).
When homeschooling and Christian-schooling parents financially support curriculums that are heavily influenced by David Barton, and all the other Christian revisionists, et al., they should be very concerned about what these people are peddling.
Are there revisionists on “the other side”? I’m sure there are, but it should be MUCH more troubling to a Christian parent that a so-called Christian publishing company are printing lies BY Christians than it is that sometimes non-Christians don’t tell the whole truth.
Honestly, I’d take Chris Rodda’s meticulous research any day over David Barton’s lies.
Karen and I have already had the discussion months ago on her take on “inculcating” a certain worldview in our children and if there is more than one way to do that, and I don’t wish to rehash it. We must agree to disagree on that issue, as do all public school advocates and homeschooling advocates who wish to find common ground with one another.
I’m sorry if I detected a condescension toward Frank Schaeffer if there was none. It just seemed like “damning with faint praise”, at the very least, but I could be wrong. Incidentally, he is a grown man and in any books he has written in the last couple of decades, he clearly goes by Frank. I loved his books on his son in the military, and Crazy for God, and I just recently read Patience with God, which I found very encouraging. Maybe it’s not everybody’s cup of tea, and that’s okay, but he is a true brother in Christ, and I love him for the encouragement he has given me and others.
April 12, 2010 at 11:54 am
“Historical facts are historical facts.”
I agree with this statement.
However, there are various ways those “historical facts” can be interpreted according to the agendas people have and it also depends on which facts are presented and which ones are conveniently left out. I remember reading a review on a secular history textbook that listed the biographies written within the book. 5 pages were given to Marilyn Monroe. Martha Washington wasn’t even mentioned in passing.
I recently watched this happen in our local school district. The high school curriculum coordinator and history department planned a unit on the progressive era. They presented Margaret Sanger in a film about her life that portrayed her as a benevolent kindly mother who sacrificially gave her life to helping poor women. No mention of her association with Hitler. No mention of her eugenics agenda. No mention of her adulterous affairs and perversions. No mention of her leaving her husband and precious children to pursue a debaucherous lifestyle.
One man in our community addressed the board and the teachers. He didn’t ask for censorship. Rather, he asked that the whole story of Sanger be presented. He said that the way they were teaching her would be like saying “Hitler gathered a group of young men and gave them free clothing.” It was true but it certainly didn’t tell the whole story.
April 12, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Karen,
I am puzzled as to how I misrepresented you. I put your exact words in quotes, almost the whole paragraph. If you believe I misunderstood you, tell me where I missed the mark. But I didn’t represent your words, I quoted them verbatim.
Again, this all came up when a poster asked if it was normal to have a statement of faith, a “covenant” agreement to a list of rules about religious beliefs and practices as well as dress, in home school support groups.
You and Virginia thought it was pretty normal, maybe a little extreme, and I don’t want to go all the way back and look it up, but I am pretty sure you said that you wouldn’t let anyone teach that didn’t meet your faith criteria, as you saw them as being in a mentor position.
Everything else I have to say I have already said. I don’t believe I misrepresented anything.
I appreciate Savannah weighing in with her opinion. Yes, we are all just going to have to agree to disagree.
The situation above, with Margaret Sanger? My position is that hearing that one-sided viewpoint would not negatively affect a child in a healthy Christian home, especially one who is home schooled. His loving parents will already have shown the child that life is to be cherished. He would already know what scripture says about shedding of innocent blood and baby sacrifice.
The home schooled child would likely have almost immediate feedback from his/her parent when he was picked up from the co-op or if it were a community event, the parent might actually be there with the student. The open communication of loving Christian homes coupled with the extra opportunities for conversation and feedback in a home school situation is more than enough for the Holy Spirit to work with.
Therefore, I am not afraid for my students to hear other points of view, in fact I welcome it. I would love to help them puzzle through it while they are still around me so much of the time.
That is MY position. If my dissent is causing distress, I will refrain from posting. But I want to be on record that there is no ill will on my part. I disagree with the principles behind statement of faith home school groups.
I am a sincere believer with a committed walk with Jesus. I love Him with all my heart, study and read my Bible often, have personal times of prayer and worship on a regular basis. I believe you do too, Karen. I just disagree.
Nuff said by me. Anyone want my olive branch? I am extending it now.
April 12, 2010 at 2:29 pm
I had a whole big long response, including my view of Margaret Sanger and the historical implications of the early Hitler years, but it really is not my intent to be divisive, so I let it go. I will say that it is easy to pick out the worst of the worst isolated concerns about the left’s interpretation of historical events, all the while ignoring the great harm that is being done by Christians who lie – namely, Christian revisionists like David Barton and his ilk.
I’ve been doing a lot of research into Christian revisionism (those two words should be oxymorons!) and perhaps I am a little more sensitive to the whole issue than I would normally be.
Karen, you and I will ALWAYS disagree on the homeschooling vs. public schooling issue. Both sides often feel disrespected and condescended to in the debate, which makes it hard to have an actual debate, as we all know. But I do appreciate many things about you, particularly your advocacy for women and children stuck in patriocentricity, and your care for others.
April 12, 2010 at 2:32 pm
“I will say that it is easy to pick out the worst of the worst isolated concerns about the left’s interpretation of historical events, all the while ignoring the great harm that is being done by Christians who lie – namely, Christian revisionists like David Barton and his ilk.”
Oh, Savannah, I hope you also know that I happily point out the revisionist history on both sides as I discover it!
April 12, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Savannah, email me at to_shadowspring@yahoo.com, please? Would love to talk more about revisionist history.
April 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Karen posted, “Oh, Savannah, I hope you also know that I happily point out the revisionist history on both sides as I discover it!”
Sorry, Karen, I didn’t mean to imply that you personally would ignore Christian revisionist lies. I don’t think you personally would ignore any lie.
But usually when one gets into this discussion with Christians, they pull out the “back pocket” leftie problems all the while pretending that “their side” is lily white, so I should have made it clearer that was speaking generally.
Shadowspring, I certainly will email you!
April 12, 2010 at 4:19 pm
On a lighter note, under the heading of “Taking ourselves WAY too seriously … ”
http://perseveroblog.com/?p=4226
April 12, 2010 at 5:19 pm
My grandma slaughtered chickens. :p
April 12, 2010 at 5:34 pm
emr–oh, brother. Don’t they know they can take their chickens to a butcher who will do all that work for them? Silly patrios.
April 12, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Got all the records together and passed on to the accountant, now on to file our tax return–whew! Of course I couldn’t stay away for long, though–hopefully my rapid reading and response will be an accurate representation of what others have said and what I mean to say.
Worldview is a loaded word with different interpretations, so the way I think of it might not be the same that a more fundamentalist organization does. To me it does not mean indoctrination, and it definitely doesn’t mean a revisionist viewpoint. God’s word (right doctrine) can stand up to honest questioning and comparison with other worldviews. I don’t see isolation as the answer, far from it–I have a real beef with oversheltering parents, and have seen that go awry in many different ways. You can’t block out the sinful heart, no matter how high you build the wall. Christ said it’s not what goes into a person, “but what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.” (Mt. 15:18)
I also completely believe only the Holy Spirit has power to sanctify my children and keep their hearts loving Him. Our passion for the Lord can be caught, but not taught. Spending time discipling our children, loving them, being authentic and transparent about our faith and our flaws has got to be the best way to do this.
We’ve had our kids in public, private, and homeschool. Our belief is that the Lord directs parents individually, depending on the child and the situation. I can’t be dogmatic about saying public school is wrong–our son got an excellent education in public high school (after 4 yrs. of homeschool), great academic opportunities which helped him toward his already blossoming career. He made great friends (students and teachers), and with some started a Bible study still going years later. I would say he thrived, and not sure how we would have done it differently. But he still battles porn addiction and went through some rough spots at college before returning to a steady faith. We wish we would have been more proactive and observant in discipling him, and maybe we would have caught it sooner or even helped prevent it had we given him a proper worldview of biblical sexuality and helped prepare him for the onslaught on the internet.
It’s not a matter of “Don’t do that” or even “Do this,” but “‘That’ is the worldview–humanism, hedonism, nihilism–behind what you are going to be seeing in TV, movies, etc., and ‘this’ is what God’s Word says about it,” so they will be able to recognize and deal with temptations using God’s truth. Otherwise, that shiny apple will always look really good.
April 12, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Karen, I do understand what you are saying, and I am not accusing you of excessive sheltering. I do think we should be cautious who we put in the position of mentoring our children, although I’m open to having less structured learning opportunities for them and making sure parents stay involved, not blithely trusting that they won’t be absorbing any other worldviews.
April 12, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Thanks for the diversion, emr. Great article containing all the usual patrio buzzwords: patriarch, dominion, vision, and maybe a new one: slaughter?
Kathy, I sincerely hope you return here soon. You have a lot of good stuff to add to our discussions.
April 12, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Forgot to add… MORE Titanic references? Really, patrios?
What is it with that particular fixation, anyway? A insatiable need to prove their manhood? Are they that insecure?
A REAL man has nothing to prove. Besides, they’re too busy helping their wives wash the dinner dishes after getting the kids to bed to spend time fantasizing and pontificating about how honorable they’d react to a 1912 disaster they’ll never ever personally encounter.
Let it go, boys.
April 12, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Two families we began doing homeschool co-ops with come to mind, both of them very loving and desirous that their kids continue to follow in the faith. Both families had homeschooling and their kids as a priority, made it interesting and fun, both were involved with other families, kids, and church.
Family 1 went to a more “relational” church and youth group, read Christian books but were less strict about knowing doctrine, put their kids in public school from junior high on, partly out of economic necessity. They love their kids, but the family was a little child-centered in discipline (more relational and less respect).
Family 2 went to a church known for doctrine (studying the Word, NOT fundamentalism), had more rigor in academics and in examining and memorizing the Bible, a very active and fun family, but in a “disciplined” way. Their kids were involved in extracurricular activities with public schoolers, went to college with Running Start (as jrs. and srs. in high school). Not isolationist in any way, but they made sure their kids had biblical worldviews by examining the Word alongside other viewpoints.
Ten years later, Family 1′s children have fallen away from the faith, have little desire to know the Lord or go to church. Their daughter is seeking success in the secular (military) world and doing fairly well, the son had one short, failed marriage, no college education, lives at home and struggles to have a job. The children and parents are distant from each other. I hurt for the kids and for their parents, who also flounder in their faith.
Family 2′s children are well-adjusted young adults who have chosen godly mates, reach out to share Jesus with others, have fun and work hard. They may not make a lot in their secular jobs, but they’re content, serving in their churches, loving God, their parents, and life. The parents have adopted other foster kids and plan to keep homeschooling for years, raising them with loving discipline and teaching them in the ways of the Lord.
Children and families can’t be compared exactly since there are so many variables, but the difference here is striking. Discipline and doctrine are not dirty words! I would caution parents reacting against Michael Pearl and fundamentalism (not saying any here are doing so) not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If I can add one more axiom, I would say, “If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.”
April 13, 2010 at 8:50 am
Debbie from CA: Great observations. I think we’ve talked about the Titanic thing here before, haven’t we? Because what I recall from reading about the behavior on the Titanic is that it was more about the RICH getting in the boats and the poor being left behind, and that says a lot about the priorities of the people on that boat. I don’t know which class the patrios would fall into, but I assume that what they’re really saying is “I would sacrifice myself for others.” Which, in the real world, they haven’t really done, so why would I believe they would do it on the Titanic?
On the slaughtering thing, I’m not really bothered by the photos, they’re no more graphic than stuff I’ve seen on TV (I like the show Bones, if that’s any indication), but I would probably be bothered by it in person, and that’s just because I don’t like copious amounts of blood. But it’s nothing that millions of people around the world throughout history haven’t done or seen, so I don’t understand why they have to make such a big deal out of it.
April 13, 2010 at 9:01 am
“But it’s nothing that millions of people around the world throughout history haven’t done or seen, so I don’t understand why they have to make such a big deal out of it.”
This pretty much sums up so much of the patriocentric discussion as far as I am concerned. It is almost as though they think they invented all these things that have been taught and believed and done for years.
April 13, 2010 at 9:05 am
Kathy, the stories of the two families you shared are ones I could also share over and over again. One of the things John Stonestreet pointed out when I interviewed him about the growing numbers of young people who fall away from the faith is that many, many parents do not have Biblical worldviews and aren’t able to live truth in front of their children.
April 13, 2010 at 9:35 am
And for every fundamentalist family with the “right” worldview that anybody can cite whose children “turned out right”, I could name 10 whose kids didn’t, at least according to their parents’ standards. Same goes with homeschooling vs private schooling vs public schooling. Spanking vs don’t spank. Breastfeeding vs. not. And it goes on and on. With all due respect, while interesting sometimes anecdotally, it really doesn’t prove much.
If I told you that our public-schooled sons, so far, have turned out just great, and we’re very proud of them, but that we have a much more liberal (yeah, I’m gonna use that taboo word – LOL) “worldview” than probably almost anybody here, what would that prove? Absolutely nothing. You would rightly point out any number of variables for which I would have no answer.
One thing I will say – and this is just an anecdotal observation – is that what I am aware of in families who have turned out fine children, is something almost impossible to define – at least I can’t completely articulate it. It has something to do with the atmosphere in the home – something to do with a high level of transparency, honesty, unwillingness to accept anything less than total integrity along with a recognition that people are flawed and we fail and the earth won’t stop turning on its axis if the kid makes a mistake – so high expectations and generous grace. And a highly developed appreciation of humor. And oh, yeah, the willingness to communicate about anything (and I do mean anything
.
April 13, 2010 at 9:48 am
Kathy said: “Family 2 went to a church known for doctrine (studying the Word, NOT fundamentalism),”
Savannah said: “And for every fundamentalist family with the “right” worldview that anybody can cite whose children “turned out right”, I could name 10 whose kids didn’t, at least according to their parents’ standards.”
There is a communication break down here. Having certain standards in your home does not mean being a “fundamentalist” nor does it equate with “isolationism.”
April 13, 2010 at 9:52 am
EMR,
Great article! Wow, no kidding about “taking ourselves too seriously”!
“These little girls will enjoy many yummy chicken dinners because their daddy played the part of a man by spilling some blood on his hands in exercise of dominion and provision.”
Pluuueeeese! For centuries women have been the ones slaughtering chickens in order to serve dinner to their families. Are they really so ignorant of the real world and of the real work of women throughout the ages???? Or are they so stuck in their Victorian time-warp that they can’t fathom that women have been “playing the part of a man by spilling some blood on (her) hands in exercise of dominion and provision” for thousands of years!
It is not “playing the part of a man” to slaughter a chicken. Give me a break.
I can only wonder, after reading this article, if many of the patriarchalists’ manhood is lacking/suffering and that is why they have to make so much ado about nothing.
April 13, 2010 at 10:17 am
Arabella,
Good news about your husband and your mother! Wow! She is still working and 82 years old? That is fantastic!
About treatment of ppd for women in the patriarchal/quiverful movement? I don’t really know. I think it is varied. I have heard pro and cons concerning this. Some are very militant and say it is a spiritual condition, some are very pro-medication.
But, I think of Andrea Yates and I think we can learn a lot from her situation and how skewed religious views, imho, make her condition much, much worse. Why would her husband keep on getting her pregnant if she suffered so much from psychotic episodes after the birth of her children? They grew worse and worse but the children kept on coming. Andrea’s mental well-being was much more important than holding to some “quiverful” dogma.
April 13, 2010 at 10:28 am
I didn’t say that certain standards equals being a fundamentalist, although I think it is safe to presume that being a fundamentalist Christian does equal having certain standards, no? Most functional families have certain standards, but of course, that does not mean they are fundamentalist. And incidentally, I was not using fundamentalist in any sort of negative way – don’t fundamentalist Christian families still identify as that? I see churches all over town who proudly proclaim it.
And I don’t see where I said anything about being an isolationist.
April 13, 2010 at 10:32 am
The fundamentalist thing skews the whole point I was trying to make. Remove the word “fundamentalist” from my prior post, and the point remains, as the word was unncessary and not relevant to the point. My apologies.
April 13, 2010 at 10:40 am
I specifically stressed the issue is NOT fundamentalism vs. liberalism, and yet it seems to be assumed that anyone who is not liberal is fundamental in doctrine. There is a HUGE difference! I lifted a few quotes from a blog by a Reformed Fundamentalist to try to explain the difference between an exegetical church and a fundamental one. Hope this helps.
“Often in fundamentalism, doctrine and Biblical exegesis are downplayed, ignored, or avoided. Topical or shallow messages prevail. Church members learn their do’s & don’ts but not what the Bible actually says (the arguments Biblical authors use, the context of favorite proof texts, or Bible doctrines in general). While fundamentalists claim to be standing on the Bible alone, rare is the church that actually opens itself up to Biblical scrutiny.”
“Fundamentalists assume that their practices, standards, and positions are Biblical to the point of reading into the Bible what is not there to support their traditions and viewpoints. In the vacuum of solid Biblical exegesis, ignorance and faulty reasoning/logic prevail. In short, while fundamentalists claim to be the stalwart defenders of true doctrine, they are in fact the defenders of old-fashioned (actually late 1800’s early 1900’s) tradition.”
In music, dress, externals, you would not be able to say Family 2′s church is fundamentalist. Some people dress in jeans and lift up hands with (God-centered) praise music. Many women are SAHMs, but some work outside the home. There is a youth group and Sunday school. Churched and unchurched are reached out to and loved. You would see most people bringing their Bibles (and it is NOT the KJV that is preached) because they have a high view of God and of His Word (yes, this would mean inerrancy). The sermon would probably be 45 mins. to an hour, because they love digging into God’s Word, not for head knowledge or for pride, but because man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Then they take it out into their everyday world and try to live it out as best as they can daily. (If this blares “hypocrisy” or “fundamentalist” to you, perhaps you need to examine what is causing your preconceptions.)
“Standards” are not what it is all about, but how do we as individuals and families best please God and glorify Him, because we love Him and are eternally grateful for His grace and mercy!
#311-Savannah, I TOTALLY agree with your description of what a successful family life looks like–totally! However, I STILL think knowing and having a biblical worldview is vital! Hope some of the readers will explore resources on this further, rather than relying on posters’ assumptions and definitions of what a biblical worldview is.
April 13, 2010 at 10:42 am
Sorry, didn’t stop my quotes in italics, which should cease from the 4th paragraph on…
April 13, 2010 at 11:02 am
Thanks to emr
for the chicken killing link. It was embarrassing to read.
I’ve killed chickens too but never thought to turn it into a weird theological lesson. Maybe it takes a man to do that.
April 13, 2010 at 11:20 am
Shadowspring wrote:
“My grandma slaughtered chickens. :p”
Yes, but did she take dominion over them? LOL
April 13, 2010 at 11:27 am
I thought I had already conceded that fundamentalism didn’t have anything to do with it, and wasn’t really relevant to my point. I apologized for using the word. I didn’t realize it had such a negative connotation. I am not a fundamentalist, but I was one for years, and I wasn’t aware that it was a slight. I was just using it as shorthand to describe a narrow (again, not in a bad way) Biblical worldview.
We can talk about a Biblical worldview all day long, but the reality is that we may have very different ideas of what that is. Some people would say I lack a Biblical worldview because I am not a young earth creationist, or because I am not a dispensationalist, or any number of things. We will agree on the essential tenets of the faith (which I think the Apostle’s creed encapsulates nicely), but will disagree on many other things.
So when anyone says “Biblical worldview”, I have to think, “Whose interpretation?” While one worldview has been detailed above, there many others.
It is not my intent to argue over this minutia, but I just get my hackles up when I hear what strikes me as “formulas” for Christian living or raising children or whatever the topic. I probably should go and do something else now.
April 13, 2010 at 11:33 am
Corrie said: “It is not “playing the part of a man” to slaughter a chicken. Give me a break.”
I picked up on something else while re-reading this. With the patrios, it’s all about “playing the part,” isn’t it? Costumes included!
Think about it–
Civil War: Bayonets and Union uniforms
Victorian: Jane Austen-worthy tights and vests
William Wallace Warrior: Compensating swords
Patriarch: Fedora hats and hatchets to slaughter chickens
Titanic sacrificer: (I need some help with this one, friends. Too early out here on the west coast to get real creative just yet.)
April 13, 2010 at 11:42 am
“Pluuueeeese! For centuries women have been the ones slaughtering chickens in order to serve dinner to their families. Are they really so ignorant of the real world and of the real work of women throughout the ages????”
So true, Corrie. My mother-in-law, who grew up on a farm in the 1930′s, tells a hilarious story about the first time she had to chop off a chicken’s head, pluck it, and cook it for lunch while the rest of the family picked cotton. She was NINE years old at the time!!
April 13, 2010 at 1:00 pm
“I’ve killed chickens too but never thought to turn it into a weird theological lesson. Maybe it takes a man to do that.”
Anne2,
LOL! Maybe.
Kay,
I played the part of a man and slaughtered my first chicken when I was about 8 or 9.
How women who have dairy farms, grow up on them and have to castrate bulls?
These patrio guys do NOT live in reality. Debbie hit the nail on the head. They are all playing some part in a cheesy Patrio-drama made for Lifetime TV.
April 13, 2010 at 1:17 pm
That should be “How many women who live on dairy farms, grow up on them, end up having to castrate bulls?”
The answer is MANY! I grew up in the heart of Dairyland and let me tell you that those women and my female friends who lived on Dairy farms castrated bulls and MORE.
These patrio men wouldn’t know hard work, blood, sweat and sacrifice if it hit them between the eyes, imho.
And, as far as their assertion that only men make sacrifices in “building cottages”, have they have done any reading concerning the settlers who went West? The women worked as hard as the men and the women had to constantly defend their flesh and blood, often times they were left alone for months at a time to hold down the “fort” while the men went off to get supplies or make money somewhere else.
April 13, 2010 at 1:50 pm
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/03/28/john-piper-takes-leave-of-ministry-to-work-on-his-marriage/#comments
Anyone see this?
I hope that this means some introspection for ALL of the teachers of complementarianism and how their doctrine affects their lives and the lives of others who have to live under their teachings.
April 13, 2010 at 2:15 pm
“Ten years later, Family 1’s children have fallen away from the faith, have little desire to know the Lord or go to church. Their daughter is seeking success in the secular (military) world and doing fairly well”
Are you making a connection between “little desire to know the Lord or go to church” and women in the military? I am unsure of exactly what you are trying to say here.
April 13, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Corrie,
Yep, a country boy can survive, and so can a country girl! =)
As a proud granddaughter of pioneer homesteaders, you are right on.
Women worked right beside men, pregnant and nursing sometimes! My grandma was out helping my grandfather on the farm the day her firstborn came into the world, not because my grandfather was cruel, but because it was imperative!
I hate that story, but I am proud of my grandma. I hate that life was so hard for them, that they worked so hard every day, only to lose the farm in the depression.
And after they lost the farm? According to relatives, my grandfather was so depressed he just sat on the porch in shock while grandma and the kids sharecropped.
I don’t know how long my grandfather was out of it or even if that part of the story is true, since that little tidbit I have only heard from one person. But the fact that grandma was out helping with the farm the day she gave birth I know is true. I have heard that from several sources.
April 13, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Speaking of Biblical worldview, Kevin Swanson just interviewed James McDonald about the upcoming “worldview” conference that will be held in my area this weekend. Interestingly, as Kevin talked about those things that are symptoms of Christians that do not have a Biblical worldview, he mentioned those who send daughters to college.
http://www.generationswithvision.com/Broadcasts/17595
It will be interesting to see if this plays in Peoria.
April 13, 2010 at 7:35 pm
#327-shadowspring, I was making no connections between women who serve in the military and having a love for the Lord–I know they can do both. Trying to condense my ideas while late at night probably led to some disjointed thoughts.
Family 1′s daughter did get a college degree and is actually quite successful in the service, I think. She has always been a motivated worker, and that is great. I don’t have a problem with women in the military–I would have a hard time sending my daughter into combat, but I’m sure some here have. Our family has been blessed not to have to face that issue directly.
I was merely trying to make the point that the daughter seems to be on an ambitious path to success in the secular world without caring a whit about pursuing the Lord. Hope that is more clear.
April 13, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Re: 328, 329
In the 50′s, a Christian woman who worked for my mother on the farm, came up to her at noon and said, “I’m sorry, I won’t be able to work this afternoon, my baby is being born.” They had been bent over all morning cutting asparagus.
My mother drove her home, she had the baby and came back a day later with the newborn. She had eight children with the alcoholic husband/father who couldn’t keep food on the table.
Of her children, I know for certain that all the girls went on to university although some of the boys ended up like their father in addiction.
And now I read about a Swanson interview about MacDonald’s Biblical Worldview conference. I can’t help but think these men are missing the mark of their calling. It’s about the gospel of Christ – bringing Christ to the world – it’s not about bad Christians who stupidly, foolishly, blindly, whatever, however, somehow though, manage to send their women to university.
I can hardly stand listening to Swansteria. Is it transcribed somewhere?
April 13, 2010 at 11:21 pm
“These little girls will enjoy many yummy chicken dinners because their daddy played the part of a man by spilling some blood on his hands in exercise of dominion and provision.”
And just who took the feathers off, cut it up and cooked the chicken? These people act like city boys with arrested developmental issues discovering the country for the first time. Give me a break. I can guarantee my godly grandfather did not consider or have on his mind dominion when he killed the chicken for dinner. He had dinner for him and his family on his mind.
April 14, 2010 at 7:39 am
Thanks for clarifying, Kathy.
Actually, women are not allowed in combat roles in today’s military, though women in the military are arguing for this opportunity.
It’s one of the few things my older sister (currently church secretary, web developer/admin and retired Lt. Col US Army) and I disagree about. She thinks women who want to serve in combat should be able, but I see that as leading to an imperative that women serve in combat. After all, men don’t have a choice!
The last time we heard about a woman wounded in Iraq, it was because the supply truck she was on was ambushed. She was not serving in a combat role.
April 14, 2010 at 10:54 am
shadowspring, I should have known that. As I said, we’ve not had to think much about military service. I’m very thankful for the men and women who help protect our country, believe they deserve more respect and help than they are getting for all they do.
I should say that, although I’m glad women can enjoy some career and educational opportunities in the military, I don’t think they should be sleeping in the same quarters as men (I don’t like co-ed college dorms, either), and I still cringe when a mom is called up to duty and has to leave her children, particularly young ones. I think that is full disclosure for me…
April 14, 2010 at 10:03 pm
http://shadowspring-lovelearningliberty.blogspot.com/2010/04/poison-for-my-marriage.html
Great post on shadowspring’s blog about being honest in our marriages.
“First and foremost, my husband and I are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. This is who we were when we met, and who we still are. That relationship will never change, and trumps every other relationship we will ever have.”
Yes! Thank you!
April 14, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Mary,
“These people act like city boys with arrested developmental issues discovering the country for the first time. ”
LOL!
April 15, 2010 at 8:08 am
Kathy,
re:moms in the military
That’s something I respect very much about my sister. She made a self-assessment about her probable abilities to lovingly mother, and (rightly, imho) decided against it. She didn’t marry until late 20s and then became a step-mother, the weekend and short vacations kind. She is a great step-mom.
And she was an awesome officer. She cared very much for the troops under her command and care (she was medical) and was a tireless advocate on their behalf.
And now I am sure she shows the same professionalism and care for the clients of her web design business and the people in her church whom she serves in the office as receptionist/secretary.
I am very proud of my sister. =) Her husband and her horses like her too.
April 15, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Something a little unusual, but it goes along with the child abuse issue we’ve talked about.
http://www.secular.org/node/241
quick personal interjection: How can Christians let the secular world get the corner on the “protecting human dignity” market? We should really be making that a priority.
April 16, 2010 at 12:42 am
Hello ladies;
I was hoping you could shed some light on something for me.
I attend a large (borderline) AoG church; my college-age group is currently doing a series on marriage/purity/relationships et al. The phrase “priest, prophet and king” in reference to the man’s role in the home has been thrown around a lot recently. To me this smacks both of patriocentrism (sp?) and at least borderline idolatry. I feel like this has been discussed on one of these threads before, and I was hoping a few of you could possibly give me some insight on the origins of this phrase (if there are any) and maybe reflections on it.
Thanks so much!
April 16, 2010 at 6:35 am
Catherine, we have discussed it on this blog but I am not certain on which thread. It is definitely one of the catch phrases within patriocentrism and it IS idolatry to assign those offices to any: man a father, a husband, a pastor, or a priest.
Jesus is the only one who fulfills these offices. Google the phrase “Jesus as prophet, priest, and king” and you will get many commentaries. ( I had previously posted one but see Virginia’s comment below. It was from a cult…sorry I didn’t reserch it! Just be careful and do a better job of looking at the sources than I did!!!)
Note: the Roman Catholic Church also states that this is the role of their priests after the manner of Christ. However, Hebrews 10:1-14 says this:
“1For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5Consequently, when Christa came into the world, he said,
“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”
8When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”
I am not certain exactly where the idea first came from to call fathers or men by this phrase within the patriocentric circles but know it is used by Phil Lancaster, one of the authors of the Tenets of Patriarchy and by Voddie Baucham.
In contrast, this is what the Bible says about the notion of priesthood now that Christ has come in 1 Peter 2:
“4As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
7So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”a
8and
“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
9But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
11Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.”
Hope this helps, Catherine!
April 16, 2010 at 6:46 am
One more thing:
If someone is going to say that fathers or husbands or men serve in the role of prophet, priest, and king, they have to say the same thing about mothers and wives and women. A prophet proclaims the Gospel, the priest petitions God on behalf of others, and a king is a ruler over some domain and executes the law.
All believers are called to do these three things:
Prophet: Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Priest: James 5:16 “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.”
King: Proverbs 1:8 “My son, hear the instruction of your father, and forsake not the law of your mother.” AND “Romans 15:14:
“And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.”
April 16, 2010 at 6:48 am
If you don’t have your copy already, get it today!!!!
What’s With Paul and Women by John Zens
(forward by Wade Burleson)
http://www.jonzens.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=288&CLSN_2419=12673867292419412f61b9d7a6d2c97e
April 16, 2010 at 8:19 am
Mine just came in the mail, but I haven’t had time to start in on it yet. I’m on my way to a play “Assasins” with my son this morning. Maybe this afternoon I can begin to read What’s With Paul and Women. I am hoping to be both enlightened and encouraged.
April 16, 2010 at 9:46 am
OOohhh, didn’t do enough research. Virginia tried to post this but the wordpress stuff was goofy so I am posting for her.
Thanks for being so alert, Virginia!!!
Karen, the Prophet Priest and King link you provided is from the Christadelphians, who are a cult that denies the trinity and claims that Jesus had a fallen nature and needed to die in order to save himself. I know you are not endorsing them — but just providing a link on the subject that popped up on Google or something. But I thought I’d let you know anyway.
This is from one of their own pages:
http://www.bereanchristadelphian.com/FirstPrn/index.htm
Here are two links with more info on them:
http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=134&Itemid=8
http://www.carm.org/christadelphianism
Virginia Knowles
http://www.VirginiaKnowles.blogspot.com
April 16, 2010 at 7:11 pm
I was wondering about that, Karen; glad Virginia got to it. And thank you for that insight.
April 16, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Well, a small chunk of my afternoon was spent going back and forth on Facebook with our youth pastor over the nature of the grace of God after he quoted snippets of John Piper from thea T4G conference this week.
“We sin every time we repent for sinning.”
~ and ~
“Don’t trust in the work of God in you. Don’t trust in the fruit of the Spirit. Trust in the righteousness of Christ.”
Huh? Uh, those may be sound bites out of context, but these quotes rather strain his credibility with me.
April 17, 2010 at 9:26 am
“We sin every time we repent for sinning.”
Huh? sounds like eastern mysticism: lofty sounding contradicitons when you do not know, then you will understand .
Did he come up with this confusion on his own or is he quoting John Piper?
Second quote: anyone who is going to contradict Scripture, blatantly separating fruit and actual experience of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit from doctrinal position is SCARY!
My guess, a lack of fruit in the speaker’s life coupled with no current evidence of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit producing that fruit has rightly become a concern to that person. Yet instead of earnestly seeking the Lord in prayer, to find out what beam in his eye is clouding his vision of Jesus, the speaker is turning to pat reassurance of doctrine to convince himself that all is right in his life EVEN THOUGH he has no joy, feels no love, is not currently experiencing the peace that passes all understanding, etc.
I feel that many older Christians in my life lived and taught this falsehood. When their vital connection to Christ, the daily love for Him expressed in heartfelt worship and prayer became clouded, they simply replaced it with perfunctory prayer and technically superior choir performance- all the while ridiculing those with the vital connection obvious in radiant faces and loving hearts as “foolish” and “emotional”.
The perjorative “emotionalism” was usually preceded by the adjective “mere” as if lives completely devoid of the fruit of the Spirit but doctrinally sound were true Christianity. The “emotional” people with all their joy were scorned as less than.
I love that Cynthia Kunsman points out on her website that scripture identifies false teachers far more frequently by their LACK OF GODLY FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT than by their false teachings.
Many, many, many Christians live this way, so it is not surprising that your youth pastor would come out and say it in black and white. After all, he is young and hasn’t fine-tuned the subtle art of spiritual abuse. He is still learning it from the older pastors/teachers in his life.
May God have mercy on the church in America, and bless those who persevere in vital connection to Christ in all places, including our country!
April 17, 2010 at 9:39 am
“We sin every time we repent for sinning.”
~ and ~
“Don’t trust in the work of God in you. Don’t trust in the fruit of the Spirit. Trust in the righteousness of Christ.”
Well, that first one is just plain weird.
I think I would need to read/hear that second one in context. I read that sentence as meaning that we must place our trust and faith and hope in the finished word of Christ on the cross and not in any of our own good works. i don’t see it saying that we aren’t to have good works or that they aren’t evident, only that we shouldn’t look at them and put any measure in them. I might say it this way “Any good in me is the work of Jesus’ righteousness alone. Any sin is my own doing.”
April 17, 2010 at 11:01 am
The youth pastor explained the first Piper quote this way: “His point is that our motives are always mixed and tainted by sin. Even the good things we try are not perfect… I would recommend a study for all of us of the doctrine of sin and total depravity. If repentance can be done without sinning, it is a work we can do worthy of acceptance, an act we don’t need Christ’s imputed righteousness to make acceptable to God. Sin is not just sinful acts, but missing the mark in general, which we always do (Romans 3). This is what Piper means.”
I can sort of see his point, but I just don’t think it was particularly helpful.
I replied a few times…
“With a focus like this, why get up in the morning? Why do anything? I stand with being completely covered with the blood of Christ, and that my repentence is pleasing to the Lord. He knows our frame. To focus on repentence being tainted is to detract from its inherent beauty. He forgives us, not on the purity of our repentence, but on the purity of his mercy. So I walk in the victory of knowing him, and this gives me the confidence to go do the good things I know he has called me to do (including repentence), not worrying overmuch if they are somehow not good enough. My gifts, my heart, my worship are given in love, and even this feeble human love is gladly received by the very Source of that love. We are “God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved” (Colossians 3:12).”
With all due respect, I spent enough years dwelling on sin and my inherent failure to be good enough, but the real joy and peace came when I started resting on who I am in Christ, in God’s work in me, and in the empowering fruitfulness of the Holy Spirit. It is the intense focus on our sinfulness that has led so many people to become discouraged with life and with church. A focus on the victory of Christ leads to liberty and progress. It is indeed a matter of focus, but that little matter makes all the difference to me and to so many others. I’ve tasted the sweet goodness of God and there’s no way I am going back. I hope to lead some others along with me in the process.”
He wrote in reply:
“I understand what your saying, that some people get condemned focusing on sin. Without disrespecting your means of coming to a place of freshly appreciating grace, I think that the problem is not that we’re too focused on sin, but that we fail to remember that the sin we focus on is condemned, forgiven sin. If I focus on grace to the exclusion of sin, that only works until my depravity shown it’s ugly head again. If I focus on condemned sin, focus on the cross, then sin truly has no power because my acceptance is not contingent on my avoidance of sin. That helps me appreciate grace more than turning my blind eye to sin.”
To which I replied:
“Unfortunately so many people who don’t learn the fresh focus on grace stay mucked in legalism and despair. Please don’t dscount how many there are, and how much of this comes from church atmosphere. That is one major complaint so many have against (our group of) churches, sad to say. I am really hoping this is one thing that will seriously change before more people leave.”
No reply from him after that. He got a lot of people disputing him on this thread — mainly folks from our church.
He is young, in his 20′s. He is in charge of youth ministry.
April 17, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Finished Jon Zen’s book. Very refreshing. I plan on reading during our family read aloud time, and getting my pastor a copy.
Since I am married into a family of Bible translators, you’d think the cultural context of Paul’s letter and the nuances of words would be especially relevant. Maybe I should get my father-in-law a copy too.
April 20, 2010 at 8:29 am
http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/sellingsatan.htm
Interesting article I read this morning, linked from Wade Burleson. I remember Mike Warnke really well and how much respect he had from teenagers during the 1980’s. The fact that all of his “ministry” was based on a lie is interesting. I remember hearing him interviewed on Focus on the Family. It certainly is a guru warning is it not?
April 20, 2010 at 9:23 am
Karen,
I am just stunned by the Mike Warnke story.
Stunned.
“There always seemed to be a story. In college, as in the high school role-playing with Jeff Nesmith, Warnke refused to drop out of character. “He played it to the end,” says Greg. “He never gave up. That was the remarkable thing about him. We’d question him about his stories and he always came up with some half-baked answer. And you couldn’t disprove what he was saying—that was the common thread. It was never anything we were likely to have the real answer for or the time to check into. So he could say anything he wanted.”
Warnke’s refusal to admit to his own storytelling made him untrustworthy in the eyes of some members of the group. “I didn’t know anything about his past, so I didn’t know what was true and what wasn’t,” says Dawn. “I didn’t feel like he was sincere in anything he did. If the situation required him to be macho, he was macho. If it required him to be mean, he was mean. He just sort of blended into the situation and tried to monopolize everyone. There was nothing real about him.””
and
“Dr. LaHaye sums up, “His type of personality tells stories for effect, not for accuracy.””
Yep. I know this type, too. And they will do everything to shut a discerning person up…the person who dares to bother to ask questions because the stories just don’t line up.
April 20, 2010 at 9:47 am
“oxanne Miller’s opinion had less to do with the High Church trappings than with an event where Mike’s ritual got in the way of a few friends’ prayer time. “We used to go down to the park for lunch,” Roxanne recalls.[142] “Dot, Jan, myself, a few others . . . and we’d just talk about what God had done in our lives. What He still was doing. Mike was usually out of town, but one day he just showed up and said, ‘I’m gonna do the teaching this week.’ So we sang, and then Mike put on his robes. I thought he was plain ridiculous. It was like dressing up to be something you’re not. It made me feel sad. He wants to be so much, and he isn’t. I can still see him standing there in his robe, all velvet and dark.””
and
“To Mike, and all others, who have been tempted to sacrifice the truth for the sake of “the ministry,” we can offer no better words than these of the apostle Paul:
Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we do not lose heart, but we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Cor. 4:1-2)”
It is interesting how he slandered his ex-wives and accused them of having affairs in order to get public sympathy.
April 20, 2010 at 11:59 am
Corrie, great insights.
What I found so interesting about Warnke was that he spun such fabulous tales, not just simple lies. Perhaps the most dramatic and fantastical a story, the public is more willing to believe it. Anyway, there was do date on that article so I am curious when it was published and what Warnke is doing now.
April 20, 2010 at 12:00 pm
“It is interesting how he slandered his ex-wives and accused them of having affairs in order to get public sympathy.”
The point was made by one of the wives that the public wouldn’t accept a divorced Christian celebrity unless the spouse had committed adultery so obviously that was the reason he had to do this.
April 20, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Just googled Warnke and found out that
Cornerstone article was written in 1991-92.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Warnke
Here is a link to his blog and current ministry:
http://www.mikewarnke.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=37&Itemid=75
April 20, 2010 at 12:45 pm
I’m beginning to hate the word “ministry”.
April 20, 2010 at 2:36 pm
If you go to Warnke’s current link (the one Karen provides above) and click on the “FAQ” button, there’s a link on that page called “Tribunal Board Hearing”.
I read the whole thing and on the surface, Mike’s attitude seems a lot more humble than R.C. Junior’s was at his de-frocking. But with the colossal lies Mike told since the beginning, it sure makes it hard to believe him now.
It’s easier to believe these fakes are sincere when they drop out of site and choose a whole different line of work. The fact that he continues in “ministry” makes me think he’s still trying to sell something and for him to get his credibility back, he has do the ol’ humility song-and-dance.
April 20, 2010 at 4:44 pm
I remember hearing about Mike Warnke in the 70′s — read his book, my brother bought the albums — it’s sad to see how desperate he was to feel important, and how unwilling his friends were to expose the lies.
So, I’m in Numbers and just finished working through Numbers 12, in which Miriam and Aaron are called out by God for criticizing Moses. What I found interesting in this is that gender does not enter into it at all. Miriam is not condemned for speaking as a woman. She is condemned for, as a prophet, complaining about how God chooses to use His servants. God doesn’t deny or refute Miriam and Aaron’s claim that He has “also spoken through us.” (v. 2) God confirms that, “When a prophet of the Lord is among you, I reveal myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams.” (v.6) Miriam has already been acknowledged as a prophetess (Exodus 15:20) so that is how God speaks to her. But Moses is different — he has a special and particular role in God’s plan for the nation of Israel and he has a special and particular relationship with God. “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord.” (v. 8) I don’t see God rebuking Miriam for being out of line as a woman, but as a prophet. In the chapters to come (Numbers 16), there will be men who will also challenge Moses’ and Aaron’s leadership who will be punished far more severely.
April 20, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Not sure where the cool smiley face came from, but that should be v. 8.
April 21, 2010 at 11:18 am
“I’m beginning to hate the word “ministry”.
Ministry has become a legitimizing word used by Christian businesses. Attach “ministry” and we sheep are more apt to follow with our money.
Some of us remember when ministry solely meant the function of ordained preachers giving out God’s Word every Lord’s Day and quietly serving the flock throughout the week.
April 21, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Josef Stalin had a conference of Soviet Leaders at the Kremlin in the mid 1930′s. In a cage at the end of the conference table was a single chicken, and none of the other leaders could imagine the point the eccentric, all powerful Stalin was trying to make.
After keeping his senior leaders waiting for his arrival the “Man of Steel” Stalin had a quick announcement: “Comrades, I am going to give a demonstration of how to treat the Russian People.”
With that, Stalin went to the cage and plucked the bird clean while it was alive. The bird hysterically squealed and squirmed as Stalin plucked its feathers away and let them fall to the floor. He began a tirade of complaints against each of his ministers as he did this which left each man scared to death for his own survival. The leaders could not believe their eyes although none of them were strangers to cruelty, that the bird could long survive this.
Once plucked, Stalin released the bloodied, fear ridden animal, reached into his greatcoat and threw a few kernels of corn on the floor that the bird slowly and quietly ate at the feet of its torturer.
Stalin proceeded to the rest of his demands of his leaders. Frequently he stood and paced as he walked describing which food rations would be cut, the number of people who were to be arrested in his purges, and the instructions how they were to be slaughtered, tortured, or merely sent to Siberia to be worked to death. As he walked, following him closely was the chicken.
The message was clear. Strip people of all health, prosperity, security, humanity and keep them fearful, and they will follow you.
Heard reference to this story over the weekend and then looked for it because it reminded me so much of what happens in homes where parents are so harsh with their children and keep them fearful in order to have their loyalty. Also can apply to churches who are abusive.
Any thoughts?
April 22, 2010 at 3:19 am
Karen, what a sad story that is all too true of authoritarian homes. The smart chickens sense danger and fly away just out of harm’s grasp, while the “obedient” ones are prey to the one who holds them in their hand until they are broken and damaged…
April 22, 2010 at 7:59 am
Promiscuous women are to blame for earthquakes?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/19/iranian-cleric-promiscuous-women-cause-quakes/#discussion-form
April 22, 2010 at 10:42 am
Karen,
The article on earthquakes is priceless!
“”Many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media.”
Uh huh…..
“What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble?” Sedighi asked during a prayer sermon Friday. “There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam’s moral codes.”
Uh huh….
Boy, this sounds awfully familiar. Kind of like when Piper predicted that the tornado struck in Minnesota because the Lutherans weren’t taking a strong enough stance against homosexuality in the church.
Of course, all of our catastrophes are to be blamed on homosexuals and/or women.
Funny how these men never blame these natural disasters on their own corrupt perversity. They blame the women for their own perverse natures and then blame them, again, for “God judging the nation” with a earthquake.
Could it be that God is causing natural disasters because of the fact that men are oppressing women and that these male leaders are filled with corruption and violence and oppression and greed and lust?
Nah! They are not to blame. They are like Teflon. Nothing sticks to them. They would be perfect if it weren’t for those darn women and homosexuals!
April 22, 2010 at 10:46 am
“The message was clear. Strip people of all health, prosperity, security, humanity and keep them fearful, and they will follow you.”
Wow! Especially how this story relates to women and daughters in the homes of patriocentrists.
April 22, 2010 at 10:50 am
“The point was made by one of the wives that the public wouldn’t accept a divorced Christian celebrity unless the spouse had committed adultery so obviously that was the reason he had to do this.”
Karen,
This is true. Somehow adultery is the magic key!
And I have seen this with other Christian leaders. And that is why it is so important to check up on their claims and check in with the spouse that they are slandering publicly and accusing of committing adultery.
Although, you could end up getting slapped with a lawsuit for doing that very thing.
April 22, 2010 at 10:57 am
Karen–yikes. What about promiscuous men? What about men in Islamic (among other) countries who are having sex with young girls and boys and using them as sex slaves? Why are only women to blame?
Not that I believe people are to blame for any natural disasters, nor should we be punished further because one happened to us. Haven’t people suffered enough not to have further guilt and blame placed on them by religious zealots?
I wanted to comment on your Stalin story, too, but I’m still speechless. I guess all I have to say is that it affected my thinking profoundly yesterday, and I was acutely aware of even the small ways that we can manipulate and try to control our children, even if we aren’t being abusive, but we just want a little blind obedience. How tragic that this happens to entire nations. It’s no wonder people in this world are such a mess.
April 22, 2010 at 11:32 am
This quote sounds like a “Christian Patriarch” penned it:
“By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independantly, even in her own house.
In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independant.
Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure (elswhere), or devoid of good qualities, (yet) a husband must be constantly worshiped as a god by a faithful wife.
No sacrifice, no vow, no fast must be performed by a woman apart from her husband; if a wife obeys her husband, she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven.
A faithful wife who desires to dwell after death with her husband, must never do anything that might displeas him who took her hand, whether he be alive or dead.” – The Code of Manu
But, no, it’s actually from one of Hinduism’s sacred texts.
April 22, 2010 at 12:40 pm
“Lust, wrath, greed, pride and all other violent passions form
the sturdy army of infatuation; but among them all the most
formidable and callamitous is woman, illusion incarnate.
Listen sage, the Puranas and Vedas, and the saints declare
that woman is the vernal season to the forest of infatuation,
like the heat of summer, she dries up all the lakes and ponds of prayer and penance and devotional exercises.” – Ramayana
Ramayana is a Sanskrit text and was called the greatest literature in all the world religions by Ghandi. The trope on women as deserts that soak up and dry out male seminal fluid is widespread in non-christian religious literature. I don’t normally have the stomach for reading Eastern religious texts, but this was included in some Christian mission literature.
Here is a quote from a popular Hindu tract by Swami Ramsukhdas:
Question: What should a wife do if her husband beats her and troubles her?
Answer: The wife should thinks she is paying the debt of her previous life and her sins are being destroyed and she is becoming pure. When her parents come to know this they can take her to their own house.
Question: What should she do if her parents don’t take her into their own house?
Answer: She should reap the fruits of her past actions. She should patiently bear the beatings of her husband. By bearing them she will be free from her sins and it is possible that her husband may start loving her. – How to Lead a Household Life
The missionary goes on to say that this is a common theme in most religious literature.
Karen, wouldn’t it be convenient to be an Eastern man so you could simply blame all your sins, problems and natural disasters on women?
April 22, 2010 at 3:17 pm
“They would be perfect if it weren’t for those darn women and homosexuals!”
Priceless, Corrie!
April 23, 2010 at 8:03 am
Karen, the story of Stalin is chilling. Thank you for posting that.
April 24, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Home school moms (and others =),
What is the difference, in your opinion, between education and indoctrination?
What is the difference between milieu control and protection?
And, finally, is it really faith if it is beyond plain clear that it is the only belief system acceptable to choose if one wants to still be accepted and loved by your parents?
This does apply to patriocentricity, but also to the broader spheres of Christian home education and the even broader sphere of Christian parenting, so if Karen thinks it is too vague for this thread, please respond at my blog. I am really interested in other mom’s points of view!
http://shadowspring-lovelearningliberty.blogspot.com/2010/04/milleu-control-in-families.html
April 26, 2010 at 9:42 am
Just finished the new book by John Zens and a video I ordered from him. Wow. Wow.
At one point he quotes a women from the early 1920′s who talks about Satan’s attack on the body of Christ through attacking women. I believe it is the exact thing we are seeing. And it is multi-faceted in patriocentricity:
There is the attack on daughter’s and leaving them without a direct access to God or Christ.
There is the attack on moms, leaving them open to all sorts of false teachings by telling them that, first, they shouldn’t feel like they need their own time in the Word and secondly that men are the ones who have all the answers.
Then there is the attack on moms by telling them that they aren’t qualified to teach their sons which, in reality,becomes an attack on sons,too.
There is the attack on sons by telling them they are bound to fulfill a father’s vision, rendering the working of the Holy Spirit in a young man’s life null and void.
There is the attack on fathers,trying to make them into something that isn’t necessary or even Biblical and giving them the notion that they are the “Lord” by calling them “lord.”
These people talk about the attack on the womb and childbearing but,in reality, their views on treatment for ectopic pregnancy are the real attack on the womb. And their notions that post partum depression isn’t real or is only spiritual is also an attack on motherhood, leaving women guilt ridden and their very lives at risk.
Their views of marriage are an attack on the institution of marriage and also the picture of Christ and the church.
They are not teaching the whole counsel of God and are painting a distorted view of relationships which attacks the whole body.
Their teachings on women and ministry are attacking fully half the body of Christ.
And on top of all that, they are attacking God’s Word by using random passages of Scripture to promote a manmade agenda and are refusing to look at the Scripture from a right perspective, considering the whole counsel of God in the process.
Just getting wound up……..
April 26, 2010 at 9:43 am
Kay, those quotes are chilling. Think about how much today is blamed on “immodestly dressed” women here.
April 26, 2010 at 11:11 am
Darcy is handing out grace this morning.
So refreshing!!!
http://darcysheartstirrings.blogspot.com/2010/04/in-which-i-have-epiphany.html
April 26, 2010 at 4:25 pm
“Kay, those quotes are chilling. Think about how much today is blamed on “immodestly dressed” women here.”
Yes, exactly, Karen. Blaming one’s sin on others is very old game.
Most women were basically covered from head to toe when Jesus addressed this problem.
If a new set of dress code rules would solve the problem, then Jesus would have given one. Why did Jesus say not to look on a woman in order to lust after her? Because the problem is internal, not external.
If “fig leaves” were the answer, God wouldn’t have had to shed blood to cover Adam and Eve. In our choice of clothing or our choice of lusting, we choose to be led by either the flesh or the Spirit.
I often wonder if it has ever occured to them how anyone witnesses to those caught in prostitution, etc… How do the “patriarchs” and those like them, think that the mostly naked tribes of people were ever witnessed to and saved? I think the missionaries who share the Gospel with them were being led by the Spirit and not by the flesh, don’t you?
April 27, 2010 at 8:10 am
Here is another “its all the woman’s fault she was raped” story:
http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/blame_the_victim_religious_leaflet_claims_ungodly_dressed_women_provoke_rap/42253/
This is in old R. C. Sproul Jr.’s neck of the woods, fyi.
April 27, 2010 at 9:14 am
I read the article… the ironic thing is what that the woman who gave the leaflet to that young lady said to her –
““Even though nothing is showing, you’re being ungodly,” Canter recalled the woman telling her. “You make men want to be sinful.””
The fact that a woman can be covered from neck to ankles and guys will
still come on to her, even though she isn’t deliberately encouraging them, just
goes to show that for the most part, the blame SHOULD be placed exactly where
Jesus placed it — entirely on the males.
The plain truth is that men come on to a woman for the same reason that a
rooster comes on to a hen or a bull to a heifer — because she is FEMALE and
they want to have sex. What she looks like or is (or is not wearing) is entirely
secondary to that one, overarching fact.
Now, if a woman’s clothing, or most especially, her DEMEANOR makes her look as
though she might be “available”, most men will be far more inclined to try and
seduce her….. however, there are some fellows who see a modestly dressed lady
as a special challenge, and will single her out for extra attention.
In addition, most normal men find women who dress in skirts (of ANY length!) to
be a far greater “turn on” than women who dress in pants – a woman who dresses
in skirts is declaring her femininity to the entire world, because while both
men and women wear pants, in Western society (outside of Scotland and Ireland),
the general consensus is that only “real women” wear skirts and dresses.
The bottom line is that an unprincipled man who wants a woman will try
to seduce or even rape any postpubescent female that’s available, providing she isn’t
elderly, ill, or downright repulsive (and some fellows don’t even mind
that!), whereas a man of principle will not ALLOW himself to seduce or even
indulge in lustful reveries about a woman, no matter how much his carnal nature
would like to do so.
The historic demand that women hide everything exists because men are too lazy to deal with and repent of
their tendency to lust.
The men, being (rightfully) ashamed of that tendency, transfer their guilt and shame from where it belongs (themselves) to the object of their guilt and shame (all women), and so they cover them up, make them invisible,exclude them from public life and pretend as best that can that women do not exist, except for when they want one for sexual satisfaction or to procreate themselves.
April 27, 2010 at 9:18 am
Christianity pre-fundamental extremism, was a positive influence on society. Both the abolition of slavery, child labor movements, women’s suffrage, original abortion laws, even (misguidedly) The Women’s Temperance League all were strivng to make our world more like God’s kingdom come.
How sad that many, many today have left that righteous calling and are actually working to bring back wicked hierarchies of power that exploit the weak and exonerate wickedness among the power elite (being mostly MEN- as in “men can’t help but rape women, they’re so purty…)
Even the original abortion laws were written to provide relief for young women, raped by powerful men and then forced to endure abortion either to protect the man’s reputation or because she had absolutely no way of providing for herself and her child in our industrial revolution culture. (Thanks to Karen for posting links about this truth. =)
Now the CHURCH is leading the way back to this view of women as made for exploitation and undeserving of the same honor and protection as men.
Ugh. Men/boys get raped too. So whose fault is that?
April 27, 2010 at 11:39 am
“Ugh. Men/boys get raped too. So whose fault is that?”
I guess it’s theirs, for wearing pants and looking provocative.
April 27, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Just opened World Magazine and found a full page add for “Babies Blessing or Burden” sponsored by Vision Forum. Speakers include Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, Doug and Beall Phillips and Dr. R.C. and Denise Sproul. Cost is only $85 or $299 for a family residing in the same household. Biblical answers on Adoption, Birth Control, Fertility, Home Births, Vaccinations, and much more. Just hit me wrong.
April 27, 2010 at 2:02 pm
So, in response to the Iranian cleric who said that immodestly dressed women cause earthquakes, a sassy Purdue student came back with this:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/student+dares+women+bust+Boobquake/2939336/story.html
Not that I’m in favor of “letting it all hang out,” but …
April 27, 2010 at 5:46 pm
I’ve omitted some words in the following passage. See if you can guess what the author is talking about until I reveal it towards the end.
They blame the deterioration … on women’s rights, which allowed women to initiate divorce and destroy the family. They reinforce the … teaching that women need to be controlled … for the protection and preservation of culture and society. To them, … women who bare their legs, arms, hair and make up their faces are bait for sin. And we are not talking about the likes of Britney Spears dancing half naked with a live snake draped on her body. We are talking about any woman who wears shorts and a tank top to go to the grocery store to pick up some milk.
On one occasion, I was speaking at a large gathering … A very nice, friendly woman in her forties stood up and asked me [a question]. I looked at her and paused for a few seconds. She was wearing business attire: a skirt above her knees showing her legs, a short-sleeved shirt baring her arms with a V-neckline that allowed her chest to be visible in a conservative way. Her hair was worn up, revealing her neck, and she wore a beautiful necklace. Knowing that she was a business owner, I looked at her and said: “You are what they despise … You are the example of a beautiful woman, who in their eyes is baring it all for men to see. I can see your legs, your arms, your neck, face, and hair, and your cleavage. … You are the picture-perfect image of an independent woman who can provide for herself and her family without having to depend on a man. You have proven you have a brain and an ability to use it, rendering men irrelevant in your life by your independence.” This female freedom and independence is one of the greatest sins in Islam and is one of devout Muslim purists’ greatest justifications for terrorism against Western societies.
From: They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It by Brigitte Gabriel
Funny, it sounds like Muslims are exporting their brand of patriarchy to Christianity, doesn’t it? The underlying concepts of patriocentricity and Islam are the same. It’s only a question of degree. I omitted the phrase about beating women for the control of society. Here’s more from the same book:
They are repulsed by Western societies that permit … a woman’s right to be a man’s equal. They are repulsed by Western women’s freedom, their dress code, and their independence. The position of women in the West is abhorrent in Islam’s [or Christian patriocentrism's] view and gives fuel to those purists who want to bring Allah’s [or God's] justice to earth and punish those who gave women such freedom and undermined God’s will. Islamists [patriocentrist Christians] use women’s rights in the West [our society] as a rallying point to show that unless stopped, this corruption, headed by the United States, is coming to their Islamic communities [or their US Christian communities and families] and countries.
April 27, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Follow, for a moment, the somewhat-standard assumption that men respond more to visual stimuli while women react more to romance.
Then take that same logic of blaming scantily-clad women for men’s sins. To be consistent, you would have to abolish all romance from society, lest women be tempted.
To remain credible, the patrios need to banish Valentine’s Day, lest any rose-carrying-Romeos walking down the street cause a woman to fall.
April 28, 2010 at 8:38 am
It’s no accident that Muslim modesty is being exported to Western cultures.
Think about it – if you take REAL Christianity (the kind that focuses on Jesus-as-Savior instead of Jesus-as-great-human-teacher) out of the picture, what is the BIGGEST obstacle to a meeting of the minds between moderate Islam and the West?
If they could just get past the problem of uncovered, independent, educated WOMEN, Islamic men and Western men could sit down together in consensus, do business, and MAKE MONEY.
April 28, 2010 at 8:54 am
Light,
You are completely correct in seeing the alliance between patriocentricity in Christianity and in Islam.
More and more, pastors and Christian speakers are not proclaiming the kingdom of God or the person of Christ. They are defaming those they perceive as their enemies: woman who they derisively refer to as feminists, environmentalist who they deride as pantheist, liberals who they villify as liscentious rather than as people wanting to end societal injustice, gays and other hurting souls, who are openly reviled as long as there is the assumption that everyone in the room will agree.
Really, you would have to conclude, reading a fund-raising letter from Concerned Woman for America or the American Family Association, that God called us to hate our enemies and work tirelessly to eradicate their influence in society and completely marginalize them.
You would have to conclude, if that’s all you knew of Christianity, that Jesus was a political activist who taught that the rule of law is the means by which his disciples will change the world.
For years I made excuses for fundamentalists. I rolled my eyes at the dire warnings in newspaper editorials and television opinion pieces. *I* was not trying to force my views on anyone, so I concluded that these “liberal” views were overstated and paranoid.
When the SBC affirmed the “complementarian roles” of men and woman in marriage, I thought what business is that to the secular media? People can live how they want.
Now I know why it is everyone’s business. The church is no longer about sharing the life of Jesus with the world. They want political power to enforce their version of morality, and they have convinced themselves that God called them to live this way.
“Christian” politics appears to be about dominating women, limiting education for children, exalting the historical role of religion in America, forcing their version of morality on our whole society through the rule of law, and generally feeling smug and superior in their Calvinist security.
I am disgusted by my participation in the downfall of the church. I was such a Pollyanna.
April 28, 2010 at 12:27 pm
You are completely correct in seeing the alliance between patriocentricity in Christianity and in Islam.
More and more, pastors and Christian speakers are not proclaiming the kingdom of God or the person of Christ. They are defaming those they perceive as their enemies….
Yes, and in light of THAT, get a load of THIS:
http://trueslant.com/laurieessig/2009/09/15/christian-pastor-issues-fatwa-against-obama/
And THIS:
http://trueslant.com/charlesjohnson/2010/02/10/baptist-pastor-says-he-prayed-murtha-to-death/
April 28, 2010 at 12:49 pm
And here’s more of the same:
Ana Mendez, a former Haitian voodoo priestess turned born-again Third Wave preacher, also seems to be taking personal credit for the deaths of Princess Diana and Mother Theresa:
“Following the ‘Operation Ice Castle’ prayer excursion which included planting a flag for Jesus on Mt. Everest, one of the lead prayer intercessors from the excursion, Ana Mendez, reported that there had been dramatic results including, “millions have come to faith in Asia… and other things happened which I believe are also connected…an earthquake had destroyed the basilica of Assisi, where the Pope had called a meeting of all world religions; a hurricane destroyed the infamous temple ‘Baal-Christ’ in Acapulco, Mexico; the Princes Diana died… and Mother Theresa died in India, one of the most famous advocates of Mary as Co-Redeemer.”
Now, let’s go back about a year and a half, to THIS:
By Bruce Wilson, Printed on September 8, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/97939/
“On June 8, 2008 Palin was publicly blessed, with the “laying on of hands” before six thousand Wasilla area church members, by Head Wasilla Assembly of God Pastor Ed Kalnins and on the same day both Kalnins and Palin described, at a “Masters Commission” ceremony at the Wasilla Assembly of God church, how she had been blessed prior to winning the Alaska governorship by an African cleric known for driving the “spirit of witchcraft” out of a town in Kenya, after which town supposedly crime rates dropped “almost to zero.”
Sarah Palin’s churches are actively involved in a resurgent movement that was declared heretical by the Assemblies of God in 1949. This is the same ‘Spiritual Warfare’ movement that was featured in the award winning movie, “Jesus Camp,” which showed young children being trained to do battle for the Lord. At least three of four of Palin’s churches are involved with major organizations and leaders of this movement, which is referred to as The Third Wave of the Holy Spirit or the New Apostolic Reformation. The movement is training a young “Joel’s Army” to take dominion over the United States and the world.”
“The Third Wave is a revival of the theology of the Latter Rain tent revivals of the 1950s and 1960s led by William Branham and others. It is based on the idea that in the end times there will be an outpouring of supernatural powers on a group of Christians that will take authority over the existing church and the world. The believing Christians of the world will be reorganized under the Fivefold Ministry and the church restructured under the authority of Prophets and Apostles and others anointed by God. The young generation will form “Joel’s Army” to rise up and battle evil and retake the earth for God. While segments of this belief system have been a part of Pentecostalism and charismatic beliefs for decades, the excesses of this movement were declared a heresy in 1949 by the General Council of the Assemblies of God, and again condemned through Resolution 16 in 2000.
The Third Wave, also known as the New Apostolic Reformation, is a network of Apostles, many of them grouped around C. Peter Wagner, founder of the World Prayer Center. This center, which was built in coordination with Ted Haggard and his New Life Church in Colorado Springs, was featured in an article by Jeff Sharlet in Harpers, May 2005, “Soldiers of Christ.”
“Wagner’s top leaders often conduct spiritual warfare campaigns against the demons that block the acceptance of their brand of Christian belief, such as ‘Operation Ice Castle’ in the Himalayas in 1997. Several of their top prophets and generals of intercession spent weeks in intensive prayer to “confront the Queen of Heaven.” This queen is considered by them to be one of the most powerful demons over the earth and is the Great Harlot of Mystery Babylon in Revelation. (The “Great Harlot [or 'whore'] of Mystery Babylon” theme also figures prominently in the sermons of Texas megachurch pastor and Christians United For Israel founder John Hagee, former endorser of John McCain’s 2008 presidential bid.) Wagner and his group also claim that the Queen of Heaven is Diana, the pagan god of the biblical book Ephesians and the god of Mary veneration in the Roman Catholic Church.”
THIS, this violent Christo/Islamic politics-as-religion, is what I was trying to warn everybody here on TW about a year and a half ago, when I got shouted down by Richard Gelinas and Cindy Kunsman , and I left True Womanhood for awhile.
April 28, 2010 at 1:01 pm
You had plenty of company, Shadowspring. For years – even decades – I was right there with you.
No more.
April 29, 2010 at 9:04 am
Has anyone heard of this girl? Reem Al Numery:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1984685_1984949_1985230,00.html
Her story is very interesting, I’m going to look for more info. It’s about child marriage in Yemen.
What stuns me about this is the contrast to here in the U.S. where those Christian groups who are opting out of “legal” marriages are actually circumventing the system and putting their daughters at the same risk.
April 29, 2010 at 9:58 am
from Virginia:
I’ve tried a few times to post this but my computer freezes after I hit the submit button and it never shows up. Could you possibly post it for me?
Ladies, I have been reading the comments about modesty in recent days and I’m a bit perplexed. I know your intention is just to react to legalism and unfair accusations in this area, but it still comes across like you are abandoning the need for any standards in the way we dress. It’s like you are saying that it is a complete myth that the way women dress affects men in the area of temptation and lust. I don’t think you can so easily dismiss that. It does matter how we dress. It does affect them. No, they can’t shift all the blame on us for their own sins, BUT why in the world would you want to dress in a way that causes a brother in Christ to struggle or stumble? Why make it hard for them? If it doesn’t matter, why not order a subscription to the Victoria’s Secret catalog for your teenage sons? I know I am using hyperbole here.
You’re absolutely right that men should not blame rape or earthquakes or the collapse of society on women’s clothing (or the lack of it). But I think it is true that a man is much more likely to make a pass at a girl who is skimpily dressed than at one who is covered decently. We shouldn’t dress in a way that advertises, “I’m cheap! Come get me! Take whatever you want with your eyes, and then if you like what you see, feel free to come get some more of me with the rest of your body!” To claim that you can dress that way and still maintain purity in your sexual actions is like bait-and-switch — you are advertising one thing to the public that you insist to your Christian friends you won’t deliver on.
How we dress speaks about who we are, and whether we respect ourselves or not. If you use your “liberty in Christ” to dress seductively, how does that glorify God? How does that reflect on our faith and purity? We can be attractive, stylish, and modest at the same time. There is no need to be flaunting cleavage or wearing such tight or short clothes that every curve is accentuated. I’m not talking about burquas or even Mennonite or Victorian clothes. A simple outfit of a T-shirt or polo shirt with blue jeans or capris will do quite nicely. Even for dressy clothes, we can be classy and dignified at the same time. Feminine doesn’t have to be floozy.
And it is still the responsibility of the parents to see that their daughters and sons are dressing appropriately for each situation. This is not legalism. It is proper parenting. They need to hear a dad’s perspective on how women’s clothing affects men. They also need mom to set the example and the standards.
Ladies, please assure me that this is so for you! I think somehow in our rush to decry a wrong emphasis on modesty, we’ve not only thrown the baby out with the bathwater, we’ve left her butt naked in the streets, too.
Debbie, about romance and causing young ladies to stumble. We should teach our sons not to romance a young woman if they are just going to play with her feelings, take advantage of her, and not follow through with a REAL relationship of respect. That’s just not fair. And that’s just for one girl. What if a young man is flirtatious to a whole bunch of girls? Is a girl who values integrity and marital fidelity going to trust a guy like this to do right by her? No. And the other girls who aren’t so careful are going to get their hearts broken, feelings hurt or reputations damaged because they are so desperate for attention that they’ll even take it from a notorious ladies’ man. With an immodest girl, it’s even worse, because everyone has to look at what she has on and what it’s not covering. It’s like flirting without even trying to do it with anyone specific. And lots of girls want the attention so they flaunt their goods. It’s all about the package. Otherwise most of the trendy teen clothing stores would be out of business, and so would a lot of teen magazines. I’m really not trying to paint with a broad brush here. I think this is common sense. I personally want to dress in a way that a man of integrity doesn’t need to avert his eyes from me when I walk in the room. Not that he should be staring at my chest, but when he sees that area of my body, I want to be decently clothed enough that he doesn’t need to blush.
Many blessings,
Virginia Knowles
http://www.virginiaknowles.blogspot.com and http://www.comewearymoms.blogspot.com
April 29, 2010 at 10:39 am
Virginia, nobody here was advocating that women go around dressing like hookers – the point being made is that there are many in religious circles who place the WHOLE responsiblity for men lusting on the women.
They start by decrying clothing styles that are obviously meant to seduce men, which is fine, but somehow, no matter how much women cover up, it’s never enough — men are still beset with temptation and the whole thing ends with groups advocating that women cover up everything but their hands and faces, and telling women as the tract-peddler linked to in comment #378 did, “Even though nothing is showing, you’re being ungodly…..You make men want to be sinful.”
The tract peddlar was more right than she knew, because while clothes and demeanor DO affect men, the chief thing that women do that tempts men to lust is to BE FEMALE.
The bottom line is, MEN (if they are normal) ARE DESIGNED TO BE ATTRACTED TO WOMEN, and no matter HOW much women cover up, the fact that they are women will always make them a temptation to men.
This is illustrated by the fact that in countries where women wear burqas, the mere presence of completely covered women is as tempting to men as a gal in a string bikini would be in Western countries.
Thus, while intentionally seductive clothing can lead to temptation, the only real way to fix this problem is to either to eliminate women altogether, or for men to get a handle on their own carnal nature by taking responsibility for it directly, and learning to control it, instead of placing the blame for their sin on other people.
April 29, 2010 at 11:23 am
Recent conversation from my son’s secular speech club aftermath:
Mom hands young lady money for snacks. Yong lady folds money up and sticks it under her bra strap, so that it is partially peeking out of her shirt near her scapula bone.
Jewish teen: Hey (friends name), I like boobs and I like money, and that is REALLY distracting me right now. Could you put your money someplace else.
All laugh. Teen girl takes the folded money and puts it in her pocket.
Teen girl, also laughing: Sure, no problem. Sorry about that.
All the teens move on to other topics and treat each other will respect and comradely affection. There is no lewdness or impropriety among them in any way.
Imagine this at a youth group. The young man would have felt guilty and shame about liking boobs and money and ducked his face OR surreptitiously went off to tell a leader about the “ungodly/immodest” behavior of the young woman. Depending on the group, the leader will either take the young woman aside for a personal moralizing lecture about being immodest, or perhaps throw it in as an example of bad behavior in the next lesson or in an announcement of a new dress code, publicly shaming the young girl in front of all who knew she stuck her money under her bra strap.
I like the way the Jewish boy handled it much better! He took responsibility for his thoughts, asked for help from his female friend in keeping his mind in the right place, no one was shamed, everyone moved on towards a righteous way of relating to one another- no big deal.
What a breath of fresh air!
April 29, 2010 at 11:38 am
Uhmmm. . . I think that most of what I read was in reaction to religious fundamentalists believing that earthquakes are caused by women who dress loosely. There are definitely parallels to be drawn between those fundamentalists and the patriocentric ideas that we discuss regularly in this community.
I can’t imagine the women of this community have suddenly started dressing cheaply or started telling their daughters to dress cheaply. We were simply reacting to the ridiculous-ness of the claim. I don’t know what gave you the impression that we lost sight of the importance of modesty in general.
And while I appreciate your concern, Virginia, as a woman in my late-40′s, I really don’t need a scold in this area, and your post rather comes across like that, speaking for myself only. My idea of modesty may be different than yours, but it is one I have been at peace with for many years.
As the mother of three grown/nearly-grown sons, I have spoken repeatedly and at-length with that about what they will come across out in society, and how different people have different standards (and sometimes no standards), and no matter how a young lady is dressed, it should never be interpreted as an invitation for anything, and how ultimately, only they can truly guard their hearts.
April 29, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Virginia,
At my church, my pastor has been preaching from Galatians since the beginning of the year. The last couple weeks he’s talked about freedom, specifically our freedom in Christ. A couple weeks ago, he mentioned the issue of “women’s clothing” particularly in church. He brought up that *every summer* he gets multiple emails from people that he needs to “tell the women how to dress!” He mentioned this with NO agenda, just to point out that there are things that people *want* to tell others what to do or how to do it “right.” He also mentioned some other things, like telling people how to vote, stuff like that. It was all legalistic stuff, really. People write to him to tell him to tell the whole church *How To Live* because they themselves want/need to be told how to live and can’t think for themselves.
What he told us after this: If you love Jesus, you will know how to dress. If he has changed your heart, you will want to dress respectfully. But if you haven’t had a heart change, no amount of rules is going to compel you to actually *want* to wear more modest clothing, if you don’t in the first place.
I know that most of my clothes don’t fit the strict modesty standards, but I also know when too far is too far. Those are the things I may have for my husband’s eyes only, not to wear in public. I wear clothing that is respectful to others, but our body shape many times can be more of a stumbling block to men than our clothing, and we have absolutely no control over that–God did that. In school, I wore baggy, unflattering clothing because I knew–KNEW–that there were guys in my class who were lustful, and I struggled with the fact that there were girls who were jealous. I didn’t like my body, yet somehow there were people who either liked it, or hated me for it, and it had nothing to do with the clothing I wore. I’m not boasting, because I hated this, really. I hated not being comfortable in normal clothes because I knew what the guys were thinking–they still thought it when I wore the baggy sweaters, because they already knew what my figure looked like underneath. I was incredibly shy, and still struggle in the area of being assertive in person, and if this weren’t the case, I most likely would have had a few choice words for all of those people who cared more about what was under my clothes than what was in my heart.
April 29, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Karen,
That is an appalling story concerning the “Women and Girls” pamphlet handed out by patriarchalist zealots.
The modesty teaching that comes out of this movement boils down to a woman’s body being inherently sinful. Women must hide the very fact that they are women. The very whiff that we have breasts or hips or have different genitalia sends patriocentric men into a seizure because they are created by God to NOT be able to control themselves. Basically, patriocentrists teach that men are pigs and mere dogs who cannot rise above their animalistic natures and this is how God made them. Even our butts are inherently sinful and that is why we shouldn’t wear pants because pants “cup” our butts and our butts cause men to lust. I can’t figure out why a man’s butt isn’t sinful and a point of stumbling in a pair of pants?
The patrios tell me that a woman isn’t turned on by the physique of man! Oh, those poor dears! The sight of a man dressed in a nice pair of form fitting jeans, a t-shirt that tightly hugs his biceps and chest………Well, let’s just say that I could be turned on by the sight of a good looking man. No touching necessary. No romance is needed. I could lust with the best of our brothers just by looking.
But, what does the Bible say? It doesn’t teach that men are animals who are unable to control themselves. It teaches the very OPPOSITE! And, why do we want men in control of society, church and family when they are nothing but animals who are helpless when it comes to the sight of an attractive woman?
Also, Eve was the one who was attracted to the forbidden fruit because she SAW that it was good. It seems there is more Biblical proof that women are drawn into sin by what they see and there is no biblical support to say that men are.
So, men should cover their butts and not wear pants that cup their butts. Because, as I woman and a daughter of Eve, I might be drawn away into temptation because I see the forbidden fruit and I see that it is good.
Maybe we should pass out pamphlets about men who flaunt french fries and brownies and cause women to lust after these fat-filled goodies?
I don’t care how modestly I dress, there is always going to be some religious nut who thinks I am not modest enough. They use religion to cover up their own perverted thoughts and fantasies. I would love to know how many of these modesty zealots are secretly addicted to the nastiest of porn available?
I would have to put a bag over my head and wear a shapeless sack in order to be considered “modest” according to their standards. If men look at me, it must be because I am dressed like a harlot. If I am raped, it was because I was asking for it. After all, I shouldn’t have been wearing those form fitting running pants and running around outside minding my own business! Don’t I know that men just cannot help themselves!
Just ask Abraham’s wife, Sarah, and just ask Rebeccah, her daughter in law. They must have been dressed immodestly to cause men to lust after them so many times! If they would have just covered up Abraham and Isaac wouldn’t have had to lie in order to save their own skin.
Rape is not about sex. It is about power and hatred of women and domination and control.
Lust is about the heart. And the Bible clearly states that getting married takes care of burning with lust. Why don’t they take that verse literally? Why are these men still burning with lust when they are married?
Why didn’t Jesus mention women dressing modestly in order not to tempt men to lust? Wow, He really missed the mark according to the patriocentrist teaching on modesty.
I was recently at a “Woman of Joy” conference in Branson this past weekend and there were two men standing out in front of the conference center with signs that read something like: “Christian Women are Meek, Modest and Silent”. They had both had their dutiful, silent, modestly dressed wives standing behind them, silently supporting their “manly” “leadership”. I asked them if I was modestly dressed, already knowing the answer (I was wearing jeans, heels, t-shirt, jewelry, make-up, etc).
I wanted to free those women from their oppressors and the ungodly yokes that those mere men put upon them, believe me. Their eyes spoke LOUDLY even though they were silent.
And, I do care about modesty. But, like I said, my standards will never be good enough for someone. I will be too modest for some (ie., not allowing bikinis, short shorts ) and too immodest for others (ie., wearing jeans, shorts, etc).
We can NEVER give license to rapists to think that they weren’t anything but 100% responsible for their actions. To place blame on the length of their victim’s skirt is abhorrent and should NEVER even enter into the conversation on rape.
One more thought, does that mean that women who wear swimming suits at the pool are asking to be raped?
April 29, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Virgina, I heartily agree with you that a Christian women we should be wise in how we dress. And there ARE clothes that draw attention to the more sensual body parts that I personally believe we ought not to “advertise.” The problem is that what those are is sometimes debatable. For example, some people do not approve of sleeveless tops for women because they consider the under arm area to be part of the breast. I personally don’t have an issue with sleeveless tops but think that showing cleavage IS showing part of the breast.
As mother of sons (and a husband) I really do hate the lack of clothing that shows up this time of year. I really hate it when someone sits in front of the guys at church wearing a backless dress or one where the straps are cut so far in that it is obvious they aren’t wearing bras. But then, I also think this is interesting…do you know the reason women burned their bras in the 60′s? It wasn’t so they could flaunt bare breasts under their clothing. It was a reaction to those pointy Marilyn Monroe type styles in the 1950′s (remember the era that is so idolized by the patriocentric women?) that all the women wore that made your breasts look like missiles? They didn’t want their breasts to be admired that way or to be thought of as perfectly perky, especially since the primary function of breasts is to nurse babies, which we all know ends the era of perky! Then the opposite extreme is to wear clothing that makes you basically shapeless. So how do we decide what is appropriate? It always comes back to that. I remember that my daughter was at ATI headquarters and was told that nude colored pantyhose caused the young men to think impure thoughts so they could only wear colored stockings. A few years later she was at BJU and told that the ONLY modest stockings were nude, that colored stockings caused the young men to think impure thoughts. So how does a girl win?
I think the goal needs to be to teach our sons how to guard their eyes and encourage them to learn how to look away from things that are immodest since we have absolutely no control whatsoever over what pops out at them. Remember the big push to get all these women to confront stores about having the Sports Illustrated Issues taken out of stores? How are those magazines any different than Cosmo, which is really worse because of all the phrases on the front cover. It seems to me that dealing with the effect is fruitless, that dealing with the cause, ie the heart issues is what needs to be done. I think as long as women are told that men can’t control themselves they are setting themselves up to be sex objects. Maybe some of these ultra conservative women like that? {{{{{shrug}}}}}
I agree that Christian women need to be modest and not cause a brother to stumble, I am just not sure how that is done. Do I stop wearing sandals, for example, because some Christian men have foot fetishes? Should I stop coloring my hair because some men lust after blonde locks? Should I never wear pants because the butt men are lusting? Just not sure how to apply…..
April 29, 2010 at 1:36 pm
One thought about rape:
If rape is the result of immodestly dressed and sexually enticing women, why do I sometimes hear about the rape of 90 year old women or 5 year old little girls?
April 29, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Hi Virginia,
I don’t think anyone is saying that we can dress however we want and that we don’t have any standards whatsoever.
All I know is that I am not going to allow another person’s sin problems to dictate all sorts of standards for me. I will do what I can to a point but where does it end if we allow every person to dictate to us what causes them to lust? Men with foot fetishes- no sandals. Men who like a woman’s neck- hair down. Men who lust after a woman who wears her hair down- hair in bun. Or should we just cover up the hair and neck with a big scarf that hangs down? Men who lust after a woman’s lips and eyes- cover face. We might as well cover up ever bit of skin and make sure that the fact that we have hips, breasts, legs, butt, arms are covered so that any form of them is indistinguishable.
Whose standards should we follow so that we don’t cause a man to lust? Because, the truth is every man is different and what makes one man lust won’t bother another man at all.
Cynthia Gee is correct:
“The bottom line is, MEN (if they are normal) ARE DESIGNED TO BE ATTRACTED TO WOMEN, and no matter HOW much women cover up, the fact that they are women will always make them a temptation to men.”
What causes grown men to lust after little girls? It isn’t the way they dress and there are actually men who do lust after the sweet, modest clothing that girls wear and want grown women to imitate what little girls wear so they can get off.
And why stop at sexual lust? How about lust for money? Shall we all live in double-wide trailers and drive older cars and wear old clothes and never go on vacations or buy anything new in order to keep others from coveting which is a HUGE problem and it is a huge issue in the Bible. Why isn’t a big deal made about how reckless we are when it comes to the possessions we have and how they may cause another person to covet?
Or gluttony? Should we be more careful about what we eat and make sure there are no desserts and church functions. What of all the brothers and sisters who lust after brownies and potato chips? Why are we so reckless about laying bare on banqueting tables all sorts of tempting foods in front of people with no regard for their struggles?
What are the standards for owning possessions and the standards for eating food so that we don’t cause another brother/sister to fall into temptation?
Where else are we causing others to sin in their lives?
Why is it that men and sexual temptation is the only area where we try and control and dominate the target of their lust?
April 29, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Virginia,
I hope that nothing I posted here lead you to believe that I advocate women who purpose in their heart to dress for titulation.
If covering from head to toe would eliminate all sexual sin from the world, I would be the No.1 advocate. But the inconvenient truth is that that is not the source of sexual sin. All we have to do is ask the victims of incest, or child prostitute slaves, or a burqa clad rape victim.
The bottom line is that responsibility for the sin lies squarely on the shoulders of the sinner, in the case of either a man or a woman.
What I see is a need for each adult believer to be led by the Holy Spirit in all aspects of life, including our dress codes. And any time we begin defining what that code is for one another, instead of allowing the Holy Spirit to do that it fails for a host of reasons. The number one reason is because our “insides” dress our outsides.
(“The Pharisee was amazed to see that he did not first wash before dinner. Then the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? So give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you.” Luke 11)
Just for an example, what you mentioned about wearing T-shirts and blue jeans reminds me of my friend who regards that as wrong for her personally. It is her “code” because, she says, that for years she wore that combo with “malice aforethought.” But she’s not telling me that I can’t wear that combination and I’m not telling her she needs to “get over it.” I hope you understand what I’m trying say here.
And I agree, that it is a parent’s responsibility to teach their children what the Holy Spirit has led them to do in the area of dress and decorum with the opposite gender. But again, I must temper that with the fact that the responsibility for the sin lies squarely on the shoulders of the sinner.
Most especially, no child should ever be made to think that they were in any way responsible for their sexual violation.
April 29, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Savannah wrote:
As the mother of three grown/nearly-grown sons, I have spoken repeatedly and at-length with that about what they will come across out in society, and how different people have different standards (and sometimes no standards), and no matter how a young lady is dressed, it should never be interpreted as an invitation for anything, and how ultimately, only they can truly guard their hearts.
Thank you Savannah!
It really is so true that different societies have different standards. Only America makes such a big deal about breasts, as far as I know. Certainly my Brazilian foreign exchange students are far more comfortable with the female form. The Brazilian boys don’t even seem to notice girls, unless they have a stunning face.
I have never seen my foreign exchange student stare lustfully at the girls at the pool in bikinis- except the one who had long dark hair and a beautiful Latina eyes on a gorgeous face.
Maybe she should have worn a veil? It sure wasn’t the bikini that caught his eye, apparently. He is quite used to those.
And what about my husband, growing up in the jungle where woman wore only grass skirts and men tied up their anatomy with a string around the waist? LOL
It’s not the body, it’s the heart of the observer. That’s where the sin resides.
April 29, 2010 at 2:14 pm
“Why is it that men and sexual temptation is the only area where we try and control and dominate the target of their lust?”
The most telling question of them all!
April 29, 2010 at 2:46 pm
“I remember that my daughter …was told that nude colored pantyhose caused the young men to think impure thoughts so they could only wear colored stockings. A few years later she was at BJU and told that the ONLY modest stockings were nude, that colored stockings caused the young men to think impure thoughts. So how does a girl win?”
Well, they could compromise, and wear fishnet stockings… (just kidding!)
April 29, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Corrie, two things here – you wrote,
“Why is it that men and sexual temptation is the only area where we try and control and dominate the target of their lust?”
AND
“Basically, patriocentrists teach that men are pigs and mere dogs who cannot rise above their animalistic natures and this is how God made them. Even our butts are inherently sinful and that is why we shouldn’t wear pants because pants “cup” our butts and our butts cause men to lust.”
The interesting thing here is that most of them ALSO teach that homosexuality is a choice, and that a gay man can be straight if he wants to be.
Now, I agree with that to a point, but if homosexuality really is a choice, and if it is true that men really can’t control their tendency to lust if they see the shape of a butt, hadn’t these guys better start wearing long robes and covering their butts for the sake of their weaker brothers?
After all, lust for a woman is a sin, but lust for another man is an abomination.
April 29, 2010 at 3:44 pm
I heartily agree with Corrie and Karen’s last few post. One more thing I might add: the only Christian women/girls I know who proclaim “I can wear whatever I want, the men just have to deal with it” are girls who have grown up being taught that if they are lusted after it is their fault. They have now gone the opposite direction. When discussing modesty, every other Christian woman I know knows by default that she is responsible to possess her body with honor. Nobody in normal Christian circles has to make any disclaimers when discussing modesty.
April 29, 2010 at 4:49 pm
I think that these articles from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7514567.stm
and the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/19/egypt-sexual-harassment-segregation.
..are very interesting in relation to the argument that if a woman is modestly dressed the men will be able to control themselves.
The study found that although many believed that scantily clad women were most likely to be harassed “…in reality the study concluded the majority of the victims of harassment were modestly dressed women wearing Islamic headscarves”
To me this study highlights a failing in the premise that modest dress will solve the problem of lust and sexual advances between man and woman.
What matters is not what the woman wears necessarily, but both the heart of the man and the woman. Does the woman want to attract sexual attention? Does the man lust after the woman? Yes clothing can affect the attitude of the man no doubt (if we were to stride around in our underwear then we shouldn’t be shocked if we get some unwanted attention). But at the end of the day, God sees what is in the heart of a man – and if the full veiled modestly dressed Egyptian woman can attract unwanted advances from men – what is a woman to do?
Respect and to hold each other, irrespective of gender, in high esteem is what matters.
Here is a quote from the Guardian article:
“There are many reasons behind sexual harassment: poverty, bad education, unemployment, sexual frustration due to the social unacceptance of premarital sex and the difficulty of marriage due to economic reasons and a patriarchal society where women don’t enjoy equal rights just to name a few.
Ahmed Salah, the founder of a campaign called “Respect Yourself”, designed to target sexual harassers, believes that sexual harassment is a form of violence and anger at the current economic and political conditions that men bring against what they perceive as a “weaker” creature.”
Personally I don’t believe that unacceptance of premarital sex is an issue (as I don’t believe that this is right before God) but otherwise I think that the article makes some interesting points.
April 29, 2010 at 6:53 pm
I was wondering, I think there might be mass confusion among serious Christian guys as to what is and isn’t lust. Is it wrong for me, a girl, to notice something I like about another woman’s body? Is it wrong for me to think she has nice hands, for example? Is it wrong for me to like a guy’s eyes? Is it wrong to briefly look at and notice, but then look away from, a more “private” area?
I don’t think, personally, that the above examples are wrong, but I have a feeling that the guys in my family feel that they cannot “notice” anything about a woman’s private areas. Thus, it really is a big deal to have her be super modest, because otherwise your eyes are going to eventually land on something by accident. What are your definitions of lust vs. OK glancing?
I know my parents have defined the difference between lust and not lust quite a few times over the years, but I’m not sure it was enough to balance out the whole Do Not Look! message coming from all over.
April 29, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Phew! I think we’re on the same page after all then, at least from my point of view. No, I am not a fundie. I too hate legalism, and that “Women and Girls” story about the modesty tract was really distressing. To give that to someone in public? Youch! Is that what we’re going to be known for by association? I think it is up to the girl and her mom to determine what’s right, though there can be a place for a friend or a sister offering some input, especially if things seem unseemly. A friend who is on a worship team at a local church has had to say something to young vocalists who weren’t aware how much shows when they wore short skirts up on the stage where the angle of vision is different from the audience, if you know what I mean. She’s had moms snap at her for this. I think she had to say what she said, and it’s a shame the moms took offense without considering her words. She’s NOT a legalist at all and she hated to have to even bring it up. I think that sometimes Christian girls do need to be reminded once in a while — they aren’t always aware of how something comes across. Yes, it’s a heart issue, and that’s the main thing, but sometimes there are loose end pragmatics to be addressed, too.
I have a sort of funny story. We went to the beach as a family recently, and I was razzing one of my teens about her swim top after she took off her t-shirt because it was pretty low cut. But later, when I saw the pictures my son had snapped of ME, I was shocked and started hitting the delete button on the photo files really fast. Apparently the straps on my swim suit have lost their elasticity and stretched out, and I was really showing much much MUCH more than was decent. Before I wore the suit again, I had to hitch up the straps a few inches with a needle and thread. It’s only funny now because we didn’t see anyone we knew and weren’t too close to anyone else on the beach.
I am much more relaxed about warddrobe than I used to be. I went through about 4 years where I only wore dresses and skirts because I had been visiting Teri Maxwell’s Titus 2 Mom’s web board. I stopped that about 6 years ago and generally wear what I want — basically modest stuff.
Thanks for clarifying your views for me! I love this board. This one thing had been bothering me, though. I figured if it came across that way to me, how much more so would it appear to someone who was new to the board and didn’t know any of you at all. It sort of shoots credibility if you go too far in the other direction when you are reacting to something. So thanks for balancing it out again.
Shadowspring, I loved your story about the Jewish boy speaking up. That’s normal life.
April 29, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Do you guys remember that modesty survey that Gregg Harris’ boys took? I was thinking about that as I read through all our comments. As I recall, many bloggers have used those results to instruct young ladies on modesty and I also seem to remember that the standards were pretty strident; a larger than you would expect number of those polled thought pants were immodest. It made me wonder which came first, the chicken or the egg. Did the guys think these things were immodest because they were raised in homes where they were taught they were immodest or vice versa?
Virginia, your funny story reminds me of something that happened to me a couple years ago. I was driving in my van with two of my sons and we were snacking on some sort of peanut granola. I dropped my bag on the floor under my feet while driving and really didn’t want it to all get ground up into the carpet so I pulled over along the road to clean it up. I was wearing a long flowing skirt and a t-shirt with a jean jacket. As I was bending over and sweeping up the mess, a pick up truck slowed down, barely rolling past us, and the driver leered at me. When I turned around he smiled at me and, extremely disgusted, I quickly got in the van and he drove away. My boys really got a kick out of that, especially because he was about 80 and hadn’t shaved for a week and looked really dirty and smelly. I guess, at 56, I must still be a sweet young thing to some people but to my sons I am mom and grandma to 10! And it just shows that it doesn’t take much to get some guy going….I was covered completely and wearing loose fitting clothes!
April 29, 2010 at 7:31 pm
How does the patrio obsession with girls covering any suggestion that they possess girl-parts jive with their obsession of distinct gender roles and appearance?
April 29, 2010 at 8:21 pm
I was thinking of that Rebelution survey as well, Karen. And I remember from it thinking that if young women had to dress so as to help each and every young man who responded to the survey avoid temptation, she would indeed be in a burqa – because the littlest thing could be a temptation for some of them: bare feet in sandals, capris, sleeveless tops, collarbones showing, etc. Shadowspring, your story of the Jewish boy heartened me. What a natural and healthy way to communicate!
April 29, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Karen,
Maybe it was the jean jacket. Old men I know who drive pickup trucks, like jean jackets. Also a church person once told me I shouldn’t wear my jean jacket to church, but wouldn’t explain why when pressed.
Corrie,
Did the modesty protesters answer your question or did they only talk with their eyes?
April 29, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Actually, Karen, your skirt was probably what turned the guy on, given the fact of his age.
Back when he was young, women only wore pants to do rough work, and when they went out in public, especially if they were trying to impress a man, they wore a dress or a skirt.
Ask just about any old-timer, and he’ll tell you that guys his age miss seeing women in dresses, and that they find skirts to be a much bigger turn-on than pants.
April 30, 2010 at 8:42 am
I personally think that more a family, religion, culture talks about modesty and women needing to cover up, the more lustful men become about women’s showing skin.
That is unless they become so misogynist in their thinking that, like the Pashtun tribal men linked to in a much earlier post, they are so disgusted by women that they have sex with each other. (Apparently to the Pashtun, it’s not a sin to have sex with other men as long as you don’t fall in love.)
There truly is that danger to young ladies raised in these uber-modest homes. The more people talk about modesty, the more they reinforce the idea that women’s bodies cause men to sin. The more they talk about it, the more these young men are forced to think about women’s bodies and immediately feel shame about doing so.
It becomes a viscous cycle of temptation and condemnation, and how on earth will these guys and gals be free to truly enjoy each other in marriage, if they have years of shame associated with viewing/exhibiting the female form?
It’s really not that big of a deal. If you grow up in a culture that shows a lot of skin, it will not be nearly so titillating to see a bare arm, belly or leg. If you grow up with burquas, apparently even the sight of an ankle is so tempting that women have been publicly beaten on the spot for letting it show.
Over and over, I keep pointing out that in equatorial tribal communities, modesty has very little to do with showing skin, since near-nudity is considered the normal attire. It very much depends on what your society considers immodest, much more so than what is actually showing.
So of course I am firmly against tightening the standard to accommodate sinful men. Every time a stricter standard is drawn up, someone somewhere will be titillated by some part of it and the standard will have to be tightened.
I, like Savannah, teach my son to be responsible for his own sexuality, including his thought life. Noticing people are attractive is not a sin. Being attracted to a person’s physical appearance is not a sin. That’s being human.
Meditating on another person’s appearance purposefully, beyond a passing appreciation for the handiwork of God, THAT is where it gets into sin.
So no I do not believe spaghetti straps are in themselves sinful, but a young man who stares lustfully at a girl so attired is indulging sin. And it so depends on the girl, whether or not she is trying to attract sinful attention or just be comfortable and stylish.
As a DD, I have not worn a spaghetti strap shirt in my adult life. But my daughter, being the total opposite of me, has more than enough support in those shelf bra-lined spaghetti straps. No bounce, no nip- she looks perfectly modest, imho.
You can’t make one rule for everyone. The more you forbid, the more titillated boys raised in such an environment will be at the slightest thing. I don’t want MY culture getting stricter and stricter. I think that results in MORE rape and sexual harassment- not LESS! Always making a big deal about clothes means that it is always on your mind.
And that’s where the problem starts, the MINDS of the LUSTING! Not the first look or the appreciation of beauty, but the continuation of that look/appreciation by carrying it further and thinking of actual sexual fantasy based on what you see.
What one sees is never the problem, it is what the viewer does in their own minds with what they see, that is the problem.
Having stricter and stricter standards makes it okay for men to have lustful thoughts over more and more of a women’s body and dress, because that man has been taught that he should think that way.
Americans sexualization of breasts is a glaring example. Most of the undeveloped world sees mammary glands as nourishment for children, not sexual at all. But in America, we have sexualized the breast to the point that some people only think of breasts as sexual and are literally disgusted by the thought of nursing.
So please, let’s stop demonizing women’s bodies and start teaching men to relate to women as people and set their minds ON Jesus and OFF of personal sexual gratification. That is the solution to the modesty issue.
April 30, 2010 at 8:48 am
“He blamed the increase in sexual harassment on what he said were “three decades of incitement against women” from the pulpits of some of Egypt’s mosques.
“This verbal incitement is based on the extremely sordid and impudent allegation that our women are not modestly dressed. This was, and still is, a flagrant lie, used to justify violence against women in the name of religion.”
The British foreign office says Egypt is one of the countries with the highest number of cases reported to embassy staff regarding sexual offences against visiting women.
It warns them to be extra cautious in public places especially when alone because of the risks. ” From the BBC link and exactly what I was saying…
April 30, 2010 at 8:53 am
And from the second link:
“The more the sight of a woman becomes unusual, the more harassment women will suffer.”
Thanks for the links, Sarah. Egypt is now definitely off my list of places to visit…
April 30, 2010 at 10:00 am
And the more you tell people NOT to think about something, well, the more they think about it! Sheesh.
You would think that people could just use common sense, but, as my grandfather used to say, “If it really was *common* sense, then everybody would have it.”
And what were the distinctives in men’s and women’s clothing in Biblical times? This website (http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/clothing.htm) that cites Deuteronomy 22:5, but their descriptions of men’s and women’s clothing sound almost identical!
April 30, 2010 at 11:17 am
I don’t want to get defensive about Egypt, but I just want to point out that if you are a wise woman traveller and don’t go around ALL ALONE, no one will bother you.
My husband lived in Egypt (as an Egyptian, mind you) until he was 17. He did not return between 1997 and 2009. When we visited last summer, he was absolutely shocked by one thing: 1000% more Muslim women had their heads covered. His family’s answer to this: Influential visitors from Saudi and other more strict Muslim countries are to blame (mostly) for this shift. Egypt has been known for being one of the MOST LIBERAL Muslim countries in the Middle East. Obviously, the shift toward conservativism, at least in the general Muslim populace, not necessarily the gov’t, is marked by making your women cover up and shut up. Even the Christian community feels the squeeze, because, as mentioned above, it is not as safe as it used to be for women to go out alone, or to wear clothing that is deemed unacceptable by the Muslim community around her.
As a white woman (pale, with blonde hair and blue eyes), I was not nearly as affected by this as the young Egyptian women around me were. There’s a cautiousness, more out of fear than a desire to be “modest” among women to keep them from being targeted by sexual offenders.
Don’t rule Egypt out as a travel destination based on one area. Just be wise about it. After all, there are a lot of amazing treasures there, and if you were considering going there at all, you should not let that deter you too much.
April 30, 2010 at 11:51 am
I read that entire Rebelution survey and what I got from it was that it is impossible to please everyone. That everyone is different and there is no one standard for what is modest to the men of America. Instead of clarifying anything, I thought the survey was more confusing and hopeless to girls trying to be modest. I felt like saying “Nice try, but that wasn’t helpful.” I don’t understand the girls that say that it solved everything for them. They’re going to get pretty tired and disillusioned as they spend their time and energy trying not to offend anyone.
April 30, 2010 at 12:51 pm
“And what were the distinctives in men’s and women’s clothing in Biblical times? This website (http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/clothing.htm) that cites Deuteronomy 22:5, but their descriptions of men’s and women’s clothing sound almost identical!”
Here is a picture from a wall mural in the tomb of Khnum-Hotep III, dating from the beginning of the second millennium BC:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/image.axd?picture=Beni+Hasan+Tomb+Painting.jpg
If you want to know how Hebrew women dressed in Biblical times, look at the four women on the left. On the right are four Hebrew men, and only difference in their costume is that the men are carrying weapons.
This bears out the wording of the injunction in Deuteronomy 22:5, The woman shall not wear “that which pertaineth unto a man”, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
The phrase, “that which pertaineth” is ” כְּלִי “(pronounced “keliy”,) and it does NOT refer to garments at all, it means:
1) article, vessel, implement, utensil
a) article, object (general)
b) utensil, implement, apparatus, vessel
1) implement (of hunting or war)
2) implement (of music)
3) implement, tool (of labour)
4) equipment, yoke (of oxen)
5) utensils, furniture
c) vessel, receptacle (general)
d) vessels (boats) of paper-reed
…and “to a man” is ” גֶּבֶר ” (pronounced “geber”), meaning 1) man, strong man, warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight).
Thus, the Hebrew women dressed in the same way as the men, but they were forbidden to bear arms, and soldiers were forbidden to put on a garment that actually BELONGED TO and had been worn by a woman.
April 30, 2010 at 12:54 pm
…and that being said, can you imagine the wives of the modernday patriarchs wearing one-shouldered batik sheath dresses?
April 30, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Deuteronomy 22:5 – more than just a prohibition on the wearing of everyday clothing.
“No doubt the prohibition is not intended as a mere rule of conventional propriety,—though, even as such, it would be an important safeguard against obvious moral dangers,—but is directed against the simulated changes of sex which occurred in Canaanite and Syrian heathenism, to the grave moral deterioration of those who adopted them.
There was in Cyprus a statue of a bearded Venus who was considered to be of both sexes and to whom sacrifice was offered by men dressed as women, and women dressed as men: and noisy processions of Galli, or eunuch-priests of Cybele, the mother of the gods, paraded the towns and villages of Syria, Asia Minor, and other parts, attired as women, and soliciting the populace to unholy rites.
In the fertility cult of Baal and Asherah there were two groups of functionaries called qedēšim (קדשים) and qedēšot (קדשות). In Hebrew the two words literally mean “the holy ones.” Many English Bibles translate the word qed šim as “male cult prostitutes” (1 Kings 15:12) and the word qed šot as “female cult prostitutes” (Hosea 4:14).
It is clear from 2 Kings 10:22 that the temple personnel, both the male and the female sacred prostitutes wore special garments that identified them with the worship of Asherah. Since the practice of fertility religion involved the sexual act between the worshipers and the temple functionaries, such a practice was an abomination to Yahweh.
Thus, Deuteronomy 22:5 is more than just a prohibition on the wearing of everyday clothing.
The verse is much more than a simple prohibition of particular wardrobes, and indeed in no way addresses the issue of women wearing masculine garments, since in the culture of ancient Israel the clothing of men was less associated with gender than was the clothing of women.
The law in Deuteronomy 22:5 is a prohibition against Israelite men and women wearing the garments that would identify them as worshipers of Asherah. Since those garments were dedicated to Asherah and since the servants of Asherah wore identical garments, any Israelite man or any Israelite woman who wore these garments would be committing an abomination against Yahweh.”
-Dr. C. Mariottini, N.B.S.
Here is a link to his entire article:
http://doctor.claudemariottini.com/2009/01/transvestism-in-ancient-israel.html
April 30, 2010 at 4:06 pm
shadowspring,
I really appreciated the bulk of your #387. I think you summed it well saying, “The church is no longer about sharing the life of Jesus with the world.” Sadly, it’s plain to see that many Christians view the Bible as a “rule book” instead of a “Love Book.”
Also appreciated your comment #415 – it put “meat on the bones” of what I was trying to get across in #401.
April 30, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Virginia,
I’m glad you feel better! I appreciate your
conscientious attitude as well.
April 30, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Karen,
As long as I’m in “appreciating” mode here – let me include you and your blog in general. You make it so easy to stay informed about homeschooling, patrio issues, and all the side tracks. Thanks!
April 30, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Batik sounds fun to me, CynthiaGee. I love my bright happy tie dye t-shirt. I wore it to a garage sale one day and a beer-guzzling chain-smoking biker chick took one look at it and said, “I can really relate to you wearing that shirt. You’re my kind of person.” The same clothes say different things to different folks. She equated it with hippy. I equate it with happy. It’s my “I got my joy back” shirt, courtesy of a midlife crisis. I milked the shirt thing for all it was worth and made friends with her. A bridge made out of fabric: clothes bringing two people together instead of wedging them apart. That’s what we want here, isn’t it, even if I’m not a biker chick after all?
I was trying to find an old blog post with a pic of me wearing that shirt. I found it here:
http://virginiaknowles.blogspot.com/2008/08/melody-my-bud-of-joy.html
Peace, love and daffodils
Virginia
April 30, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Iran gets a spot on the UN Women’s Commission?!?!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/stayed-mum-iran-vote-womens-commission/
April 30, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Another news story:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/betty-tisdale-angel-saigon-person-week/story?id=10523041&page=2
What do patrios do with movers and shakers like Betty Tisdale, who rescued 219 orphans in Viet Nam 35 years ago?
April 30, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Glorious shirt… and an adorable baby!
May 1, 2010 at 8:20 am
“A bridge made out of fabric: clothes bringing two people together instead of wedging them apart.”
Virginia, that simple statement really moves me. How very true it is!
May 1, 2010 at 8:23 am
Thanks for sharing the Betty Tisdale story. I had never heard of this woman and was also so moved by her story. She is what I call a “monstrous woman” one of those women whom the Lord uses in miraculous ways but who doesn’t fit into the patriocentric paradigm. I did a whole series of blog posts about these women one time. Perhaps it is time to bring them back and begin with Betty. Poor woman, she didn’t realize that her foreordained role was to make sure her feet were abiding in her own home and giving birth to her own children as part of her husband’s 200 year plan.
May 1, 2010 at 8:27 am
“Iran gets a spot on the UN Women’s Commission?!?!”
It’s like one of us being on the Board of Directors of Vision Forum!
May 1, 2010 at 10:32 am
What do patrios want to do with women like Betty Tisdale? Force them into American burqas, keep them in their daddy’s house until daddy dies, unless marrying them off makes sense to daddy, then add to the American burqa and the housework the added strain of repeated pregnancies.
What do patrios care about the orphans of the world? Nothing at all, unless there is some glory to be had in showing an interest in them at some time. *cough* *cough* *earthquake in the news*
Betty Tisdale, Betty Greene, Marilyn Lazlo, Anne Graham Lotz- there are so many women whose contributions the world would not have known if patriocentricity/complementarianim had taken root earlier in the American evangelical community.
Anyone here heard about the Seneca Falls 2 Tour?
http://womansubmit.blogspot.com/ I for one am very interested.
I know that many of you women consider yourself complementarians and I called myself complementarian for many years. But the proponents of that label, CBMW, are more and more firmly patriocentric.
Plus I have learned so much more: about the pre-Roman meaning of concepts like head (source of life and love, not ruler) and what Timothy was up against when Paul left him in Ephesus (a cult that preached female domination)and wrote him all those words to help him combat a particular false teaching/teacher, words that sinful men have used to subjugate godly women who are NOT and HAVE NEVER BEEN part of the cult of Diana of the Ephesians!
The idea that an ezer (ally) was a subordinate (KJV “helpmeet”)was not the idea behind that word at the beginning. Nowhere does the Bible itself teach that woman is a mere derivative of men or needs any man (other than the Lord Jesus) to guide her life or mediate between her and God.
The fact that people who had faith encounters with the living God in the Old Testament were also patriarchal agricultural and polygamist does NOT MEAN that any of that is pleasing to God! And if people start down that road, and they have, polygamy is not far behind and neither is prostitution. After all, the patriarch Judah frequented prostitutes publicly enough for his daughter-in-law to know that she could use that ruse to get pregnant, and Jesus is called the Lion of the tribe of Judah! I can hear the justifications, er, sermons to come.
Jesus revealed the Father to us- the mighty-breasted (don’t know how to spell El Shaddia) Father who would gather his children under his wings like a mother hen,if only we would run to him when he called.
It is Jesus we are called to follow, not the patriarchs.
Jesus, who had women in his entourage, whom Anna the prophetess preached, who sent out the woman at the well to evangelize, who healed the women with ostracizing ailments- the issue of blood, the deformed back; Jesus who was tender to mothers, healing one Gentile woman’s daughter, raising a widow’s son back to life; Jesus who praised Mary of Betany for sitting at his feet to learn, Mary Maghdalene for pouring expensive perfume on him in worship, and the prostitute who washed his feet with her own tears of gratitude; Jesus who refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery and appeared first to Mary at the tomb on the morning of his resurrection, and corrected the male disciples when he appeared to them for not believing the women. This same Jesus, who poured out the Holy Spirit on both women and men on the day of Pentecost, who said marriage was meant to be an expression of love and mutual support between man and wife- the MAN being told it was not good for him to be alone, not the other way around; the MAN being told to cleave to his wife, which sounds pretty strong to me that he is to make his life dependent upon hers, not the other way around….
Complementarian the way women mean it, the way a home decorator means that colors complement each other, making something new and pleasing of the combination that is better than either alone? Sure, count me in.
But the current doctrinal position of complementarian, that started out so sweet (only pointing out there ARE differences between man and woman, and long live the differences…) has morphed into a position where men can easily come to believe they are close to God and approved by him merely by the existence of their Y chromosome. They are excused for their ungodly behaviors toward women, because if the woman would just never cross him, he wouldn’t behave unrighteously. If she would only dress more modest, he wouldn’t indulge in rape. A woman (who probably is seeking God and inspired by the Holy Spirit, as women are encouraged to do) can never be heard or make her case against her brothers who are sinning against her, because they won’t listen. Paul would not suffer a woman to teach, why should they? (Bad translation- not at all what the original words convey.)
Ladies, I am going to follow Jesus and so is my husband, thank God for his tender heart cause he could sure go in the other direction if he wanted. There is plenty of support for the subjugation of women in his family’s mainstream fundamentalist doctrine, as well as their personal practice.
So why do I care how others choose to live? Because I have a daughter and a son. I don’t want them to a)either swallow this and live in a way that is NOT pleasing to the Lord b) or just as bad, leave organized religion behind because the church teaches such blasphemous lies about salvation/the church/Jesus himself.
And for all the abused women out there, who should have found refuge in the church, will instead have their husbands use religion to convince them it is God’s will for them to live subjugated by men, and that failing to please a husband is failing to please God.
Sorry for the sermon, but I am just now waking up to the times we live in. Ugly fundamentalism is on the rise in all the religions of the world, and it is no prettier in Christianity than it is in Islam or Hinduism or any other faith.
In fact, its uglier, because it lies about the Christ, the Son of the Living God and the Savior of the world, who so loved, who SO LOVED, that he came to redeem us with his own precious blood, male and female, Jew and Gentile, oppressed (slave) and those seemingly doing well on their own (free).
I personally will not identify myself with those who so distort the life, love and teachings of my Savior. I realize that other women on this forum, including our gracious hostess, have not come to the same conclusion I have, but that’s where I stand.
“Oh the times they are a-changing….” Bob Dylan
May 1, 2010 at 11:22 am
Perhaps the rest of the UN members are thinking that by including Iran on the Women’s Commission, they will gradually draw them into the twentieth century (the twenty-first being too much to hope for….)
May 1, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Speaking of Iran (which used to be Persia), I wondered, on the whole trousers are for men skirts are for women issue (and the premise that any variation from these is a sin). At what point did trousers become manly? Here’s a quote from the Independent’s review of Persian Fire by Tom Holland: ‘[T]he ancient Persians. They were regarded by the Greeks as “hilariously effeminate” because they wore trousers, and their kings and nobility even sported platform heels and luxuriant false beards and moustaches.’
So I imagine St. Paul and fellow apostles probably weren’t attired in trousers, but a very manly skirt.
May 1, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Further evidence:
“A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt”. Deuteronomy 22:30.
If we are to base our gender specific attire strictly on scripture, then one must surmise that skirts are manly!
I will, forthwith, pass all my skirts onto my husband and pop on a pair of trousers.
On a more serious note:
Shadowspring writes: “Ugly fundamentalism is on the rise in all the religions of the world, and it is no prettier in Christianity than it is in Islam or Hinduism or any other faith.
In fact, its uglier, because it lies about the Christ, the Son of the Living God and the Savior of the world, who so loved, who SO LOVED, that he came to redeem us with his own precious blood, male and female, Jew and Gentile, oppressed (slave) and those seemingly doing well on their own (free)”.
Amen. It was for freedom that Christ has set us free. For ALL of us to strive to be humble – man and woman. Not for one to subjugate another.
“But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.” Mark 10: 42:44
May 1, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Crescent Project has called for prayer for Muslim women during the month of May. Their ministry is awesome…check out their website.
https://www.crescentproject.org/index.cfm/PageID/2255/index.html
May 1, 2010 at 3:42 pm
“If we are to base our gender specific attire strictly on scripture, then one must surmise that skirts are manly!”
A lot of the patriocentrists are into Scottish heritage and enjoy their kilts!
May 1, 2010 at 3:47 pm
True dat, Sarah.
May 1, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Ah yes, love the kilts, very rugged but a bit draughty up in the Highlands.
May 2, 2010 at 9:00 am
I’ll add this to the discussion about this new evangelical emphasis on modesty and “purity” (which I submit is not purity at all, which would be a pure love for the brothers and sisters in Christ, but is instead a pre-occupation with self and self-righteousness)-
I know two male cadets in AFROTC who openly identify as “Christian” on facebook -one as a Baptist, one as a Calvinist (also home schooled).
Neither will answer my daughters texts when she has a question, neither has responded to her calls for someone to run with on campus for her safety, both act uncomfortable around her, and when they have been forced by AF protocol to give her a ride, neither has ever walked her to the door of her apartment but just waited in the parking lot until she texts that she is in. >:[
On the other hand, self-identified atheists run with her, open doors for her, walk her to the door of her apartment, and generally act in a manner that I would call Christian love, even though they are not Christian. They are not zealously guarding against “sin” (i.e. kindness to a sister could lead to temptation!) nor do they at all resent that a woman is among their peers also qualifying for a position of leadership and authority.
And I, unfortunately, by putting her in Sunday school, camp and youth group all those years, have set her up for misery. She pines away for the attention of those (imho self-centered and ungodly) Christian men who ignore her at best and probably also resent her. Certainly there is nothing in the way they treat women that points to the love of Christ in any way, my daughter not being the only pariah. They are equally dismissive of and distant personally from all women.
I hate that my daughter has internalized the idea that professing Christ is supposed to mean more than anything else in a partner, and it would be a sin for her to marry someone who treats her with love and respect if he didn’t also confess Christ. I personally no longer feel that way. As long as the guy isn’t active in a false religion, I would much rather her marry a man who LOVES.
I think there is more hope for the centurion/Cornielius types of the world, who have honest and sincere hearts, than those well-indoctrinated Pharisees whose chief concern is their own righteousness.
I have too many friends in this leaky boat of a relationship. A devout, committed young Christian lady is going to marry one of these religious louts, and feel herself lucky because he professes Christ, and there is such a dearth of men who confess Christ compared to women who confess Christ.
These women will live in long, miserable abusive marriages (I and name half a dozen such home school marriages off of the top of my head) thinking that because their men profess Christ, SOME DAY they will start living a life of Christian love. Even though the only evidence of Jesus that was ever in their lives was fleshly evidence- going to church, studying the Bible and knowing doctrine, sometimes that’s where it ends. They act arrogantly, hold grudges, are cruel and self-centered- some also commit adultery, or drink excessively, smoke, secretly look at porn, etc.
But they confessed Christ, so their earnest Christian wives, who were holding out for a Christian man, thought they were marrying true disciples.
Jesus, please don’t let my daughter join their ranks!!!! I believe I have set her up for just that, and I repent with all my heart.
May 2, 2010 at 10:41 am
*and in the second to last paragraph should read CAN
May 2, 2010 at 10:45 am
Goodness, typing while waiting for my ride to church is not conducive to clear communication. Let’s just redo the last three paragraphs of post 442 in their entirety.
“These women will live in long, miserable abusive marriages (I can name half a dozen such home school marriages off of the top of my head) thinking that because their men professed Christ, SOME DAY they will start living a life of Christian love. Even though the only evidence of Jesus that was ever in their lives was fleshly evidence- going to church, studying the Bible and knowing doctrine, that’s where it ended- they kept telling themselves that one day these men would walk in Christian love.
Instead they continue to act arrogantly, hold grudges, are cruel and self-centered- some also commit adultery, or drink excessively, smoke, secretly look at porn, etc. But they confessed Christ, so their earnest Christian wives, who were holding out for a Christian man, thought they were marrying true disciples.
Jesus, please don’t let my daughter join their ranks!!!! I believe I have set her up for just that, and I repent with all my heart.”
Much clearer.
May 2, 2010 at 4:04 pm
We’ve seen some friends of ours divorce. The ‘perfect’ Christian man (whom we all thought was a little ‘intense’) turned out to be more than just intense, but physically and emotionally abusive to wife and children.
However, I’ve also seen the pain of many marriages that are ‘unequally yoked’. The believing partner is mocked for their beliefs or their moral outlook, pressured into leaving church, etc. (BTW my mother and father are ‘unequally yoked’ but he has always supported her faith – so it’s not always the case).
With marriage there is always the danger that you don’t truly know your other half until after marriage, until it’s too late. Hopefully the danger signs are there before…but not always.
I would always hope that my daughters marry Christian men who love. Being ‘unequally yoked’ I wouldn’t call a sin, it just puts extra pressure on a relationship.
The two most abusive (dating) relationships I have had in my life were with non-Christian men who laughed at my faith and treated me like dirt.
Not sure what I’m really saying. Human love is fallible, fickle and often fails; God’s love never fails. I can only pray that my daughters are blessed with marriages that work.
May 2, 2010 at 5:49 pm
It doesn’t really matter what our opinion is about what is or is not sin….it only matters what the Scripture says.
Both the Old and New Testaments state that it is a sin for Christians to be yoked to unbelievers. In fact, I believe that if a Christian wants to marry, she ought to only date (or court or whatever you call it) someone who is also a Christian. Missionary dating is wrong. There may be all sorts of reasons to avoid becoming entangled with someone who is a Christian (immaturity, temper etc,) but the VERY FIRST reason to avoid those entanglements with someone who is not a Christian is because the Bible says it is a sin. n It really doesn’t matter how nice, polite, loving, etc. that person is.
Here is a terrific link to the transcripts of the sermon my pastor preached on this subject from three years ago:
http://www.bitsculptor-media.com/bethanycentral.org/files/395-375131342010-text.pdf
May 2, 2010 at 6:11 pm
I’ve always believed that it is wise for Christians to marry Christians rather than an unbeliever. However, I don’t think that the “unequally yoked” scripture is necessarily a law that Christians can only marry Christians otherwise the relationship is sinful; although I used ‘unequally yoked’ in my previous comments (because most people use it in this context) I don’t necessarily think the scripture applies to marriage.
14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
I rather think Paul was continuing in the light of the Corinthians mixing up pagan temple activities (sexual immorality, idol worship, etc) with Christian life. The two do not mix and can never mix.
Maybe Paul was talking about marriage and other close relationships, but I rather think that it was more about Christians defiling themselves with pagan practices amongst idol worshipping pagans. The next chapter (7) starts:
“1Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. ”
Paul’s main concern was that the Body of Christ keep itself from the worship of idols and associated sexual immorality or even association with those practices.
Another thought, it does say in 1 Corinthians 7 that:
14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
So rather than the unbeliever defiling the believer, the believer actually sanctifies the unbeliever and the children from that relationship.
However, it makes sense for Christians to marry Christians. There are usually less complications, and the raising of children is less fraught with moral/faith related disagreements.
May 2, 2010 at 6:32 pm
On a totally different topic I wondered if your discussion had covered the Duggars and the ‘buddy system’ and the negative effects this may have on the children.
These thoughts were raised by this post at No Longer Qivering: http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/04/21/michelle-duggar-to-accept-mother-of-the-year-award-at-vision-forums-triumph-of-life-baby-conference/
The post links to an Examiner article which mentions the ‘buddy system’ whereby it is suggested that rather than Michelle Duggar being ‘Mother of the Year’ it is the older girls who should take equal share in the prize. I was particularly interested in this observation made by Elise Wiebe at the Examiner:
“This system is allegedly just the big kids lending a hand, but listen to Michelle explain how the big buddy gets the little ones up, dresses them, feeds them their meals, and supervises their homeschooling, baths, and bedtime. Then watch those little details, like Jackson clinging to Jana for comfort after he was lost in the airport (while his parents laugh blithely in the background) or Jennifer crying for Jill whenever she’s upset. You can call it being a buddy all you want — the truth of the matter is that those girls are parenting their little siblings (on top of running the household). Commentators are already dreading what will happen to little Josie once she goes home to the chaos of the Duggar household and is passed off to one of the older girls for rearing. Let’s hope it’s twenty-year-old Jana who is put in charge, and not twelve-year-old Joy Anna.”
I have been rather taken in by the Duggars, they seem to be such a lovely family. But, although it may seem nice, is it damaging for children in such a large family where there just isn’t enough mother and father to go around? Are the children forced to grow up too soon and take on responsibilities that they shouldn’t have until they are parents themselves?
May 2, 2010 at 7:24 pm
I’m glad your parents love each other, Sarah. I know of other marriages like that too.
And why on earth would Peter counsel women married to unbelievers if it was a sin to be married to an unbeliever?
What evidence do you have that 2 Corinthians 6:14 is talking about marriage? It isn’t discussing marriage in the preceding or following verses. It never uses the word marriage.
The pat fundamentalist answers don’t cut it with me anymore. Show me some real proof.
Also, are you saying the centurion was unworthy or Cornelius? Unapproved by God? Jesus commended the centurions faith, as well as sending the Holy Spirit to fall on Cornelius and his household to prove to Peter that God had accepted him. Not sure how you jumped to missionary dating from that…
May 2, 2010 at 7:49 pm
“And why on earth would Peter counsel women married to unbelievers if it was a sin to be married to an unbeliever? ”
there is a difference between currently being in the state of a believer being married to an unbeliever and someone planning to and they marrying an unbeliever The former is not a sin; the latter is. Did you read to the sermon I linked to? I didn’t see any “pat” answer there.
May 2, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Here is my definition of “missionary dating.” When someone who is a Christian dates someone who is not in hope of winning them to Christ.
May 3, 2010 at 7:16 am
Interesting links about teen boarding schools:
http://secret-prisons-for-teens.blogspot.com/2010/04/chanel-mare-victim-of-possible-parent.html
May 3, 2010 at 7:17 am
Christian women and domestic violence:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/1007/biblical_battered_wife_syndrome:_christian_women_and_domestic_violence
May 3, 2010 at 7:42 am
May 3, 2010 at 7:50 am
Ron Williams, btw, is the director of Hephzebah House.
May 3, 2010 at 8:53 am
Okay, I don’t expect anyone to agree with me on here, but I am seeking the truth from God’s Word as it was written, not Scofield’s interpretation or fundamentalist doctrine.
Chapter six, indeed the whole book of 2 Corinthians, is referring to the false teachings of the self-called ‘super apostles’ that were challenging Paul’s authority and teachings. That passage, in context, is saying you can’t mix doctrines of idolatry with the teachings of Jesus, or merge the religions as they are completely incompatible.
The commentary of the Scofield Bible links from I Corinthians 7, where a widow is allowed to marry “whom she will, only in the Lord” to 2 Corinthains 6. I Corinthians 7, does talk about marriage, including marriage to unbelievers. Just because Scofield makes a connection doesn’t mean it is there.
I Corinthians 7:39 is the closest to coming out and saying that Christians should only marry Christians.
“39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”
The addition of the clause “only in the Lord” could mean “as the Lord leads” as the phrase “in the Lord”- used only in Paul’s letters as far as my research is showing- often means what I would call “in the Spirit”, as in “children obey your parents in the Lord, as this is right”.
There is no clearly spelled out doctrine anywhere that Christians should only marry other so-called Christians. It is at the best implied but it is taught as if were as plain as Jesus saying “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except by me.”
Jesus had no trouble speaking plainly about important matters. He plainly spoke about marriage that God intended a union between man and wife that superceded the man’s family of origin and meant something spiritual, something important. He plainly spoke that God’s intention for marriage was complete unity, and that divorce was not what God had intended. He also plainly spoke that marriage was only for this life, and not consequential in the next when he told the Sadducees that in heaven there is no marriage, chosen or arranged.
Also in 2 Corinthians, chapter 9, in the NIV the translators added the word “believing” as an adjective to the word “wife” which Paul says that the apostles were allowed, but I am not finding evidence of it in the original text. Still looking, but it’s not in KJV at all. I need to go talk to my pastor, who will at first be inclined to parrot what he has heard coming out of the pulpit his whole life, but will also search for the original meaning honestly and get back to me.
Whatever is not led by the Spirit, “whatsoever is not of faith” is sin.
As far as the Old Testament, Rahab and Ruth, both in the lineage of Jesus and Rahab in the hall of faith (Hebrews 11:31) were not Jews by birth. Rahab, identified as a harlot in fact, would clearly not pass the I Cor 6 test!
The kingdom of God is so different than fundamentalist religion. It is so much bigger, and so much more constrained. It is not about who you marry but how you walk in the Spirit;not about vocabulary or dress or meat or drink, but about the sincerity of your love: for Jesus, for others.
I swallowed so much that at first glance looked to be plain truth, but only because it was explained the fundamentalist way and not come to with open eyes and heart.
Now I am determined to question everything, and only hold fast to that which is truth. I only want the truth. I only want Jesus. I don’t want any less than God’s truth. I don’t want anything in addition to God’s truth.
No doubt I will continue to challenge widely accepted but in my mind, poorly supported, doctrinal positions.
So, “only in the Lord” makes more sense to me to translate it in keeping with other places Paul used the phrase, to mean “only by the leading of the Spirit”. I do not see that the best interpret I Corinthians 7:39 is “only the man must confess Christ”. Though it could also mean “only a man who is also following the leading of the Holy Spirit” which would make it an even more narrow field, leaving out the ranks and ranks of religious men who confess the name of Christ but do not walk “even as Jesus walked”.
Okay, I’m done with that rabbit trail. I know that most of you will still make the Scofield connection, and we are still brothers in the Lord even though we disagree on this very peripheral doctrinal position. So peace and love to you all in the name of our Lord Jesus, who through the apostle Paul called us to accept one another as Christ has accepted each of us.
May 3, 2010 at 9:24 am
Shadowspring, thank you for sharing your insights here. I agree with your point of view. The context of that passage is important! I think the idea that Christians can only marry Christians is one of those assumptions that isn’t always carefully measured against what scripture actually says – sort of like the assumption that the husband is head of the household, which also has no scriptural support.
Having said that, do I think it’s wise to marry a non-Christian? Maybe not. But I would rather my daughters marry a kind, gentle, respectful, considerate man who is not a believer rather than a domineering, disrespectful, self-centered Christian.
May 3, 2010 at 9:31 am
Karen,
I totally agree with you about missionary dating. Very dangerous territory for an impressionable teenage Christian (girl or boy). But I’ve also seen similar situations actually work. Not “dating” but when a non-Christian pursues a relationship with a Christian, and is serious about it, it can be a great opportunity for the Christian to draw that person to Christ, provided they stand on principle and do not actually *date* the non-Christian in the meantime. My pastor is an example of this. He was an atheist and was in love (seriously in love) with this girl in college, and he pursued her constantly. She used this opportunity to turn him to Christ. They’ve been married for 37 years and he’s the pastor of a church of 7,000 plus. All because she *wouldn’t* date him as a non-Christian.
May 3, 2010 at 9:54 am
From that transcript I linked to above:
“Why is such marriage wrong? It is wrong because spiritually-mixed marriages disrupt God’s plan for Christian
families to be centers of worship unto God, centers of discipleship in leading others to faith, and for the glory of God
and of His Son Jesus. They often, also, not only limit the opportunity to continue to produce generations of
worshippers unto God, but they also put in front of the believing member the temptation to enter into idolatry itself
and begin to turn away from the Living God.
Ezra, as you may recall, is a contemporary of Malachi. In Ezra 9, he speaks as well of this deep problem of the people
of Malachi’s day,
1 After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, “The people of Israel, including the
priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable
practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and
Amorites. 2 They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have
mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this
unfaithfulness.”
The priests were involved in this, but look at righteous, godly, Ezra’s response. Did he say, “Oh, that is too bad,” no,
he said,
3 When I heard this, I tore my tunic and cloak, pulled hair from my head and beard and sat down appalled.
Do you think that this is a very significant sin of God’s people when they practice it? Ezra certainly thought so.
Nehemiah was also a contemporary of Malachi, and in Nehemiah 13 we read,
23 Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab. 24
Half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not
know how to speak the language of Judah. 25 I rebuked them and called curses down on them. I beat some of
the men and pulled out their hair…27 Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and
are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?”
This issue of spiritually-mixed marriages has to do with faithfulness to God. It has to do with apostasy. The bottom
line here is, Christian, if you marry an unbeliever you are acting unfaithfully to God. Someone may ask the question,
“What about dating an unbeliever?” Let me say, to date an unbeliever is to invite powerful temptation to sin and to
idolatry itself into your life. It is impossible for you to pray the prayer that Jesus taught us to pray while dating an
unbeliever. Why is that? It is because, in the prayer that Jesus taught us to pray, we say, “Father, who art in Heaven,
lead us not into temptation,” and we cannot pray that prayer, all-the-while saying, “Lord, lead me not into temptation,
but in reality I am going to direct myself and walk myself right into the path of temptation that I know is going to be
there for me.” I encourage you to be wise, Christians, so that God might bless you fully.”
May 3, 2010 at 9:57 am
More from that transcript:
“Someone may ask the question, “What if I am presently married to an unbeliever?” There is a great word of hope. The
Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7, speaks to that great word of hope, when he says,
12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to
live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is
willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through
his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children
would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
In other words, Paul is saying that God has placed the believer as a sanctifying element, but please understand, do not
presume upon God’s grace ahead of time and do not say, “I am going to get married in the hopes that this person will
become a believer and in the hopes that I will be a sanctifying influence in their life.”
God is gracious and we have to acknowledge that sometimes, when a Christian marries one who is not a Christian,
God does graciously draw that non-believer into His family. We praise God when that happens and we rejoice over
that, but, friends, please understand the teaching of God’s Word: this is not the usual outcome. More often, the mixed
marriage brings great sorrow and pain to the believer.”
May 3, 2010 at 12:11 pm
The thing is, when our children are making these decisions, they are adults. We can teach them this as they are growing up and that’s all fine and well, but I honestly can’t say what our sons will do with regard to this. So far, they have mostly dated girls from church (which by the way, does not mean that the girls are necessarily Christians, just like attending Christian college does not mean you’ll be surrounded by true Christians), but when they are adults and independent and in the marketplace, it will certainly not be our place to tell them who they can marry and who they shouldn’t. We just have to hope they have the discernment to determine the right woman on many different levels, including the spiritual one.
May 3, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Your viewpoint is certainly making me think, Shadowspring. I know for me it would be wrong to consider dating a man who does not claim Christ since it would really, really hurt my parents. Whatever might be allowed by God, it would make my parents extremely upset and feel like failures, so I won’t do that to them, but it is a very interesting topic.
A while back I asked what you ladies considered lust vs. harmless noticing and now I am wondering, how would it be possible to rehab young men who believe even the noticing should be avoided and frowned on as it will easily grab them into sin? I really feel for my brothers and other young guys I know. I realize it’s probably not my place to try to help in this area, but I keep wondering how the guilt and anxiety can be diffused. I know God has to do it, but how can people be involved in teaching/showing a better and more relaxed way?
May 3, 2010 at 4:05 pm
As far as the lust vs. noticing thing, I think there is a real difference.
No expert here, but my take is that when boys and men view girls and women as real human beings, not objects for their visual pleasure, this solves a lot of the problem. It’s hard to engage in real lust when you’re appreciating the person for who they are inside and what they have to say, etc.
I live with a house full of men, and we are very open with each other, and when I hear one of my boys say something that makes me uncomfortable about a young lady, I quickly remind them that she is not here on this earth for their pleasure. She is a human being in her own right, created by God in His image, not some barbie doll.
Probably not a total solution but I think it offers a different way to think about women than society generally offers. And the patriarchals are no better than society at large, as they seem every bit as obsessed with sex and sexuality, only as thing to be “feared” and “hated” (particularly female sexuality).
May 3, 2010 at 5:13 pm
I, too, believe the 1 Cor. passage to not be speaking of marriage. I agree with Shadowspring’s comments above. I was raised in a church who made scriptures say things that God never said because they failed to take context into the picture. Karen, in the transcript you listed, his “reasons” for not marrying an unbeliever would fall into practicalities, not issues of sin. There are many practical reasons why I would never marry an unbeliever or encourage my kids to do so. But I don’t believe you can make a good case from the Bible that it is SIN. God has lists of what is sin and marrying an unbeliever just isn’t on them.
As for the Ezra verses, the Law of Moses clearly stated that Israelites were never to marry someone of a different race, unless they were converts. I do not believe that, under the new covenant, you can make a parallel between Ezra’s situation and marrying an unbeliever. It doesn’t even fit: they were commanded not to marry a different race, therefore that means we shouldn’t marry an unbeliever?
May 3, 2010 at 5:24 pm
#456 Shadowspring wrote: The kingdom of God is so different than fundamentalist religion. It is so much bigger, and so much more constrained. It is not about who you marry, but how you walk in the Spirit; not about vocabulary or dress or meat or drink, but about the sincerity of your love: for Jesus, for others.
Amen – oh my goodness God is so much bigger than every rule, every law – Jesus said: It is written – BUT I TELL YOU – oh it’s so much more! Jesus said that the two greatest commandments were: To love God will all your heart, mind and soul and the second is like it, to love your neighbour as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on these. And secondly Jesus was the fulfilment of all the law. In Him and Him alone will we find the ability to obey God in these two commandments. That is the Good News of Jesus Christ. He lived a life we could never live and died a death we could never die so that His Holy Spirit could live within us. Thus we fulfil the law in God’s eyes because we are IN Jesus Christ and He is IN us – when God looks at us He sees the life of Christ and He sees that our sin has been put to death. IT IS FINISHED!
So, unlike in the Old Testament, marriage cannot sully us Spiritually (like it could for Israel) because we are made whole in Christ – the commandments – all the laws – are fulfilled in Him. However, it can affect our spiritual walk if our conscience – our love for Jesus and for others – is damaged by the marriage. Paul recommended not marrying at all; however, if we are filled with lust then OK get married so that you’re not consumed by desires of the flesh to the detriment of the walk in the Spirit. It is quite true that it is unlikely that a Christian walking completely in the Spirit could marry anyone whose Spirit is unclean – it would be too uncomfortable – but this is a matter of conscience not a matter of law; we can neither judge not condemn someone who we believe has married incorrectly. It may be right to counsel and advise as to the consequences and difficulties of a Christian marrying a non-Christian, but that is the limit to the matter. Nothing can separate a Christian from God.
We have to remember that, though Paul wrote to Jewish Christians he also wrote to Gentile Christians who had no knowledge at all about Jewish laws or customs. They wouldn’t have had easy, regular access to the scriptures either (unless they were rich or well connected). We too, must be careful not to take on Jewish laws as our own, but to instead pray to yield more and more to the Holy Spirit and reject the desires of the flesh. We can only do this in Christ, by His power and by His love. If we remain in His love, He will remain in us. If we walk apart from His love we will quench and grieve the Holy Spirit and the walk will become hard.
The question therefore is never ought we to obey this or that rule (filthy rags); but what is our desire born from – the Spirit or the flesh? Whatever does not come from faith is sin; how does faith express itself? In love. Love for God and love for fellow man. Where do we get that love from? Jesus Christ Who fulfilled the law. I’m back to the beginning again.
I realise this is long and rambling – and I’m certainly not there Spiritually – but it’s what I desire more than anything for everything to spring from His Holy Spirit otherwise it’s just fleshly old me trying and failing to obey a list of rules.
May 3, 2010 at 6:40 pm
We also have to remember that Jesus did NOT say that merely experiencing desire was a sin – He said that looking upon a woman IN ORDER TO lust after her was a sin, and was the same sin as going ahead and lying with her in the first place.
This suggests to me that the sin being spoken of is that of DELIBERATELY watching a woman in order to experience sexual enjoyment, in much the same way that a peeping tom does; NOT merely noticing that a woman is attractive and feeling desire for her in spite of intentions to the contrary.
May 3, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Savannnah, thanks and I do agree with the view people as PEOPLE bit – it’s just that I know my brothers DO view girls as people (they have very good friends who are girls and I have never seen anything worrying as far as objectifying women). However, they do seem to feel very upset with themselves whenever they can’t help noticing something about a girl’s body and I was just wondering if anyone has any idea how to help stop the unrealistic expectations of themselves and angst. I know it’s a hard question and I don’t really expect an answer, I guess. I’m just wishing, really, since so much of my own (different) hangups have vanished that I wish I could get rid of theirs, too.
May 3, 2010 at 10:42 pm
“Amen – oh my goodness God is so much bigger than every rule, every law – Jesus said: It is written – BUT I TELL YOU – oh it’s so much more! Jesus said that the two greatest commandments were: To love God will all your heart, mind and soul and the second is like it, to love your neighbour as yourself.”
think about it– these are the Two Commandments that transcend time,the same now as they were in the day of Adam,.the day will come when Jesus will say,
“Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed [are] they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
……
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
May 4, 2010 at 2:09 am
“We also have to remember that Jesus did NOT say that merely experiencing desire was a sin – He said that looking upon a woman IN ORDER TO lust after her was a sin, and was the same sin as going ahead and lying with her in the first place.
This suggests to me that the sin being spoken of is that of DELIBERATELY watching a woman in order to experience sexual enjoyment, in much the same way that a peeping tom does; NOT merely noticing that a woman is attractive and feeling desire for her in spite of intentions to the contrary.”
Absolutely agree!!!
May 4, 2010 at 4:42 am
10If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
11These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
12This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. John 15
Beautiful.
Laughing slightly at my comment in #465 where I mention a spirit that is unclean; I meant one who had not been cleansed by the blood of Jesus – lol – not someone who is possessed by an unclean spirit.
May 4, 2010 at 10:34 am
L posted, “Savannnah, thanks and I do agree with the view people as PEOPLE bit – it’s just that I know my brothers DO view girls as people (they have very good friends who are girls and I have never seen anything worrying as far as objectifying women). However, they do seem to feel very upset with themselves whenever they can’t help noticing something about a girl’s body and I was just wondering if anyone has any idea how to help stop the unrealistic expectations of themselves and angst. I know it’s a hard question and I don’t really expect an answer, I guess. I’m just wishing, really, since so much of my own (different) hangups have vanished that I wish I could get rid of theirs, too.”
I’m sorry that your brothers feel shame at what they were created to be – appreciative of the female form, just as females were created to be appreciative of the male form. No one will ever convince me that this simple noticing and appreciation is sin. To me, that just sets young men, particularly, up for failure as it is asking them to be other than God created them to be. I think this is spiritually abusive, actually, and I wonder how many mental/emotional problems are brought on by this false expectation and shame at not meeting it.
I remember the first time I saw my husband, when I actually met him for the first time. I can honestly say that lust was not in play; however, I certainly appreciated the appearance of this tall, lanky, blonde, blue-eyed fellow. We all have different ideas of what we find to be attractive, and this was mine, I suppose. If people are forbidden to be attracted to each other, how would humankind ever survive, other than to force people into marriages where they barely know each other and their mates are picked by their parents?
Oh, yeah, that is what some of the patrio folks are trying to do.
May 4, 2010 at 11:41 am
PLEASE READ THE NEW POST AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE.
May 4, 2010 at 11:00 pm
What new post at the top of the page? The stuff at the top of the page is over two months old.
May 5, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Thanks Sarah, Savannah, Darcy, Abby and L. It was wonderful to hear people so full of love and faith and seeking real truth.
I am saddened that questioning the doctrine that Christians are forbidden to marry unbelievers has actually shut this blog down, and surprised as well. Its not like its a basic tenet of the faith, like the fall of man, the virgin birth and sinless life of Christ, his death on the cross and his glorious resurrection, his sending the Holy Spirit to dwell in us who trust in Him and love Him.
I assure everyone I believe in Jesus completely and in the inerrant Holy Scripture, but not in the inerrency of the church in formulating doctrine.
Peace and love in Christ to all.