Modesty, femininity, godly womanhood, etc. What do they actually mean for a Christian who is seeking to obey and honor Jesus Christ in the 21st century? Should we return to a time when women did not have the right to own property or vote? Is this a more Biblical way to live? Should women receive equal pay for equal work? If so, how is that supported by Scripture? May a Christian woman hold public office?
Following up on some of the commentary regarding the Botkin sisters and patriocentricity, I would like to encourage you to look at these clips:
The first is the “teaser” for an upcoming movie to be produced by the Gunn brothers.
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2005/09/ (scroll down to September 23, 2005)
Now the movie is about to be released and here is a trailer for it:
http://www.monstrousregiment.com/
Here is also a link to the writings of John Knox for which this project is named:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm
Any thoughts?
true womanhood in the new millennium 
June 18, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Well, now I know why the queen wanted Knox gotten rid of. I guess I never really understood why she hated him until now.
June 19, 2007 at 12:00 am
That trailer made an amazing number of inflammatory insinuations in just a few minutes! Let me see if I heard correctly:
–People in the abortion industry actively seek to get teens to become sexually active so then the average girl will have 3 or 4 abortions by the time she’s 18.
–Women in the military are brutalized and raped (as a matter of routine?).
–People (all people? all non-Christians?) hate children.
–Hillary Clinton deliberately had just one child and hates homemakers.
How all of this relates to John Knox and his love for sola scriptura is beyond me. But if any of these statements is true, I hope the Gunn brothers have legitimate documentation to back up their claims!
Otherwise, this is just going to be yet another sad instance of Christians looking like idiots.
There’s no doubt that feminism encompasses many unbiblical tenets. But are all feminists child-hating, abortion-promoting Marxists? If I, as a conservative Christian and a Bible literalist, can see through this over-the-top rhetoric, what is the world going to think?
Will anyone even listen long enough to learn anything from a film like this?
June 19, 2007 at 12:42 am
I’ve seen a lot of things like this, presented from this perspective, with one goal in mind: convince them it’s evil enough to stay away from it forever. Not entirely effective, but it seems that’s the point with Christians using inflammatory accusations, by and large.
Too bad it doesn’t work.
June 19, 2007 at 1:49 am
How is this film any different from Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”? Both appear to use scare tactics and distortions of the truth to propagandize. I simply do not believe some of the extreme statements in the trailer (Joan’s msg. above summarizes some of the more incredible claims). In fact, it is rather insulting that the film-makers think that their audience is so uncritical (and fearful).
Also, what is the target audience for this film? Is it just more “preaching to the choir”? I don’t think it’s going to convince anyone who isn’t already of that mindset. Most people know from their own experience that many of these extreme statements are untrue. (And I resent mightily the slander of the military.)
June 19, 2007 at 6:19 am
Okay, I haven’t gotten past the opening of the trailer yet, because I’m completely snickering at the IRONY of Phyllis Schafly being used as their first spokeswoman!
I adore Phyllis Schafly in so many ways, and am aware of her imperfections. But while she is a spokeswoman against feminist ideology, I can’t believe that the Gunn brothers aren’t using her as an example of a “monstrous” woman. After all, she WORKED outside the home–in a factory even–to put herself through college. (A military factory at one point–real live Rosie the Riveter.) And while she was in the midst of her early mothering days, she studied and passed the bar exam in Chicago.
Phyllis Schafly writes, speaks, campaigns–is outspoken and opinionated. And while some people know that one of her sons is gay, how many people know her husband’s name?
Honestly, I’m guffawing that the patriarchal types showcasing dear Phyllis Schafly, “Do as we say, not as she does. . .”
June 19, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Ok then…….so what did the Scottish lady at the end talking about John Knox have to do with anything that went before hand?! These ‘movements’ have not come to my attention here in the UK but although I stand fully upon Solo Scriptura and the preaching of the gospel, I don’t quite understand what people are setting out to prove. We know the world is wicked and sinful. We know that sadly, many Christians, especially those from difficult backgrounds can be drawn into a more worldly way of viewing things. But surely we also know that only the Holy Spirit can convict individuals and enable them to change. And surely we know that the example to follow is Christ’s…and He didn’t go around demonising every one who held a slightly varied opinion on things. I am a ‘dyed in the wool’ reformed baptist girl who grew up in ‘Spurgeon’s taberncale’ under sound teaching….but I think I would fall foul of many ladies out there who hold certain views. Yet what seems important to me is my spiritual walk with God which would become very weak if I took my eyes off scripture and focused on the numerous ‘issues’ that seem to surround us.(that doesn’t mean bury head in sand, it means judge with wisdom and discernment, standing for those things which are true)None of us have any righteous or moral high ground over anyone else….we are saved by grace…and through lots of things I have been reading lately there seems to be a distinct lack of this.
June 19, 2007 at 1:34 pm
It was the strangest thing…I kept thinking about this trailer, because it reminded me of something. I couldn’t figure out what, exactly, but I’d seen something like this before.
And then it occurred to me. The snippets of people making extreme, inflammatory statements reminded me of Nazi propaganda. Long ago, in a social studies class, I’d seen a video with subtitles, showing how the German people were manipulated by half-truths (the Jewish people were influential in the banking industry) into accepting full-blown lies (the Jews were responsible for Germany’s economic downturn).
To say that “People hate children” is the same type of leap of logic. What the woman in the trailer probably SHOULD have said is, “Some people don’t understand or respect our decision to have a large family.”
As Elizabeth said, you have to wonder who their target audience is.
June 19, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Ssusanna,
I am so happy to have your insights into this. I believe the Gunn brothers, who are the creators and producers of this film, are originally from Scotland. I think what I might be hearing you say is that these views are more of an American phenomenon, is that correct? I wondered that from the beginning. I was having trouble sorting through it all because the first teaser started out by listing things within the American culture that they deemed “monstrous” ie Hillary Clinton, Joyce Meyers, Oprah, etc. Then it ended with the woman from Scotland who talked about Knox and I was really confused. Do you see any debate in the UK amongst Christians regarding patriocentric teachings, roles of women, etc? I think it would really be interesting to get your perspective on this. Thanks.
June 19, 2007 at 1:38 pm
You know, it’s terribly interesting to me that in my fundamentalist upbringing, never one time did anyone ever mention this article by Knox. He was always presented as a poor martyr that Mary maliciously and unjustifiably hated. No wonder she hated him! At a time when sedition to the crown was punishable by death, I’m not seeing where he has much grounds to complain. Leaving alone the biblical question of whether or not women in power are all monsters, that book was clearly an assault on the crown. You can stand up for your beliefs all you want, but you have to be prepared to handle the consequences.
June 19, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Joan quoted this:
“People in the abortion industry actively seek to get teens to become sexually active so then the average girl will have 3 or 4 abortions by the time she’s 18.”
Carol Everett is the woman who was quoted regarding these stats and she is actually someone who would know, having been in the abortion industry herself for many years prior to her salvation. I heard her speak a few years ago and I believe she is credbile.
But, here is the interesting thing, believing that about her, I contacted her a couple weeks ago asking why she participated in this project and sending her these same clips. She wrote back immediately and told me that she she didn’t recollect being interviewed for the Gunn brothers project and that, in the context she saw her interview, was taken aback and said she disagrees with what is being promoted. She promised to get back to me. Then, yesterday, I heard from her again, saying she is still working on getting to the bottom of it. (For the record, I also spoke with someone in the Eagle Forum office who had never heard of this film project either and he is supposed to be writing a response back to me from Phyllis Schaftly.)
My guess is that at least Carol Everett’s clip came from a pro-life project and was lifted and used in this film. This all makes me wonder who is supporting this project in the US…..
June 19, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Joan said: “To say that “People hate children” is the same type of leap of logic. What the woman in the trailer probably SHOULD have said is, “Some people don’t understand or respect our decision to have a large family.”
This really bothered me too. What a blanket statement to say that people hate children. Yes, there are people who hate children. Yes, there are people who see children as the means to an end….even patriocentric folk could be accused of this!
I am really troubled that the entire project seems to set up a dicotomy between “them” and “us” and most Christians would be a part of the “them” crowd, by the standards they are establishing.
June 19, 2007 at 2:22 pm
I found it most disturbing that the teaser clip on the Vision Forum ended with
“Rated M for misogyny”
Is that supposed to be funny? Rated M for the hatred of women?
I agree with thatmom … it may be most troubling because of the division that it causes.
June 19, 2007 at 7:33 pm
The basis and title of this film is yet another example of the Patriocentrist extrapolation of text.
In context, John Knox probably was writing with Mary, the Catholic queen, in mind – his aims were political and not necessarily exclusively doctrinal. As Monica said, no wonder Mary executed him.
I wonder if Knox would’ve felt differently about the protestant queen, Elizabeth.
The Patriocentrists do the same thing with scripture. They look at particular verses, conveniently selected without consideration for the context. Look at how eager they are to “return” us to what appears to be their interpretation of Old Testament lifestyles. There is little consideration for the reality that Jesus fulfilled the law and ushered us into a new covenant relationship with God.
Even the New Testament verses they cite are stretched to the maximum. For example, applying Paul’s guidance to Ephesian wives to modern father-daughter relationships.
Therefore, it is little wonder our deluded and perhaps somewhat shady (if they lifted Carol Everett’s bit from another piece) Gunn brothers are running with the Monstrous Regiment of Women and making bizarre arguments improperly founded in a 500 year old political pamphlet.
June 19, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Thatmom- I don’t know if I have much light to shed! I certainly had not come across a lot of the issues being discussed here until I came over from Sallies blog to link to the Botkin sisters video, although I have been vaguely aware of some of the arguments out there. There are certainly some wierd and wonderful (not) ideas and false teachings in the church in the UK, but I have not come across these specific issues. Having said that I don’t tend to look for them either. I think the whole scene is very different over here to the States in some respects. Although the terminology is known many of the driving forces are I believe from the States. Homeschooling, home making, stay at home wives etc (not that I have anything against them) are not common place here altough home schooling is increasing. So I have to agree (but am ready to stand corrected) that many of these issues are ‘yours’ rather than ‘mine’ although forewarned is forearmed so keep up the good work. It is for this reason that I don’t comment too much- I don’t necessarily understand the whole issue and can’t get myself tied up in knots…..but I sigh a lot and wonder if people know what confussion (and therefore distraction from the work of the gospel) they are creating by these constant forays into areas which may be important but are beginning to look like an attack on the rest of us! Solo Scriptura……
June 19, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I must just clarfiy- there is plenty of debate about the role of women in the church and various ministries….but no, I have not come across patriocentricity here.
June 20, 2007 at 12:24 am
“Also, what is the target audience for this film? Is it just more “preaching to the choir”? I don’t think it’s going to convince anyone who isn’t already of that mindset. Most people know from their own experience that many of these extreme statements are untrue. (And I resent mightily the slander of the military.)”
Elizabeth,
Excellent point! This is just preaching to the choir and as Joan said most people will see right through the hyperbolic rhetoric and all the propaganda.
I really can’t wait to see this movie!
I think it would make a great “girls night out”.
Anyone game?
June 20, 2007 at 12:42 am
Well. I think someone needs to write DR. Sharon Adams of Edinbergh University and ask her what exactly she was referring to when she was talking about Knox. She mentioned sola-scrptura. Well, I agree with Knox about that, too.
I love the people that they interviewed.
Phyllis Schlaflely: Hardly Vision Forum’s poster girl for godly womanhood.
Carol Everett: Her own personal belief is that women can be leaders in the church
Carolyn Graglia: She was a lawyer who practiced law while her 3 children were younger and continued to practice law. Not exactly a poster woman herself for Vision Forum’s godly womanhood.
And then they interview DR. Sharon Adams from Edinburgh University? It looks like she is a doctor and is a professor at this university and teaches Scottish history. I am guessing, since this is a secular and mixed gender college, that she teaches men. She seemed quite authoritative in the trailer. I am surprised they were having a woman speak about doctrine and the scriptures with such authority when it is a movie against women who do such things? She didn’t mention feminists or women working or women staying at home under their father’s dominion once.
Karen, did you mention how you contacted Carol Everett? Did you ever hear back from Mrs. Schlafley?
I would like to hear the comments from all the women I mentioned above once they see the whole movie.
Extolling femininity/blasting feminism
Their purpose seemed a little inconsistent from the trailer I saw.
June 20, 2007 at 12:47 am
Karen,
I see you explained about your contact with Carol and Phyllis.
I am going to contact DR. Sharon Adams at the University and see if she was contacted for her part in this film. She seems to be talking about Knox’s calvinism and not his monstrous blast against women.
June 20, 2007 at 12:52 am
Corrie,
I heard back from Carol Everett again yesterday and she says she is still working on getting to the bottom of this.
I also sent an e-mail to Carolyn Graglia today and haven’t yet heard back from her. Of course, we already know the views of the other ladies on the clip since they are a part of the patriocentric movement.
I will keep you all posted when I hear from these dear ladies.
June 20, 2007 at 12:57 am
Karen,
Where is that trailer that flashes all the words like “voting” across the screen and also shows a scene from an older scary movie?
Did you see the “about” page where it shows who was featured in this “documentary”?
How can Carol Everett be a feature when she has no knowledge of this film?
And what is up with all that “monstrous boob” stuff at the bottom of the clip after you view it at their site? 🙂
June 20, 2007 at 1:06 am
Just to make sure people understand, Mary didn’t execute Knox. He died of illness many years later. In fact, he lived to be under Elizabeth’s rule who could have been an ally for the Reformation but since he blasted all female regents, he kind of burned his bridges with her.
John Knox wrote his first blast anonymously. He was really the first anonymous internet blogger! He never ended up writing any more articles.
About the “monstrous boob” stuff. After you watch the video at the Monstrous Women site, there are little snapshots on the bottom of the viewer. Well, I wouldn’t recommend watching them. There are pictures of naked women with huge, bosoms. Also, there is a “gender war” video with women beating up men. I guess this was someone’s answer to “Monstrous Women”. 🙂
June 20, 2007 at 1:17 am
Karen,
Thank you. I wrote to Dr. Sharon Adams and if/when she responds, I will let you know.
Anyone read the “Hate Male” at the monstrous Gunn brother’s site? I wonder why they call it “hate male” as if anyone who disagrees with them hates men? That is just silly.
I wonder if they expect women to feel all warm and fuzzy and all loved by men after reading John Knox’s Blast against women? He basically tells us women are not fit because they are less intelligent and less able to cope with life. IOW, women are defective and everyone who knows a woman knows this to be true. This is a summary of Knox’s blast.
Why should we as women embrace Knox’s flawed and hateful diatribe against all women castigating us as less intelligent? I didn’t feel the love, to tell you the truth.
But, I guess it is different when women write and tell them that they are off in their thinking? These women weren’t castigating all men, just them. Don’t they understand the difference?
June 20, 2007 at 1:32 am
Sorry to write yet another post, Karen. You can send me to the corner after this one!
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2006/12/13/lights-camera-hypocrisy
This article is not written by a Christian but this person really nails the Gunn Bros and the women for their hypocrisy.
“Of course, it’s okay to write books, go to graduate school, edit magazines, maintain websites, and go on lecture tours. As long as you focus your numerous public activities on condemning women who work outside the home, you should still safely count as a homemaker. Do the Academy Awards have a special category for hypocrisy?”
She goes through each person featured in the trailer except for two. It is very intereting.
I have Graglia’s book. She talks about how Graglia wrote that if a man molest’s his children it is because the wife isn’t sexually satisfying him. Yikes! Time to dig my book out.
June 20, 2007 at 1:34 am
Another quote concerning the hypocrisy found within their teachings. So many of these women on this trailer and the wives of those in the patriocentric movement have went to college and earned degrees.
“In another clip, author-homemaker Stacy McDonald gently admonishes us not to dress like whores (“If you wear a uniform that says you’re a police officer, you shouldn’t be surprised if people think you’re a police officer”). Here’s what HomeschoolChristian.com has to say about her book, Raising Maidens of Virtue: A Study of Feminine Loveliness for Mothers and Daughters: “[McDonald’s] studies stress control of mouth, hospitality, modesty in dress and manners, faithfulness to the future husband in thought and deed, family relationships, and maintaining purity in a fallen, sinful world…College is not recommended for girls, but rather homemaking skills and preparation for marriage should be their focus.” Yes, higher education will only corrupt women. Unless, of course, you’re Phyllis Schlafly, who has a B.A. from Washington University, a J.D. from Washington University Law School, and a Master’s in Political Science from Harvard; or F. Carolyn Graglia, who has a B.A. from Cornell and a J.D. from Columbia.”
June 20, 2007 at 1:36 am
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2006/12/13/lights-camera-hypocrisy
Here is the link to an article that pretty much is right on even though it isn’t from a Christian point of view.
I don’t know what happened to my post. Maybe I exceeded my limit? 🙂
Read the above article. It makes some very good points.
“Of course, it’s okay to write books, go to graduate school, edit magazines, maintain websites, and go on lecture tours. As long as you focus your numerous public activities on condemning women who work outside the home, you should still safely count as a homemaker. Do the Academy Awards have a special category for hypocrisy?”
June 20, 2007 at 3:20 am
I subscribed to this blog after the conversation about the Botkin sisters’ movie and I am really enjoying the conversations I read here. This one particularly interested me, because I actually had to write a short essay for a professor about why I was/was not a feminist. I wrote that I wasn’t a feminist and outlined some reason for objecting to feminist “doctrines”.
My primary objection was that I do not believe mainline feminism allows women to really embrace being women. Instead they are forced into proving that they are just as good as men, which usually translates into “women are better than men” because the reality is that women are very capable. God created them to be able to handle an amazing level of stress and conflict that inevitably accompanies being a wife and mother. This ability is often profitably tapped in the world of business and parachurch ministry. Second, feminists often harshly judge my sister, a wonderful intelligent woman, for choosing to marry young and have a (relatively) large family (4 children). Third, feminism as a thought process/worldview has made it increasingly difficult for me, as a strong intelligent woman, to find a man who does not see me as a threat. I do not think my intellect and physical strength in any way limit my love of domesticity and femininity, but feminism does not allow me to have that much diversity in my life or desires. In addition, feminism has taught men that women like me are out to dominate and have no desire to be “the weaker vessel” in a relationship.
All that to say that I do not align myself with feminism in any of its more popular forms. But I cannot embrace the ideas promoted in this film. No conversation is effective if it is initiated with, or supported by, inflammatory rhetoric. I spent 3 years in college trying to convince people around me that debate did not equal personal hatred or attack but was necessary for true understanding. The avenue of promoting ideas used in this film only alienates those of differing viewpoints and swiftly closes the door to any fruitful dialogue.
Thank you ladies for providing this forum. Already I have had friends and family thank me for pointing them in your direction. You are doing a service to the body of Christ and I appreciate your willingness to make yourselves vulnerable in order to promote thoughtful dialogue.
June 20, 2007 at 3:23 am
I am curious about something and maybe some of you can educate me. Is this patriarchal movement really that widespread? If it wasn’t for the internet, I don’t think I would know anything about it. I received a Vision Forum catalog some years ago and in the process of checking out their website came across some of the writings (actually it was “Doug’s Blog” that got my attention). And then, I somehow stumbled across the “BuriedTreasureBooks” blog and the whole “Prairie Muffin” thing- and, again, I suppose I became perversely fascinated with it. But, I don’t know anyone who is “into” it. The Vision Forum site is very professional and very slick, but are the number of adherents really of any significance?
I’ve mentioned before that much of what is espoused is so contrary to my own experiences that I am almost astonished at the patriarchal following. For example, I have had some wonderful, truly “manly” men in my life- my Dad, my husband, my brother, my uncles, my son- and NONE of them feel the need to play dress up (what is it with those fedoras and historical dress that the VF men are always wearing?!), obsess about whether or not the women in their lives were being feminine enough, or talk unceasingly about being manly. They just are. So I’m left wondering who are these patriocentrists (or whatever) and what is it about their movement that is so attractive?
June 20, 2007 at 4:11 am
Corrie, don’t forget Mrs. Chancey with her BA from King College.
June 20, 2007 at 4:47 am
JRH,
Thanks for this info.
If a college degree was good enough for the anti-feminist women who are the main spokespeople for the patriarchalists then they should get off of the backs of all the Christian girls who are going to college now. Why was it okay for them but it is not okay for anyone else now?
I am tired of all this nonsense. Why, all of a sudden, is it bad for girls to go to college when it was normative for all of them?
Schlafley, Graglia, Mrs. Phillips, Mrs. Chancey…..they all went to college.
Can we just stop beating this drum, ladies who are against college educations for women, and realize that this is silly and looks very hypocritical?
June 20, 2007 at 5:43 am
“Just to make sure people understand, Mary didn’t execute Knox. He died of illness many years later. In fact, he lived to be under Elizabeth’s rule who could have been an ally for the Reformation but since he blasted all female regents, he kind of burned his bridges with her. ”
More proof that I am not a historian. My apologies, I think I confused him with Tyndale (who wasn’t executed by Mary, either).
As for Knox’s piece, it may yet be a political pamphlet. In any case, it does seem to be a bit outrageous to use a 500 year-old extra-Biblical text to support the notions that women ought not vote nor lead. Voting, for example, was not something practiced at the time.
June 20, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Rebecca said:
“Third, feminism as a thought process/worldview has made it increasingly difficult for me, as a strong intelligent woman, to find a man who does not see me as a threat.”
I think one of the saddest things about the “visionary daughters” perspective is that any single young women who are not part of their agenda, are automatically lumped into the “radical feminist” camp and Godly young men are discouraged away from pursuing relationships with them. How unfair is that?
June 20, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Corrie,
That review really hit it right on, didn’t it? The intriguing part was the part about the Gunn brothers misrepreseting themselves at that feminist conference in order to get interviews. I think we are on to something here and I look forward to hearing back from the contributors. I have the Graglia book, too, and think it might have some interesting insights as well.
Also, Corrie, what do you know about Howard Phillips’ views on Marxism? Or Geoffrey Botkins’ views?
June 20, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Karen,
I know nothing about Phillips’ and Botkins’ views on Marxism. But, I could ask someone who might know.
I heard back from Dr. Sharon Adams of Edinburgh University.
She agreed to take part in the film purely to give historical information about John Knox. She said that this does not necessarily mean that she is in agreement with the views taught in that film. She is looking into this further.
It is clear she was speaking about John Knox, the man and his doctrine and not specifically about his “Blast of the Trumpet”.
What happened to that one goofy trailer with the old-fashioned horror film beginning?
June 20, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Funny about John Knox. Reading reformed history he is a champion. Reading secular history he is very different.
Years ago, I was reading several old books on Mary’s reign and was astonished to read about John Knox. He, of course, was one of the key plotters to murder Mary. But, more than that…he even prepared a sermon to be preached in the event the plot suceeded… rationalizing the act by scripture!
He was also one of the plotters to kill her second husband and there…they suceeded.
Funny, I thought NT scripture taught us to lay down OUR lives for our friends…not murder our enemies. You have to wonder how Knox could rationalize his acts scripturally.
June 20, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Elizabeth,
My experience with this worldview closely parallels yours (discovering first the Vision Forum catalog, then the Prairie Muffin sites). The difference for me is, prior to finding these websites, I had known several families who all mysteriously seemed to be operating from the same playbook, although they went to quite different churches. Instinctively, I felt like there was some larger philosophy at work behind some of their lifestyle choices, but I just couldn’t figure out how such a diverse group could suddenly have arrived at so many of the same conclusions.
When I found the Prairie Muffin stuff in particular, it was one of those “aha!” moments for me. Everything began to make sense.
For the families I know, it seems to have started with the decision to homeschool. I think that was the way they became exposed to Vision Forum and Doug Phillips’ ideas. Then, because he and other Prairie Muffin types do such a good job of marketing their lovely families, the people of my acquaintance became enamored of the lifestyle and, to me, at least, rather unquestioningly began to accept the broader underlying “Tenets of Patriarchy.” It’s been interesting to watch as some of my friends have become more and more narrow in their views of what is “truly Christian,” to the point where now, I’ve lost touch with several of them.
I think there’s something highly attractive about making the rather “lone ranger” decision to homeschool, only to discover (through homeschooling conventions, homeschooling materials, and websites like the Prairie Muffin’s) that by gum, it’s the ONLY way to raise Godly children! Moreover, having a large family is not just a nice idea, it’s actually sinful not to! And, not only is being a homemaker a great thing to do, it happens to be the ONLY truly Christian choice for women.
I guess what I’m saying is, the patriarch-centered view of the Christian life affirms many of the decisions that my friends had made anyway, and consequently, they continue to go deeper and deeper into this way of thinking about their faith.
So, is the movement that widespread? Well, in its purest form, probably not. But considering how the homeschooling movement has grown exponentially over the past 10 years or so, I think more and more people are being exposed to the initial Vision Forum materials and the glossy portrayals of their ideas.
So websites like this one (where people hold these ideas up to Scripture and really try to analyze their underlying philosophies) are, I believe, necessary to the body of Christ.
Because, while there is NOTHING wrong with homeschooling, or having many children, or wearing only dresses, or having your daughters skip college to stay at home, there IS something wrong when those things become prerequisites for being a “true Christian.” Which, if you really dig deeply enough, is the bottom line of what Vision Forum and some of these other “Patriarchs” are actually teaching.
June 20, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Joan said:
“So, is the movement that widespread? Well, in its purest form, probably not. But considering how the homeschooling movement has grown exponentially over the past 10 years or so, I think more and more people are being exposed to the initial Vision Forum materials and the glossy portrayals of their ideas. ”
I have become more and more convinced that certain state homeschooling organizations maintain a tight control over speakers at their conventions, choosing only those who will promote the patriocentric agenda. I have had three different women involved in one way or another with these groups confirm this to be true from their own experiences. I haven’t taken the time to do this, but I think it would be very telling to look at the various conventions from state to state and see who is speaking.
The tragedy to me is that there are unsuspecting young couples all around the country who wander into these events and buy these materials and, seeking to live Biblical lifestyles and being taken with the sweet children they meet, they think that if they do X, Y, and Z, they, too, will have such results. In their quest to reject teachings that countradict the Word of God, the have, in fact, sold their birth rite for bowls of pottage.
June 20, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Look at these two statements:
“Funny, I thought NT scripture taught us to lay down OUR lives for our friends…not murder our enemies. You have to wonder how Knox could rationalize his acts scripturally.”
“I’ve seen a lot of things like this, presented from this perspective, with one goal in mind: convince them it’s evil enough to stay away from it forever. Not entirely effective, but it seems that’s the point with Christians using inflammatory accusations, by and large.”
Now, what do these two situations have in common?
The makers of this film lie and misrepresent the truth, all “for a good cause”, and Knox conspired to commit murder “for a good cause”…..
Is it any accident that the same Bible verse which names Satan as the “father of lies” is also describes him as being a murderer from the beginning?
Jhn 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
June 20, 2007 at 4:59 pm
I just get kind of disgusted by it all. I think of all the young women whose lives are tortured due to these misguided ideas. I remember what it was like as a late teen/early twenty-something wanting to make sure I was fully submitted to God and trying to figure out what that meant. Unfortunately at the time, I was going to a patriarchal church and it caused me a lot of distress to be thought of as “in rebellion” because I didn’t buy into the whole men-rule-all ideology.
One friend, who the church made a pastor of youth ministry, couldn’t understand that I would leave that church due to their sexist policies and theology. He was astounded that it was such an “issue” to me. I told him I wasn’t an “issue”! I did end up leaving that church–it was only for a season that God called me there–and going to SEMINARY! LOL.
It does break my heart that women who are deeply seeking God can get so confused and alienated by patriarchal ideas.
Anyway, this is just to say I’m very intrigued to have found this forum. Thanks for all the intelligent and respectful dialogue, ladies! Michelle
June 20, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Corrie,
Are you talking about the Women Know Your Limits video? I found it on Jen’s Gems. Here’s the link. http://jensgems.wordpress.com/women-know-your-limits/
I can’t even begin to tell you how hard I laughed the first time I saw this. In fact, I think it might have been our inaugural post when we moved True Womanhood over to wordpress. 🙂
June 21, 2007 at 12:42 am
It has been very disheartening to me and actually made me angry to see that basically everyone who is a vendor or speaker at a homeschool convention is either ATI, Reformed ala Vision Forum, or Mennonite/Anabaptist. The reformed are taking over, it would appear, but I think it is more likely that they are the only ones allowed in.
Incidentally, it is also very hard to get anything published in magazine or book or etc. because most of the publishers catering to homeschool markets are Reformed and diligently defend their own and keep out those who are not adherents. I’ve experienced this firsthand and it bites. They are a very exclusive club and I’ve never been able to get in (I actually tried to try to bring in a different viewpoint:-P).
June 21, 2007 at 2:42 am
@JRH: I graduated from King and am wondering why Jennie Chancey seems to disparage the school so much. It has changed a great deal since around 2002 but in her days was fairly conservative.
@Elizabeth: I too have wondered about the VF movement, but my question has been, what exactly IS this “vision”? Is it a plan for the livelihood of a family? Or a grander scheme?
June 21, 2007 at 3:32 am
“Reformed ala Vision Forum”
Just to clarify for those who may not realize it. . . “Reformed” does NOT equal “Vision Forum.” Sometimes, but not always, those overlap within the current Generic North American Protestantism. But they are by no means synonymous.
June 21, 2007 at 5:21 am
Marie, Vision Forum is NOT reformed, although they like to think they are.
Heather, Jennie Chancey claimed she was taught evolution (or something to that affect) and that the Bible is “just a book of stories” similar to those in other cultures, etc. She said her college experience turned her into a full-blown feminist. And for anyone who’d like to accuse me of gossip, let me just point to the fact that her statements to this effect can be found on Vision Forum’s CD entitled “JennieB and the Pilot”, a talk which I happen to LOVE and listen to often.
Is anyone else disturbed by VF’s bizarre preoccupation with this weird romanticized view of American History? I guess that’s off topic…
June 21, 2007 at 7:30 am
Somehow I’ve missed all this. I’ve heard people mention this trailer before, but I didn’t know what it was about. I was at the very first VF Film Festival in 2004, where they showed the Gunn Brothers first film, “Shaky Town.” Doug called it “edgy.” It was a hit with the audience, but the audience was already pro-life. I am assuming the intended audience is the “preaching to the choir” type here as well.
I spent over six years in the military, so I feel I can speak to this part of the movie a bit. One of my first experiences in the Army was being gang-raped and all the guys got away with it. Instead, I was punished. This was not uncommon.
I was usually assigned to mostly male units, and I remember when I would first arrive, I was usually greeted with something like, “Oh, no, not another female.” I would have to work twice as hard as any male just to get any credit BECAUSE most of the females in the military were lazy, dumb, and knew they could get away with murder if they just cried, “Sexual bias.” I wanted to do well and get promoted on my own rights, but most females were content to get promoted because of affirmative action.
I wrote articles for Doug’s blog talking about the dangers of women being in the military (that was before he kicked me out!). There were lots of bad things that happened to women in the field and in the barracks. One of the main problems, though, in combat especially, is a man’s natural instinct to protect women and when he has to choose between doing his job and protecting a woman he’s working with, he will often neglect his duties. Personally, I think women should be allowed to do clerical and nursing duties, be a cook and serve in positions that won’t interfere with the men doing what comes naturally to men — fighting.
Another situation I found in the military that women should know about is abortions. When we would go to the field for 30 days, it was not unusual for women to get pregnant shortly before we would go. They were then exempt from going. However, when we returned, they weren’t pregnant anymore. There were women who would literally get pregnant on purpose to get out of going to the field and then abort so they wouldn’t have to have the baby either.
Sorry, ladies, but I do have to agree with the Gunn brothers on this one.
June 21, 2007 at 11:33 am
Hi Jen,
I am glad to hear your personal insights into the topic of women in the military. After my own experience of living on several military bases while my husband was in the army, I concluded that it should be a man’s world. As far as support jobs, I am still unsure what I think about that. My husband has reminded me that “all military jobs are combat jobs.” Wasn’t Jessica Lynch in a support role?
I think it is unfortunate that the Gunn brothers chose to lump together all the topics they did into one Mulligan stew. It would have been more effective if they addressed the topic of women in the military by itself. But they way they presented their case in the trailer and the teaser, if you take issue with one thing, like being in favor of equal pay for equal work or if you support universal sufferage, you can be accused of being a feminist. Once again, it is “either or.”
I also wanted to note that “Shaky Town” is a film addressing militant homosexuality, I believe, and not pro-life issues. Someone correct me if I am wrong about that.
June 21, 2007 at 11:50 am
From Comment 41 “I too have wondered about the VF movement, but my question has been, what exactly IS this “vision”? Is it a plan for the livelihood of a family? Or a grander scheme?”
and
From Comment 42 “Is anyone else disturbed by VF’s bizarre preoccupation with this weird romanticized view of American History? I guess that’s off topic…”
It’s not off topic at all. These two comments are at the heart of what I believe put the “vision” in Vision Forum. The theology is reconstructionist with an eye toward pre-civil war era style government (union of sovereign states.)
It’s hard to put the two together in one comment box but here’s my attempt. I’ll break the two parts up and tackle each aspect and then tie them back together.
Reconstructionist theology and the Dominion Mandate. (Often referred to as postmillenialists.)
This is the theology that is driving a lot of the vision. Postmilleniallists believe there will be a “Golden Age” which will precede the Second Coming of Christ. This mandate means that Reconstructionists must work hard to “reconstruct” or occupy and rule over every sphere of society applying Mosaic Law to each sphere.
There are many examples found in the writings to that many of their events are rooted in Dominion Theology. Here are just two…
Recapping one of the talks by Bill Einwechter’s Messages at the 2006 NCFIC Conference, Doug writes,
“This message will explain the centrality of children for the fulfillment of the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:26-28. It will seek to show how fruitfulness among Christians is essential if we are to fulfill our calling before God.”other area of application seen in Vision Forum is the Entrepreneaurial Bootcamp. From Doug’s Blog he wrote, ” But the underlying premise for much of their teaching is rooted in Reconstructionist or Dominionist doctrine.
Doug Phillips on the purpose for the Entrepreneaurial Bootcamp
“The principle of entrepreneurship is rooted in the dominion mandate and the biblical doctrines of work, stewardship, and fruitfulness. Biblical entrepreneurship incorporates principles of biblical patriarchy with its emphasis on multi-generational faithfulness, freedom in Christ, inheritance, jurisdiction, and the household as a vibrant, economically productive, God-ordained unit for cultural transformation. It is impossible to have a full-orbed vision of entrepreneurship without careful consideration for the Scriptural doctrine of the family. Any approach to entrepreneurship which is divorced of these considerations inevitably leads to the idolatries of materialism, individualism, and the love of money.”
Civil War
My first encounter with the sentiments of Vision Forum and the Civil War occured at a homeschooling convention in Lansing, MI. I visited the VF table and began to speak to a few interns selling their wares. I noticed that some of the books were about southern generals during the Civil War, but there were no books talking about men such as Lincoln. When I inquired about the absence, I got a snicker and a stare. Silly me, I didn’t I know that Lincoln was not a hero, but a man to be despised and that the Civil War was a war of “northern aggression.” But not to worry, these two dapper young chaps set this naive homeschool mom straight! That’s all well and good fun. As a Civil War re-enactor it wasn’t the first time I had encountered such strong sentiments. So I wasn’t too bothered. But what I found surprising was their desire to move back toward a pre-civil war style government and a seemingly glamorization of slavery. Almost as if it were a good thing. Being that they were in the north, they were careful not to say too much, but it was clearly evident that a nation fighting to free black men was not a noble cause.
I wrote off much of their talk as the musings of young men bored on a Saturday afternoon. I’m sure that I provided good fodder for dinner conversation.
But as I began to read more about Vision Forum it became apparent that their thinking was not their own, but also held by the others within Vision Forum.
Most of us believe the Civil War ended in the 1860’s. But to many, the war is still ongoing. To some Southern Christians, Lincoln ushered in a new kind of federalism that just wasn’t part of God’s design for our government and society. And the southern view is actually the biblical and patriarchal view. To essence, to be a good patriarch, one must be pro-south.
You can listen to an early talk by Doug here,
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=&sermonID=350512168
In the beginning of the talk he references the name “Dabney” as a possibility for their unborn child. To most of us, that name means nothing. But Robert Lewis Dabney is a hero to Doug Phillips. He was a writer, a theologian, the chaplain in the Southern army, and biographer of Stonewall Jackson. Like many writers, there are aspects to Dabney that make one think, but a disturbing area are his views on blacks. He considered them a “inferior” race.
Here’s one quote, “The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity…”
Doug Phillips has compiled a book on Dabney’s thoughts and writings. I don’t have the book, but I suspect that quote isn’t in there. This is the man that Doug Phillips believes to be one of the greatest theologians of the South. This is a man that Doug Phillips wants to name one of his children after.
When I wrote Vision Forum asking if Doug Phillips believed those portions of Dabney’s writing, I received no reply. The silence was disconcerting.
Getting any sort of clarification from Vision Forum and their beliefs in this area is not easy. Doug Phillips has done an extensive amount of speaking and writing, yet I cannot find any place where he has renounced the views Dabney held on blacks as an “inferior” race. But I haven’t read everything, so if someone knows if he has, I’d love to read it.
Putting the two together
What’s difficult for many of us who believe some of the same things as Vision Forum, is that we miss the underlying theology that drives the ministry. We assume certain things to be true because we apply our own theology to the writing. But a diligent reader must read not only for what they get out of the words, but seek to understand the intention of the author or ministry as well.
Putting the Reconstructionist theology together with Dabney’s thoughts on blacks and you get the possiblity that some might interpret a “mandate” that says to usher in a “Golden Age”, we must return to the Truth of Mosaic Law and that means a right view of the proper relations between differing races. And in his talk Doug Phillips alludes to the fact that the the Southern economy is a more appropriate application of true Mosaic Law and a better biblical order in society.
Does Doug Phillips truly believe this? It’s difficult to tell. But if he doesn’t I would think that he ought to be VERY explicit and vocal to ensure that there is absolutely no misunderstanding of his position and his vision.
It’s one thing to support the applications that Doug Phillips teaches, and quite another to support the premise he believes. It is up to each of us to decide if the premise of a Dominion Mandate which could include the teachings of Dabney is biblical and something we would like to support.
But as for me and my house, we will support a higher mandate based on the love Jesus Christ showed on the cross when he died for ALL men. And for any vision to be biblical it must see all men as equal and none inferior to any other.
June 21, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Spunky, WELL SAID!
The fact that VisionForum idealizes a time and a place where some men were enslaved and others were driven from their lands and homes forced to march to Oklahoma, all on account of race, gives the lie to Doug Phillip’s whole “vision”. Not every vision comes from God, after all.
If a denomination does not equally embrace Jew and Greek, rich and poor, male and female, black and white and red and yellow and everything in between, it cannot claim to be Christian, because in Christ there are no such divisions.
June 21, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Phillipians 2 says,
If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Christ came to fulfill the law, and demonstrates to all of us humility in highest form. Teachings by any theologian past or present that require one race be considered inferior to another is inconsistent with the Gospel no matter how good it is for the “economy.”
June 21, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I suppose, with no military background, I have not thought much about women in the army- and I really appreciate Jen’s comments here. But I would honestly like to ask this question- and it is not loaded or anything- I just want to understand- is the issue of women in the armed forces (army/air/navy) such a big problem? I can see why it is not ideal- but is it something that needs such a public slamming?
Would like to know what people think.
June 21, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Spunky,
I can’t tell you how happy I am that you shared these things. (#45) I, too, believe, that central to patriocentricity is the desire to bring back a feudalistic, class distinctive, hegemonic way of life. And I believe that the materials that are sold through Vision Forum seek to promote this view to all ages of children. (You begin training girls with Elsie Dinsmore, continue by having your girls read Raising Maidens of Virtue and then polish them off with the Botkin girls’ teachings, finally directing the women to Jennie Chancy.)
Our family attended a Doug Phillips type of church for a number of years, though at the time, we didn’t realize how entrenched people were into Doug’s vision nor did we really realize what that vision looks like when application of his teachings is made. We started to catch on when, week after week, we listened to some teaching tape or other from Phillips after the noon fellowship dinner.
One day, one woman made quite a derogatory comment about Lincoln and the others around her laughed and nodded. I was taken aback, having grown up in the land of Lincoln and, not only that, having just read Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which, I might add, is an awesome book and one I would recommend everyone to read with their children. (The application to what is going on with the modern day pro-life issue, is reason enough. I read it aloud to my teenage boys and elderly mom every day during lunch and some days there wasn’t a dry eye around the table.) So I couldn’t quite grasp what I was hearing. It was made even more confusing when one of the women said “If the south had won the war, we would have a truly Christian nation where everyone would live like we are living.” I asked myself how a “truly Christian nation” could happen on the backs of men who were not free because of the color of their skin or with women who were relegated to wearing hoop skirts and sipping mint julep on the veranda while mammy watched their children. But, to my credit, I said nothing.
Not long after that, my husband was at a men’s Bible study, which were called “Patriarch meetings,” a name that concerned him when it wasn’t amusing him with all the harrrrumphing going on, and one of the men who is now an elder made this statement, “Well, say what you want, the Klan (KKK) has done some great things.” My husband was stunned, as were three other men who later shared this story with me, in awe that a “godly” man could make such a statement.
Those two events drove me to spend the past couple years studying the whole north/south issue and particularly looking at the patriocentric nature of life in the Old Dominion regarding women and slaves. At the end of that research, I have concluded that I would not want to live in “a truly Godly nation” if the pre-Civil Ware south is what it looked like.
Cult of True Womanhood
It was during the era of the pre-Civil War south that the concept of “true womanhood” came to be. According to Barbara Welter who studied the era from 1820-1860, “the attributes of True Womanhood, by which a woman judged herself and was judged by her husband, her neighbors, and her society could be divided into four cardinal virtues – piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity. Without them, all was ashes. With them she was promised happiness and power.”Here is another quote from Welter:
”Submission was perhaps the most feminine virtue expected of women. Men were supposed to be religious, although they rarely had time for it, and supposed to be pure, although it came awfully hard to them, but men were the movers, the doers, the actors. Women were the passive, submissive responders. The order of dialogue was of course, fixed in heaven….woman understood her position if she was the right kind of woman, a true woman. Put strongly by a Mrs. Sanford, “A really sensible woman feels her dependence. She does what she can, but she is conscious of her inferiority, and therefore grateful for support.” Another woman by the name of Grace Greenwood said “True feminine genius is ever timid, doubtful, and clingingly dependent, a perpetual childhood. Thus if your husband is abusive, never retort.” And, if you all can take any more, A Young Woman’s Guide for the Harmonious Development of a Christian Character says “females should become as little children and avoid a controversial spirit.”
This sounds like it came off the pages of the Botkin book.
And, just for Mary Jo, here is another quote, “ In the 19th century, any form of social change was tantamount to an attack on woman’s virtue. For example, dress reform seemed innocuous enough and the bloomers worn by the lady of that name and her followers were certainly modest attire. Such was the reasoning of only the ignorant. In an issue of The Ladies Wreath, a young lady is represented in dialogue with her “Professor.” The girl expresses admiration for the bloomer costume, it gives freedom of motion, is healthful, and attractive. The Professor sets her straight. Trousers, he explains, are “only one of the many manifestations of that wild spirit of socialism and agrarian radicalism which is at present so rife in our land.”
(Note: perhaps this is where the Botkin girls and their dad came up with feminism being spawned by Marxism.)
Barbara Welter’s article goes on to talk about the role of women as nurses, (which brings to mind Jennie Chancy’s comments on nursing):“One of the most important functions of woman as comforter was her role as nurse…There were enough illnesses of youth and age, major and minor, to give the nineteenth century American woman nursing experience. The sickroom called for the exercise of her higher qualities of patience, mercy, and gentleness as well as her housewifely arts. She could thus fulfill her dual feminine function – beauty and usefulness…”
Dual feminine function of beauty and usefulness? This also coincides with the belief they held in that day that women’s brains were smaller and incapable of logical thought! From the book Dimity Convictions, “most authorities on anatomy and gynecology agreed that woman’s cerebral system was less well-developed, her nervous system better developed than man’s. William P. Dewees, Adjunct Professor of Midwifery at the University of Pennsylvania, said “The bones of her cranium are thinner, smaller, and more pliant, and space designed to be filled by the brain is smaller” and his colleague, Dr. High Lodge stated that, regarding her thinking system, it is less proper and less feminine that her nutritive system, since it is not the intellectual system, but the vital one which is, and ought to be developed in woman.” In other words, women are only created for having babies and not for thinking.
(This sound alot like a Doug Phillips conference speech.)
Also, according to the “science”of phrenology, women had larger “bumps” of Benevolence, Veneration (obedience and submission to authority), Approbativeness (desire for approval), conscientiousness, Adhesiveness (monogamy), Secretiveness, Ideality, and Philoprogenitiveness (love of children.”
When I read this, it reminded me of the world’s philosophy that man cannot choose behavior, that it is pre-programmed into him, much like those who teach that homosexuality is genetic. But, you see, if women are already predisposed to these “virtues” then it only makes sense that God made her that way and that those are the virtues that are to be developed. Just think about the Vision Forum catalog for girls.
I have more coming on this as well as on the slavery/hegemony connection.
June 21, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Here is a link for further reading by Barbara Welter
http://www.pinzler.com/ushistory/cultwo.html
Her book is called Dimity Convictions – the American Woman in the Nineteenth Century
June 21, 2007 at 1:59 pm
“The true woman of the new millennium seeks to honor the Lord Jesus Christ with her heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love her neighbor as herself. She is gifted by God with amazing and unique gifts and she is empowered by the Holy Spirit to use those gifts for His glory alone. As this true woman commits herself to the Word of God, she eschews the man-made stereotypes given to her in the past and delights in God’s distinctive calling on her life in her home, in the church, and in the world.”
Just thought it might be helpful to look at our blog purpose statement again in contrast to what the “cult of true womanhood” in 1820 taught.
June 21, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Cynthia Gee said,
The fact that VisionForum idealizes a time and a place where some men were enslaved and others were driven from their lands and homes forced to march to Oklahoma, all on account of race, gives the lie to Doug Phillip’s whole “vision”. Not every vision comes from God, after all.
This is so sad and disturbing to me. We are blessed to have 3 sons whom the Lord has allowed us to adopt from Africa. We own the VF CD “Women and Children” first, and have listened to it many times. I am wondering however, if it is white women and children first only. In the Pre-Civil War America black women and children and Native American Women and children were surely not put first.
June 21, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Karen, you are correct about the Gunn Bros. first movie being about homosexuality. The abortion film was an excellent also, We watched something like 45 films that weekend, so I probably got them mixed up!
My point in allowing for women to work in support should have been that I only think they should work at their home unit or WAY in the rear. They should not be out where the fighting is. They should not ever be in a position to interfere with men fighting. I actually would support an all female personnel division and put the men out there fighting, but America probably wouldn’t go back in time that much!
Susanna, I don’t know if the issue of women in the military needs a public “slamming,” but I do think it needs to be addressed. Many women are abused and exploited in the military, while many others get away with everything short of murder. There are truly few that do what they should be doing and there are multiplied issues and problems with mixing the sexes in the military. When I went to the field for 30 days with 100 men, I’ll let you guess what happens.
Regarding Spunky’s comments on Reconstructionism and Dominion theology, Spunky is right that they are the driving force behind everything Vision Forum does. I sat under that teaching for five years and, as a couple here could verify, until very recently, I took a very strong pro-slavery position because of it. We were steeped in that thinking of EVERYTHING you posted, Spunky. I truly thought we were still under the Law. Thank God He set me free from that now.
Karen said: “(You begin training girls with Elsie Dinsmore, continue by having your girls read Raising Maidens of Virtue and then polish them off with the Botkin girls’ teachings, finally directing the women to Jennie Chancy.)”
I never thought of it that way, Karen, but it is almost a cradle-to-grave mentality being taught here, isn’t it?
June 21, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Great conversation,
Here is a quote from the letter below:
” Vision Forum also insists that the Native Americans of Jamestown were “happy” to turn over land to the settlers because they did not possess “Western and biblical concepts of property ownership. ”
Really? Did VF ask the Native Americans how they felt about this or was it just presumed since white people know better?
And if they didn’t possess these concepts of BIBLICAL property ownership, shouldn’t we have educated them and not taken advantage of them? Does that give us a right to take their property from them?
How about we put ourselves in their place? Someone comes and takes our property because they are bigger and stronger and have better weapons to do so and then turns around and tells us that we were ignorant so that is why they did what they did?
I am sorry but this whole thing about the Civil War and Doug telling us that abolutionism was “evil” and that Lincoln and other Northern leaders are written out of their history just doesn’t sit right with me.
Like I said before over at Jen’s blog, I am one of those damn Yankees who would support and even DIE for the freeing of slaves (aka abolutionism) and I think Lincoln was a fine man.
Are we to believe that Dabney was some great super-hero and Lincoln was a villain? Give me a break.
This was posted by Cindy Kunsman at her site:
http://www.ourchurch.com/view/?pageID=341025
Go there to read the whole letter to the editor from a pastor concerning his views on VF and their Jamestown celebration.
In fact, I will just post it here for record:
We are the members of the Charles City Clergy Conference, an ecumenical association of ministers from the churches of Charles City. Recently, we learned that Charles City will be the site of an alternative Jamestown 400th celebration, to be held June 11-18 at Fort Pocahontas.
This greatly concerns us. The alternative Jamestown Celebration is hosted by Vision Forum, a Texas-based organization. According to the Vision Forum website, http://www.visionforumministries.org, the festival is intended to highlight the role of the Jamestown settlers in bringing Christianity to North America, because Vision Forum feels that the official commemoration spent too much time apologizing for the treatment of African Americans and Native Americans, and not enough time celebrating God’s work at Jamestown.
We applaud any attempt to give God glory. But we take a stand against Vision Forum’s attempt to tie its own political and social agenda to the Gospel. Its website shows that this organization associates the message of Jesus Christ with a blanket condemnation of all public schooling, women with careers, public assistance to the poor. Vision Forum also insists that the Native Americans of Jamestown were “happy” to turn over land to the settlers because they did not possess “Western and biblical concepts of property ownership.”
It would be tragic if the media coverage of this event implied that the churches of Charles City were in agreement with this. In fact, our churches have not been involved at all in this celebration. It is not a Charles City festival, but a weeklong celebration by an out-of-state political organization, with its own particular political agenda.
Rev. Peter Bauer, Secretary
Charles City Clergy Conference
New Vine Baptist Church
5100 John Tyler Memorial Highway
Charles City
June 21, 2007 at 4:25 pm
” Vision Forum also insists that the Native Americans of Jamestown were “happy” to turn over land to the settlers because they did not possess “Western and biblical concepts of property ownership. ”
Corrie,
Do you know where I could read or hear that VF said this?
June 21, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I think that the Botkin book is the fruit of years of reading Elsie.
I can’t even get started on Elsie. The whole Civil War thing still has me going and if I added Elsie to that mix, my head might explode.
But, suffice it to say, the Elsie books are filled with examples of unbiblical attitudes towards blacks. It literally makes me sick.
June 21, 2007 at 4:28 pm
To Elizabeth (#27),
Sadly, there are more people than you think. It breaks my heart to see so many innocent children denied the freedom Christ fought so hard for (while most are true believers, I submit that their legalism steals their freedom, effectiveness, and joy).
And as far as what makes it so attractive? To make a long story short, it’s the desire for control (among other things) and the ability of Doug Phillip’s and Jennie Chancey to make to sound so appealing.
June 21, 2007 at 4:39 pm
“Another woman by the name of Grace Greenwood said “True feminine genius is ever timid, doubtful, and clingingly dependent, a perpetual childhood. Thus if your husband is abusive, never retort.” And, if you all can take any more, A Young Woman’s Guide for the Harmonious Development of a Christian Character says “females should become as little children and avoid a controversial spirit.””
Egads! A real life Elsie!!! Where in the world is this found in scripture? Didn’t Paul tell us that we are to grow up and no longer act and speak like children? Or was that only for the men?
This is really some sort of male fantasy that is perpetuated by women who have found that they must play some part of a silly, simpering girl in order to keep her husband or father happy. When it is all about control, then it is much nicer to have a child for a mate. Most men, though, are not as shallow and egocentric. They want an adult for a wife.
Karen, truly. I had to superglue my bra on because it was coming off all by itself and trying to throw itself in the fire! 😉
June 21, 2007 at 4:39 pm
” Vision Forum also insists that the Native Americans of Jamestown were “happy” to turn over land to the settlers because they did not possess “Western and biblical concepts of property ownership. ”
Corriejo,
Can you point me to where I might read or hear this on the VF site?
Thanks!
June 21, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Jen – Could you expand on the pro-slavery teachings? B/c that is really disturbing to me that any Christian would teach such a thing.
June 21, 2007 at 4:46 pm
The fact that VisionForum idealizes a time and a place where some men were enslaved and others were driven from their lands and homes forced to march to Oklahoma, all on account of race, gives the lie to Doug Phillip’s whole “vision”…Cynthia Gee
Wow. The conversation about Lincoln and the Pre-Civil War era is stunning. I guess when they proclaim, “Women and Children first!” they mean white women and children? Native American women and children and African American women and children were definitely not held to that standard.
June 21, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Monica,
Women Know Your Limits is an absolute riot!
I first came across it last year sometime on Bob’s Blog. Then I posted it on mine. The Bayly blog actually inspired the humor for me concerning that comedy sketch.
It is just a perfect video. And then when Jen was rebuked by someone at Ligonier for teaching men, it couldn’t have gotten more appropriate.
It really all boils down to that. If we would just know our limits and understand that our purpose in life is to be beautiful, useful and like a child who talks about furry kittens, we will invoke all the manly men to take care of us and shower us with their love.
June 21, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Elizabeth asked, “The Vision Forum site is very professional and very slick, but are the number of adherents really of any significance?”
The Vision Forum package is indeed slick. And ironically it is made to appeal to WOMEN not MEN. Why not? Because Doug also has to feed his family and he knows that women buy the bulk of the materials in the home not dad. Any catalog must be geared toward them, so he completely bypasses the father as the head of the home and biblical leader, and goes straight to the wife. He plays on a women’s desire to create the perfect home and family. He knows that she’ll buy the tapes and books with the hope that her dear husband will catch the “vision” too.
By the time the husband has had time to pay off the credit card, she’s read and listened it all, and begins in earnest to apply the principles of patriarchy ala Doug Phillips in her home. (Does anyone see a problem here?)
So to be honest, the appeal is in the packaging, not in the actual ideas. Most of us bought without ever understanding what was behind it all. By the time the mother actually understands what’s behind it all (if she ever does), the money has all been spent and Doug is on to his next “big dig” in an attempt to get us to buy even more stuff feeding on our ever striving desire to be more godly and have a perfect family. (This next book is sure to be the ticket, right?)
The number as a percentage of American Christians is quite small. However, the influence and damange I have witnessed to the families involved is quite large.
June 21, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Thank you Jen. I don’t doubt you at all…I have just never thought about it.
June 21, 2007 at 5:51 pm
This has been an incredibly interesting blog conversation to read (and I’m hardly getting online these days to read anything). Thank you both for the post and for the comments.
I particularly related with comment #35, as that was my own experience…coming into VF-type beliefs via the homeschooling world, being a young mom who though the VF magazine looked beautiful and, well, I wanted a happy beautiful family, right? It would be almost a decade later that I finally found myself liberated from the Law-based world I had slowly become entrenched in (through VF and other similar sources). It looks pretty on the outside, but my experience on the “inside” was a very dark and depressing one, exchanging the JOY of my honeymoon with Christ for a loooong ever-growing list of rules to follow (and preach to others) and a fear-based relationship with God.
I am glad that Spunky shared the reconstructionist views, as that was the same thing I found when I began digging myself. Plot to take over the world? Oh yes. It’s rather funny, except for the fact that they’re serious and trying their best to grow stronger.
As my stomach was sickened from viewing the trailer, I had one bright moment. My beautiful oldest daughter woke up and came out into the kitchen. I smiled at her, she smiled at me, and I breathed a sigh of relief. She is being raised in a home where her “place” is not what Vision Forum decrees, but rather is wherever Yahweh calls her to be. :o)
It’s stuff like this trailer that makes me want to become an activist—not because I enjoy debate, because I’ve frankly become sick of that altogether and have no stomach for it anymore, but simply for the sake all the other sweet girls trapped in VF-type homes who are taught that their desire for college (or for athletics, ect) is SINFUL. It would be ridiculous if it wasn’t so REAL.
Thankful for Liberty,
Molly
June 21, 2007 at 6:01 pm
My husband was a recruiter for the Air Force for several years. More than half his recruits were girls, and that was in spite of the fact that he didn’t follow up on the female applicants as much as he did the males.
In the Air Force we knew many females who worked hard and did their jobs, but we knew just as many others who didn’t. When the men didn’t do their jobs, mainly the system worked and the process to get them reprimanded and possibly out if they didn’t pull their share. With the women…. not so much. For two or three years my husband was assigned to a shift inconvenient to us and to his boss because the female co-worker on that shift could not be trusted to do her job. She would leave to run a thirty minute errand and not return. She needed a babysitter. And my husband’s supervisor, who was black, told my husband, “I know she’s abusing the system and it’s not fair, but she’s a black woman and I have seen how she operates and she WILL play the race card and the woman card if any of us complain.”
Women are in the military in the positions they are in primarily as a matter of social engineering. We have another friend who is a high-ranking officer and he has been told by more than one fellow ‘brass’ that they know most of the women troops are really NOT capable of doing the same job the men are doing they cause problems for everybody else, and complications arise even when they aren’t abusing the system- but it’s death to your career to say this in public. I think this indicates that maybe it is important enough to talk about.
It is unfortunate that subterfuge, sleight of hand, and unethical interviewing techniques were used to make this film, and it’s disappointing that such broad generalizations are made in the process.
June 21, 2007 at 6:27 pm
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/articles/2004-11-04_002.aspx
Here is that article where the guys who wrote the letter to the editor obtained the quote from.
June 21, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Rebecca said, ” I spent 3 years in college trying to convince people around me that debate did not equal personal hatred or attack but was necessary for true understanding.”
Amen!
Sadly, any debate on the ideas of Vision Forum are seen as an attack squelching any ability to gain a true understanding of their beliefs.
June 21, 2007 at 7:31 pm
“So to be honest, the appeal is in the packaging, not in the actual ideas.”
Spunky,
I think this is true and also not true.
I have often referred to the movie The Stepford Wives as a good analogy of this. In the end of the movie, instead of the men being the ones who were behind the attempt to create a perfect society, the wife of the head patriarch is the one who created the robots, including her husband. She stands there, holding her husband’s robotic head and laments that all she wanted to do was to go back to a better time where women were women and men were men. Of course, her perfect time was 1950’s Hollywood. In essence, this is what is being sold through the VF catalog, a perfect time. The women who purchase the materials love the idea of reconstructing society, starting with their own children.
I would consider myself to have a positive view of the end times. I also believe I have some reconstructionist leanings, in that I would like to see changes in my world. In fact, I would say that most evangelicals who homeschool their children or who try to vote, placing candidates through a Biblical grid, or work to end abortion have those same leanings. We do not polish brass on a sinking ship, as it were. But we want to do all that we can to see the Gospel message go to the ends of the earth, knowing that the only way for change in a nation, in a home, or in a human heart is through the grace of the Gospel.
And that, I believe, is why VF is so successful. Homeschooling families want to be equipped to do just that. The vision is for future generations who are faithful to God and His word. So they are sucked into a paradigm that they want and they not only like the ideas, they LOVE the ideas. They just don’t realize where those ideas are meant to lead by those who are creating and selling the materials. They haven’t gotten far enough down the road to see all the implications of these teachings and they aren’t good enough students of history to discern the perils.
June 21, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Molly said:
“It’s stuff like this trailer that makes me want to become an activist—not because I enjoy debate, because I’ve frankly become sick of that altogether and have no stomach for it anymore, but simply for the sake all the other sweet girls trapped in VF-type homes who are taught that their desire for college (or for athletics, ect) is SINFUL. It would be ridiculous if it wasn’t so REAL. ”
Molly, I hear you.
I have shared this story with people outside the patriocentric circles and theya re incredulous. They cannot believe, as our friend from the UK stated so well, that this stuff is as important as the Gospel message. What they need to understand is that some of these teachings have been placed on par with the Gospel, to the point that having opposing views makes someone question your salvation.
Thanks, Molly, for your insights.
June 21, 2007 at 7:56 pm
These posts truly resonate with me and our experience w/VF.
I first came across VF when I was looking for some books for our eldest son.
The idea of girls being girls and boys being boys really appealed to me in this time of androgyny. I was excited to find a source which would help us instill godliness into our family. We were already a large family by society’s standards. My dh was the Spiritual head of our home. We were hsers. It just seemed to fit w/us and our family.
I showed my dh the site and we ordered some books for our son. We also ordered a tape. It was “How the think like a Christian”. I listened to it and honestly, was wowed. I gave it to my dh and he was not so wowed. He cautioned me that while it had some truth, BUT he could see things that were not healthy. I wanted to order more tools, but he very wisely told me he did not feel like it was for our family.
We continued to receive the wonderful catalogs. The boys drooled over the zip lines and the guns. The girls loved the dolls. We ordered toys and Lamplighters, but stayed away from the teaching tapes.
A few of our very close friends went to the State hs convention and heard DP speak. They were blown away. The wives came home and told their husbands. Soon their houses were filled with VF materials. Our friends would copy the CD’s (w/permission from VF) and hand them out to everyone they could. It became a mission which they even compared to the Great Commission. They have literally given away hundreds of CD’s. We listened to some of them and became increasingly concerned. The life changes our friends made raised red flags also. Girls were pulled from college. Fathers are leaving businesses. Families are leaving Churches which they had formally loved in search of like minded fellow ship. Talking to them has become like listening to a DP CD.
The common denominator we saw was men who would not lead. The women would often complain about their hubbies lack of leadership. Now they are thrilled the husbands are leading and not following…but what they don’t realize is they ARE still following. They are following a plan and an agenda laid out by Doug Phillips.
I am very thankful for a wise and discerning husband. I can see how I could have very easily been led down this road. Truth be told I have let a lot of teaching by VF and others seep into my thoughts. It’s all fear based.
People have craved religion ever since the fall. This is a religion. Why oh why do we seek the law instead of grace. It is a continual struggle for me.
Thanks for this awesome discussion.
June 21, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Thank you Corriejo. That was quite an article…
To sum it up White men Good for Indian..
June 21, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Hi, I’m new to this forum. Jen showed me the link, and I’m glad she did. Many excellent, thoughtful comments. Thank you, Spunky, for your assessment of the philosophical underpinnings of Vision Forum. From what I have read elsewhere, I think your comments were right on target and accurate.
June 21, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Re, #68–thanks. 🙂
Re. #67,
Ironically, The Stepford Wives (the original movie) is a movie RECOMMENDED by Lady Lydia (of Ladies against Feminism, etc) as an example of what a home SHOULD be like—I read an article once where she lauded the home-making featured in the Stepford Wives (while not liking the ending, of course).
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/Lady_Lydia_Speaks_2/Refuting_Stepford_Wives_10981001098.shtml
I personally think that if their was a message behind Stepford Wives, it wasn’t necessarily anti-homemaking, but simply anti-ROBOT. Meaning, women aren’t to be used soley for the comfort and convenience of men, but are Real People who need to think and feel and choose for themselves. Yet I feel like if Doug Phillips had his way, we’d be in Stepford land and then some.
In the end, that’s really what it comes down too. The underlying message behind the uber-patriarch camp appears to teach us that women should not try to be actual adult human beings, but instead live in a perpetual state of dependancy, “happy and content” in predetermined roles of being lesser-thans.
I think home-making and motherhood is WONDERFUL and I praise God that I am in a society that gives me the freedom to choose to be home. And THAT is a perk of what the early feminists faught for—women having the right to make decisions about their lives. (And I say it’s too bad that the *Church* wasn’t the one fighting for that—isn’t that part of our job, to speak out for the marginalized and the weak?).
I, for one, do not want to live in a slave-state where half the population is kept out of the public sphere, simply because they do not have a male appendage. Digging deep in the Vision Forum worldview (the reconstruction/dominion/theonomy stuff) is only for the brave of heart. 😦
Re. #69
YES. I have seen these SAME things.
I have a strong suspicion that 10-20 years from now, there will be the same negative fall-out experienced by other once-popular groups (like the Babywise craze, Bill Gothard in the 80’s, etc), things that initially appeared beneficial, like it was sent straight from heaven, and an answer to so many “problems,” and yet in the end proved to be SO destructive/harmful to so many.
June 21, 2007 at 9:03 pm
A side thought…
I wonder if a lot of homeschooling vendors know of the theology/worldview behind a lot of the VF materials? CBD, for example—they are a huge homeschool material distributor. I wonder if they would market VF if they knew what was being promoted?
June 21, 2007 at 9:36 pm
“Wow. The conversation about Lincoln and the Pre-Civil War era is stunning. I guess when they proclaim, “Women and Children first!” they mean white women and children? Native American women and children and African American women and children were definitely not held to that standard.”
“Women and Children first!” also brings to mind the “heroics” of the male passengers on the Titanic, who stayed behind and went down with the ship so that women and children could survive on the lifeboats.
But they did so AFTER they locked the doors to the steerage levels– couldn’t have the second-class women and their brats edging out the quality folks.
It’s all about the RIGHT women and children being “first.”
June 21, 2007 at 9:38 pm
“I have a strong suspicion that 10-20 years from now, there will be the same negative fall-out experienced by other once-popular groups (like the Babywise craze, Bill Gothard in the 80’s, etc), things that initially appeared beneficial, like it was sent straight from heaven, and an answer to so many “problems,” and yet in the end proved to be SO destructive/harmful to so many.”
Did you ever notice that if an ideology is NEW, and it ties in with religion, it’s probably better to steer clear of it?
June 21, 2007 at 10:43 pm
“This is really some sort of male fantasy that is perpetuated by women who have found that they must play some part of a silly, simpering girl in order to keep her husband or father happy. When it is all about control, then it is much nicer to have a child for a mate. Most men, though, are not as shallow and egocentric. They want an adult for a wife.”
Corriejo, you hit the nail on the head with this one!
June 21, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Spunky: “The Vision Forum package is indeed slick. And ironically it is made to appeal to WOMEN not MEN.”
Of Course, of course. I remember seeing photos of a wedding on “Doug’s Blog” and thinking it looked like a spread from “Bride’s” magazine. In fact, most of the photos are of things that most men wouldn’t be interested in. It is almost “Disneyfied”- everyone always looks beautiful, no one sweats (even though there are few places hotter in the summer than San Antonio), the children are perpetually smiling . . .
But one question comes to mind: what do all of these patriarchs do for a living? Seriously, it takes money to take a week off of work, travel cross-country to these “events”, stay in a hotel, etc., etc. It seems like a lot of the people that are “featured” on his blog don’t really have jobs- they just participate in workshops, etc. So, economically, how do these VF families support themselves? (And the whole “intern” thing is interesting- is that a paid position? how long does it last? what does it entail? I know the big wedding he profiled was of an intern- so how does the intern support himself and his wife?) I also wonder about the relations that some of these folks have with their extended families. VF is so “Family oriented” but I know of I were to plunge into it that it would probably cause some real tension with MY dad, siblings, aunts, uncles, etc.
June 21, 2007 at 10:51 pm
“It’s stuff like this trailer that makes me want to become an activist—not because I enjoy debate, because I’ve frankly become sick of that altogether and have no stomach for it anymore, but simply for the sake all the other sweet girls trapped in VF-type homes who are taught that their desire for college (or for athletics, ect) is SINFUL. It would be ridiculous if it wasn’t so REAL.”
Molly, I’ve really enjoyed your own site and how you talk a bit about your emancipation from legalism. I’ve “been there, done that” as well, and that is why I feel the same heart you have for these girls (and even boys) trapped inside walls God never intended for them. Your last sentence is so disturbingly true.
“The number as a percentage of American Christians is quite small. However, the influence and damange I have witnessed to the families involved is quite large.”
Spunky, I too have witnessed the EXTENSIVE damage hyper-patriarchy has caused. I’m curious though, since we all know someone who’s been so hurt by this, why is Jen the only one willing to step forward? I’m just wonderiing what your guesses are as to what keeps these people so quiet?
June 21, 2007 at 10:59 pm
“The common denominator we saw was men who would not lead. The women would often complain about their hubbies lack of leadership. Now they are thrilled the husbands are leading and not following…but what they don’t realize is they ARE still following. They are following a plan and an agenda laid out by Doug Phillips.”
C-,
This denominator seems to be pretty universal in families who bought in. But that is pretty keen observation; these new patriarchs still don’t know how to lead for themselves, but just how to be copy cats.
June 21, 2007 at 11:02 pm
I have learned so much from these posts. Can anyone tell me what, if any, relationship Douglas Wilson has to Vision Forum ministries? His books are strongly patriarchal and for awhile i got him and doug phillips confused. So any clarity would be much appreciated!
June 21, 2007 at 11:30 pm
I don’t know how connected Douglas Wilson is with Doug Philips. I do know Douglas Wilson has written scathingly critical reviews of Elsie Dinsmore (very funny ones, too)
Cynthia, According to this steerage passenger’s testimony, there were no locked doors on the Titanic preventing steerage passengers from escaping. Was that in the movie?
http://www.titanicinquiry.org/USInq/AmInq14Pickard01.php
June 22, 2007 at 2:41 am
This is one of the most refreshing dialogues I’ve seen in awhile. I’m married to an Air Force officer and what you say about women abusing the system and exploiting because of their gender is all too true. They don’t belong in the military–except in support/nursing roles such as Jen mentioned. As a woman who once thought she wanted to join the military, and who now is married to it and horrified at seeing what goes on, the Gunn brothers are not playing the emotive card here. They are right.
One other thing I wanted to comment on is that Jennie Chancey is a sweet, precious woman. No, I don’t agree with their theology, but I’ve spent enough time around her to know that she is genuine, caring, and I just plain like her as a person. I am not sure that she is so closely linked to Doug Phillips as far as his mission as has been implied above.
June 22, 2007 at 3:12 am
Marie,
I’m glad that you find Jennie Chancey a wonderful woman. I’m positive most of us do not know her personally.
That being said, this discussion is not about their personal character or personalities. This discussion is about the things they believe and promote.
It may seem or feel that questioning these things are attacks on them personally, but they are not. No one has disparaged them as people.
June 22, 2007 at 6:46 am
Having read a number of Douglas and Nancy Wilson’s books on the family, I can say that they really aren’t along the same lines as VF promotes. Wilson believes in higher education for women, that women may work outside the home, wear pants, and practice discernment about when to have children (I’m almost positive I read that on his blog or in Credenda/Agenda, but don’t quote me).
That said, Wilson believes in the Federal Headship concept, that the husband is the family’s covenant head. Its been a while since I’ve read Reforming Marriage so I don’t feel I can go into it that much. So, yes, he does hold to a Patriachal view, but I would say that its just to the right of complementarianism, whereas VF would be the EXTREME right. Does that make sense?
Marie- IMHO, Ladies Against Feminism and VF are first cousins if not brother and sister.
MOLLY- WAHOO!! There you are! Glad to see and read your thoughts. How are things going for you?
June 22, 2007 at 8:25 am
Rachael #58 – Regarding slavery, Rachael, it is just the same as the rest of the Mosaic Law. I was taught that we were still under the Law and that it applied to every area of our life. In fact, I lived the last ten years of my life under the Law and was only just recently delivered from that bondage. So, look in the Bible for the passages about slavery and they apply. If you want to see it in full action, go to this link and read Suzanne’s position. She was taught by Doug Phillips.
Elizabeth: “So, economically, how do these VF families support themselves? (And the whole “intern” thing is interesting- is that a paid position? how long does it last? what does it entail? I know the big wedding he profiled was of an intern- so how does the intern support himself and his wife?) I also wonder about the relations that some of these folks have with their extended families. VF is so “Family oriented” but I know of I were to plunge into it that it would probably cause some real tension with MY dad, siblings, aunts, uncles, etc.”
You are correct, Elizabeth, to observe that many of these functions take time and money. Many of these families seem to have both. This is not for the poor or even the middle class to participate in very often. The interns are paid a small stipend and they work from the end of July through Christmas Eve. They apply for a certain “track,” which is like apprenticeship training where they are taught certain skills. They are also taught various subjects that Doug wishes to indoctrinate them with. After that, most interns are offered a full-time position. Even though we still call them interns, they really aren’t. In fact, there are no interns there right now.
You also observe correctly that these teachings divide families. I am at odds with nearly my whole family because of it.
Alisa: “I’m curious though, since we all know someone who’s been so hurt by this, why is Jen the only one willing to step forward? I’m just wonderiing what your guesses are as to what keeps these people so quiet?”
Alisa, I can probably answer that better than anyone because people secretly tell me their stories. They tell them secretly because they are still so afraid of what Doug might do to them. If you have seen the various things that have been done to me online, if you’ve seen the threats to sue me, and you know that I’ve been excommunicated, you will see that others see this, too, and aren’t willing to go through it. From the stories I’ve heard, there is a pattern of threats to sue, threats to employment (at least one was fired unjustly and one was harassed at work, both because of Doug), threats of church discipline (this is VERY prevalent even in other churches where Doug goes to their elders), and businesses that are ruined or severely damaged. These are major and serious threats. People are afraid. That is why I’m taking my stand.
Marie: “One other thing I wanted to comment on is that Jennie Chancey is a sweet, precious woman. No, I don’t agree with their theology, but I’ve spent enough time around her to know that she is genuine, caring, and I just plain like her as a person. I am not sure that she is so closely linked to Doug Phillips as far as his mission as has been implied above.”
Oh, Marie, I hate to burst your bubble, but you just haven’t got on her bad side yet. I have two friends who used to be VERY good friends with Jennie. Not only is Jennie Chancey as closely linked to Doug and Vision Forum as one could possibly be, but Jennie is just like Doug, only in female form. She is wonderful to her friends, but she will not hesitate to stick it to you if you cross her. I am not at liberty to tell Jennie Chancey stories either, but I know them. You might want to read her attack on Andrew Sandlin for starters.
June 22, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Karen, I love how you end this post with “any thoughts?”.
I am not being snarky, really, thank you to all you wonderfully, intellagent, amazing women (at least what I know of you from your blogs) for being a voice of reason in all of this nonesense. Thank you for assuring us younger women that our worth is in the Lord and not in an extrenal set of rules (aka legalism), that, as others pointed out, we have freedom in Christ to be who He has for us to be.
Anyway, I don’t really have anything to add but thanks for the encouragment that these conversations are.
June 22, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Amie says:
“we have freedom in Christ to be who He has for us to be.”
It is so important for each of us to come to this conclusion. The following is a quote from a podcast I did a couple months ago entitled The Mighty Moms of Valor.
http://www.thatmompodcast.com
I hope it encourages you as it did me when I truly understood the concept of being gentle and quiet.
“You see, I had mistakenly thought that having a meek and quiet spirit was the same thing as having a quiet and gentle and soft-spoken demeanor. I had foolishly compared myself to other women rather than comparing myself to Jesus! And it wasn’t until I did word studies on two particular passages of Scripture that I realized that I just how wrong I had been.
The Greek word in the I Peter passage that is translated as “gentle” or “meek” is the same word used in Matthew 11:29 where Jesus says “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and you shall find rest unto your souls.”
I knew that I would never have rest or quiet in my soul as long as I was not meek. But, as I examined the life of Christ, I saw that He was not a passive, quiet person. What about the time he threw the money changers out of the temple? What about the times he rebuked the Pharisees? If Jesus was meek then certainly meek didn’t mean quiet and shy and passive in his demeanor. It had to mean something else.
I discovered that the word for “meek” literally means “not insistent on one’s own rights,” or “not selfishly assertive,” or “not demanding one’s own way.” As I looked at Jesus’ life, I saw that He was willing to do whatever His father asked him to do. He was willing to submit to the Lord, to fulfill His calling on earth. I realized that being meek meant humbling myself before God and thanking him for giving me the personality and gifts He chose to give me, for making me the woman I am rather than the person I thought I was supposed to be.
It occurred to me that rejecting the gifts God had given specifically to me actually was the opposite of having a meek and quiet attitude toward God. I was guilty of ingratitude, covetousness, idolatry, rebellion, and comparing myself to others.
As I repented of these sins and thanked God for his perfect plan for me, I experienced a genuine rest for my soul. A meek and quiet spirit does not equal having a soft voice or a passive appearance! It means submitting to God!
Then one day, I received the icing on the cake….I was reading Proverbs 31 and I discovered that the same word for “virtuous” in verse 10 is the word used throughout the old testament to describe King David’s mighty men of valor! Virtuous and valor have the same meaning! I jumped up and shouted “hallelujah” because I was certain that those mighty men weren’t quiet and soft spoken and passive! They were men who were brave and courageous and were used by God in mighty ways because they trusted Him and his working in their individual lives and with their unique gifts for His own glory.
These moments of truth were turning points in my life. I began to see that a quiet spirit trusts both in God’s sovereignty over and through life. A quiet spirit embraces the unique and good gifts that the Lord gives to His own daughters. A quiet spirit is what abides deep inside you. A quiet spirit is what reflects your redemption and faith as you humble yourself and become the woman God has called you to become.”
June 22, 2007 at 1:17 pm
This is everyone’s lucky day….I live with a 16 year old son who has been studying the Titanic for the past couple of years….we all wish he would move on to a new disaster but, alas, it is not to be.
I asked him about the 2nd and 3rd class passengers and he produced this quote for me from the London Herald, April 16, 1912:
“Amid the panic, the evalcuation quickly degenerated into shambles. The officers in charge of the lifeboats failed to fill each sufficiently and, whilst each boat was equipped for 60 people, most left Titanic with only around 40 and one held only 12. The 3rd class passengers are believed to have been locked below deck until the 1st class women had been seated in the boats and a riot began until the locked doors had been broken down.”
June 22, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Veracity says:
“That being said, this discussion is not about their personal character or personalities. This discussion is about the things they believe and promote.”
I have so appreciated the fact that we have had such a civil discussion here. Several people have commented on that as well and it speaks well of all participants.
I will add this, however. A person’s beliefs and teachings ARE a reflection of his or her character. If someone promotes any teaching that is extra-biblical or imposes burdens on others that cause them to lose hope or become bitter, it is a reflection of his or her character. Had we lived in the time of Jesus and personally known any of the Pharisees, they might have been lovely, gracious, and sweet men. But their theology was in error and, I am certain, caused many to stumble. Jesus was swift to rebuke them and , as I recall, said that it would be better for a millstone to be tied around their necks than for them to cause one little one to stumble. (Matthew 18:1-6) In this case, the “little one” could be a new believer, someone struggling in the faith, or, worst of all, a child whose parents placed these unbiblical burdens on their own children.
June 22, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Jen the link in your comment about Suzanne went back to True Womanhood. Was that correct?
June 22, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Sorry, Spunky, that’s what happens when I post in the middle of the night! Try this link for Suzanne’s views on slavery.
June 22, 2007 at 5:53 pm
The pro-slavery comments/defenses at that link makes me want to vomit.
June 22, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Rebecca just reminded me of an article that had stuck with me for years after I read it. It was extremely disturbing.
“A person’s beliefs and teachings ARE a reflection of his or her character. If someone promotes any teaching that is extra-biblical or imposes burdens on others that cause them to lose hope or become bitter, it is a reflection of his or her character.”
Karen, this is so true! These teachings have REAL consequences in people’s lives.
If anyone reads Tim Bayly’s blog, he once was speaking about birth control and how every man will have to account to God for their “stewardship” in this area.
“When the Master returns, though, what exactly will you say to Him to explain the fact that during by far the largest portion of your lovemaking through the years, your sword was sheathed, scrupulously kept from your lover’s womb?”
I don’t think sword as a euphemism for your private has any business being in the same sentence as love making. But, I am probably the only one with a problem what that visual.
Then, there was Steve Schlissel who spoke about ear-piercing in the Chalcedon magazine and how men should not get pierced because only women were made to be pierced. He tells us that piercing is an image of subservience and submission and the one doing the piercing is the one taking dominion over the one he is piercing. Therefore, pierced earrings are okay for women because they get pierced all the time by their husbands in the act of sex. When a man is pierced it is always humbling. It is not so for women because they are made to be pierced.
“Here is the quote from that article concerning piercing:
“Put plainly, piercing is normally an act appropriate only for women and, in some cases, male slaves.
Delicacy is difficult here—and I want to avoid a charge of misogyny—but the fact is that woman, by her from-the-creation role in the marriage act, is a “piercee.” Within marriage, of course, no stigma at all attaches to this, but outside of marriage, Scripture often refers to it as a “humbling” (Dt. 21:14; 22:24; 22:29). (In this regard, too, childbirth is woman’s triumphant vindication—consider this when exegeting 1 Tim. 2:15.)
Obviously, piercing for a woman need not involve sodomy or “lowering.” She was made a woman, for man, a fact to which her body itself testifies.
Man, however, was not made a woman nor was he made to abide piercing. It is still a universal that he is not expected to. The recent attack on a Brooklyn prisoner provides a tragic case in point. The Associated Press reported: One of the police officers charged with torturing a man by sodomizing him with a stick bragged about the attack, saying he had to “break a man” who took a swing at him. Officer Justin Volpe also told fellow officers “I had to bring a man down tonight.”
Piercing may or may not bring a woman down, depending on many factors. But piercing always brings a man down. That piercing bespeaks a relational subordination is implicitly recognized even in our American culture, yet often below the surface. To the astute it appears dramatically when considering the vocabulary of popular “curses” (as in humiliating phrases, not maledictions). The most common two-word curse in English, the one we want our children never to use, is simply a wish for someone to be humiliated through being pierced. To be pierced, for a man, is necessarily to be lowered.
For in the view of Scripture, piercing is a token of being under the dominion of another. (Even the unique piercing of Christ was a testimony of his total submission to the Father: Isaiah 53:5,10; Philippians 2:8; see also Psalm 40:6-8.) Since woman was created to be under the loving headship of her husband, piercing can be seen as consistent with that calling. Hebrew men, however, were called to be directly under the authority of God (see 1 Cor. 11:3).
Consequently, limitations of Hebrew servitude were codified in the law. But if a Hebrew servant, at the time of his manumission, desired to be permanently under the dominion of his master, this was to be indicated in a rite in which his ear was bored with an awl (Ex. 21:6; Dt. 15:17). The fact that a pierced ear served as a sign of permanent subordination suggests that it was not practiced by males in general, else it would hardly serve as a distinguishing mark.
Some have called attention to the fact that Israelite males took off their golden earrings and contributed them to Aaron for the making of the golden calf. This seems to be the case (Ex. 32:1-4). But out of what estate had they just escaped? That’s right: slavery. So this proves nothing other than that slaves had earrings. Similarly, those who cite the Ishmaelite practice of wearing gold earrings (Judges 8:24) must not miss the point: the Ishmaelites had this custom, not the Israelites. Newly-delivered Hebrew slaves and Ishmaelites don’t constitute a powerful precedent for free males to engage in piercing themselves!
It is interesting that as men in our culture began to pierce their ears, women began piercing multiple holes in their ears. But it didn’t stop there. Piercing parlors now routinely pierce ears, lips, eyebrows, tongues, noses, nipples, and male and female genitals. For those who cringe, not only at the ghastliness of the piercings, but at the thought of the pain involved, you need to understand that the pain is central to the experience. This is freely admitted, even boasted of, in this new “subculture.””
I removed the talk about piercing of a woman’s clitoris because it was too graphic. And please do NOT shoot the messenger!
I don’t know many women who would be very eager to be intimate with someone who looked at themselves as the dominant piercer of the subjugant. I would think that Song of Songs and 1 Cor. 7 shows us that there is nothing about that act that shows the place of the woman as the “piercee” but it does show us the mutual submission of husband to his wife and wife to her husband.
June 22, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Karen,
I wonder what the reception of the patriocentrics would be to a documentary of “Monstrous Men”? The documentary could highlight many of the monstrous male leaders throughout history and show the death and destruction that they wrought and how their attitudes and teachings still linger on decades and centuries after they have left this earth. We could easily make the conclusion that men are not fit to rule based on the hundreds upon hundreds of evil and corrupt rulers.
We could put Hugh Hefner and the other pornographers in there. We could highlight Jim Jones. Ed Gein, Jeffrey Dahmer, Jack the Ripper, Son of Sam, the Zodiac Killer, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, the Boston Strangler, Green River Murderer, the BTK murderer and others.
We could interview women who have been repeatedly raped by their own fathers for much of their lives and show the trauma it causes in their lives.
We could then feature the Middle East and the effects that their patriarchy on steroids has on the women there. We could highlight the women and children in Africa who are being forced into sexual slavery, raped, and mutilated and then forsaken by their husbands after their rapists are done using them.
We could have a bible historian talk about the husband from the book of Judges who threw his wife out to a gang of perverts to save his own butt.
Then we could draw all sorts of conclusions about men’s minds and their lack of this and their lack of that from the multitudes of examples we have. We could talk about how they are inferior in intellect and basic humanity compared to women.
I wonder why it is okay for the patriarchal movement to produce such horrendous documentaries and to gloss over all the false teachings concerning women throughout the generations but if a couple of sisters ever produced a movie like the one I described, we wouldn’t hear the end of how horrible this generation is to men and how men are always being put down and how there is a conspiracy to elevate women above men and it starts in the schools.
It just rings hypocritical and hollow in my ears.
June 22, 2007 at 6:46 pm
And, Corrie, we should again note that Schlissel and the Baylys are patriocentrists.
June 22, 2007 at 6:47 pm
“That said, Wilson believes in the Federal Headship concept, that the husband is the family’s covenant head. Its been a while since I’ve read Reforming Marriage so I don’t feel I can go into it that much. So, yes, he does hold to a Patriachal view, but I would say that its just to the right of complementarianism, whereas VF would be the EXTREME right. Does that make sense?”
That makes sense to me and I agree. His writings on the topic of men and women are much more balanced.
And I have so enjoyed his take on Elsie. 🙂
June 22, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Corrie,
I think the best movie of all would be a group of REAL men who have led their families, sacrificially, and who have the proper view of women. One after the other they could talk about how they encouraged their wives and daughters to be the very best they could be. We wouldn’t have to go far to find REAL men who would qualify to be interviewed.
June 22, 2007 at 6:51 pm
““Women and Children first!” also brings to mind the “heroics” of the male passengers on the Titanic, who stayed behind and went down with the ship so that women and children could survive on the lifeboats.
But they did so AFTER they locked the doors to the steerage levels– couldn’t have the second-class women and their brats edging out the quality folks.
It’s all about the RIGHT women and children being “first.””
Cynthia,
Tell me you are making this up?
I shall have to throw out my VF stuff on the Titanic.
I couldn’t stomach this sort of rank hypocrisy. It would make me sick to think that the women and children with less money were not considered just as worthy as saving?
June 22, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Karen,
I agree. That is the kind of stuff that SHOULD be coming out of a Christian film-making organization. And, I think there are PLENTY of men who would be great to interview on this subject but the patriocentric crowd would call them feminized and egalitarian and effeminate.
I am not sure why they don’t find this “Monstrous Women” documentary offensive, especially considering the paper it is modeled after?
How about interviewing all sorts of different women who exemplify godly womanhood but don’t particularly fit just one narrow mold? Women in all different seasons of their lives living for God and fulfilling HIS calling on their lives?
June 22, 2007 at 7:07 pm
I remember reading that article (or something very very similar) mentioned in # 93.
It’s amazing how Rome-like this all is, you know, this obsession with “who’s on top,” with heirarchy (as evidenced by the piercing articles and SO many others). We’ve carried it all this way, 2,000 years since our religion was birthed in Rome’s cradle, and lovingly nurtured it, thinking it Christ.
But this stuff does not come from Christ. The Sermon on the Mount–do we there see an obsession there with who gets to be the big dog, with who is the piercer and the piercee, with who is highest on the totem pole?
If anything, it is a Sermon promoting the exact opposite (and something that goes strongly against our natural human inclinations, interestingly).
I once wholly subscribed to the beliefs expressed in the above comment about piercing, etc. I am so ashamed of that view now…not ashamed at my nievety as a younger Believer, but ashamed at how I didn’t carefully pause and listen for the Shepherds voice to guide me—ashamed at how quickly I gave up a love of Christ for a love of a neatly ordered world.
Loving Jesus in this fallen world is messy. VERY messy. It involves HUMANS, not robots, intricate enough in and of themselves, and then adding in the myriad of intricacies that *relationships* require, especially in a world where the Fall is in effect.
There is not a textbook for these things because people cannot be treated in a textbook manner and still thrive. (Hence the many admonitions to “walk in the Spirit,” because a constant dependance on God is required!). Yet the Vision Forum camp and those like them all have a textbook style approach—principles for everything, a nice neat ordered world…very very attractive and seemingly solving so many of the outwardly-ugly problems.
Again, it goes back to the acceptance of the mess here—the maturing of an acceptance that life isn’t going to be neat and tidy—that the neighbor’s kid is a real brat and loving him messes with my orderly world…but God came into our world and got neck deep in our mess…because of Love. His Love doesn’t pour out on the neat and tidy, but on the messy, on the disorderly, on the brothel and on the tax man’s booth.
There *are* things spelled out in the Bible, yes, (do not commit adultery, do not lie, etc) but we are still left with a LOT of grey areas, areas where we are called on to use our individual discernment (anyone recall a verse on whether or not Dora the Explorer is appropriate for Christian children or not? Hmm, Me, neither).
There *is*, however, the Standard of Love (which one could equally call the Standard of the Cross), that Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 13…but, I have to say, that standard is…well, impossible (apart from a Divine Life powering it in me).
It is so much easier and soothing to exchange that Standard for a lesser standard–one that has the *appearance* of godliness and faith but, when dissected, seems to be just another indidious version of Law, exactly what Galatians warns us about.
When I look at my past, following the teachings of Vision Forum, of the Pearls, of Charity Gospel, Douglas Wilson, all of whom I encountered as a young homeschooling mom eager to “do things right” and to bring God glory, I see the thing that made me MOST ripe for deception being the fact that I did not understanding that this life is MESSY.
I wanted an easy path–I wanted it spelled out, I wanted to believe that there was a wide broad road in which I could trust, one that FELT safe, that spelled things out, that gave me a good solid game plan and lots of promises that if I did things right, it would all be okay.
In wanting that (and believing those who offered such things, in the name of God), I inadvertantly left the winding narrow uphill path of leaning on Yahweh and exchanged it for a path that first seemed wonderful, but in the end proved to be a tight circle, leading me around and around, fenced in and full of fear. In fact, I would still be there today, had not the Holy Liberator come, picked my strength-drained bones up and set me in a wide place.
Jesus is Lord! 🙂
June 22, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Btw, re. #96 Wilson does not feel that girls should play sports and holds a VERY patriarchal view of marriage (Reforming Marriage was pretty shocking to read again recently—I loved it and passed it out in my patriarchal days), believes that slavery is a God-ordained institution (and has written a book to that effect), etc… I wouldn’t say he’s very far removed from Doug Philips, really—they are very much in the same general camp, only differing in some of the particulars.
June 22, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Corrie, I think Cynthia is basing her information on some exaggerated and erroneous reports. Congress held an investigation of the Titanic to look into this very issue, and they did not find the widespread class warfare Cynthia reports. There was much confusion, of course, and some passengers reported some doors locked while others were open, but there is no evidence of a concerted effort to seat all the rich women and children before letting the peasants come on. I really think that probably comes from the grossly inaccurate Leonardo DiCaprio movie.
A larger problem actually was men from the steerage class trying to push their way past the women and children into the boats.
To the person defending Jennie Chancey- I am sure she is a lovely person to talk to. I don’t agree with everything on it, but overall, I very much like the LAF site, and my daughters have sewn and worn her Regency patterns- and frankly, I think much of the dress criticism here is just plain petty and silly, except when it’s worse and violates both the letter and the spirit of ‘who are you to judge another’s man’s servant?’
But I was very troubled by Jenny’s treatment of Barbara Curtis as well as the strange accusations (and, so far as I can determine, false accusations) against a third party. You can find the links to those threads here:
http://www.mommylife.net/archives/2007/05/the_doug_philli_1.html
Wearing historical costume is not in itself either modest or immodest. It is simply a preference in taste, much as some people prefer denim, some cotton, some pink, some yellow, some like full skirts, some a-line, some blue jeans only. We also sometimes attend movies dressed in costume to go with the movies. It’s fun. And I wear my great-grandmother’s hats to church sometimes because I like them and they are my style.
I do not know the Chancey family. I do happen to like much of what Jennie has done on the internet. But none of us are perfect. There is not a single person here about whom anybody could say, “She would NEVER sin.” I am a nice person who loves the Lord and strives to honour Him, and yet I have behaved badly sometimes, been unfair to others, defended friends because I loved them when they really needed to be rebuked rather than defended, and sometimes even deceived myself about my motives in my actions. It can happen to any of us. We are not immune from sin.
I am not happy with the way the facts about David Linton were misrepresented, hyped, and deceptively coloured by the Chanceys. It’s disappointing. I am not impressed by those who can brook no disagreement- as evidenced by Jenny’s removal of Barbara’s link from LAF. And I find it insulting to be told that Matt Chancey’s Mrs. Binocular’s site is an independent investigation of anything related to VF. And I can believe all those things and still accept that Jenny is probably over all a lovely person, a good mother, a loyal friend, and generally compassionate.
June 22, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Molleth, are you sure about the playing sports ban on girls? I THOUGHT what I remembered reading from Douglas Wilson was a statement on modesty, that if a particular sport required immodest dress, than that was a sport girls should not be involved in.
June 22, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Thanks for asking, Dep (made me go verify–always a good thing-lol). You are right—they do not ban it, and I apologize for mis-remembering. They do allow girls to play sports, but with some caveats and admonishments:
Some quotes:
“Some sports are so completely masculine that young women shouldn’t even think about participating. These certainly include football, baseball, boxing, and hockey. And it is just plain pitiful to see a woman force herself onto a male team just to cause a stink and force the boys to play with her. This is just a sad attempt for attention.”
“When our daughter played basketball for her Christian school, the team all wore blue ribbons in their hair as a feminine statement that they were not trying to act or look or play like boys. And they were good. They didn’t trash talk or play dirty. They were taught to play like Christian women…
“So if the sport itself is not masculine in nature, and if the program is deliberately striving to promote feminine virtue, then it can be a great blessing to young girls. But there are still pitfalls. Boys need to get hit and learn to take it, but girls need security and love….
“Yup, boys need to learn how to get hit and learn to take it. Because that’s what makes them men…
“When insecure girls play sports, they are more susceptible to the temptations to try to become masculine. They may be looking for attention and affirmation from the sport when they really need it from their dads and their moms. They may “feel” unfeminine, so they gravitate to sports where they don’t have to be feminine. This means that wise parents will closely monitor their daughters while they participate in sports. And if they begin to show signs of becoming “macho” or unfeminine, they should consider pulling them out…”
Quotes taken from this link:
http://www.credenda.org/issues/16-1femina.php
Here’s some stuff Douglas Wilson has written about husbands and wives:
“One of the most difficult things for modern men to understand is how they are responsible for their wives. Men come into a marriage pastoral counseling session with the assumption that “She has her problems,” and “I have mine,” and the counselor is here to help us split the difference. But the husband is responsible for all the problems. This is the case for no other reason than that he is the husband.”
—Federal Husband, Douglas Wilson
In Reforming Marraige, Douglas Wilson writes:
“A husband is one who cultivates with authority. …It is tragic that in our culture the word husband is understood as nothing more than a male legally tied (for a few years) to a particular female. But as the etymology of the word should indicate, much more is involved. Husbandry is a careful management of resources—it is stewardship. And when someone undertakes to husband a woman, he must understand that it cannot be done unless he acts with authority.
“He must act as though he has the right to be where he is. He is the lord of the garden [wife], and he has been commanded by God to see to it that this garden bears much fruit. …The garden [wife] must be managed, and ruled, and kept, and tilled.”
If I had my
June 22, 2007 at 8:06 pm
“He must act as though he has the right to be where he is. He is the lord of the garden [wife], and he has been commanded by God to see to it that this garden bears much fruit. …The garden [wife] must be managed, and ruled, and kept, and tilled.”
-Douglas Wilson
Tell me, can anyone show me that in the initial creation of woman?
Wasn’t it *Eden* that they were to BOTH manage, rule, keep, and till?
Wasn’t Eve his help (ezer–not a subordinate helper word but an equal or superior help) in that managing, ruling, keeping and tilling?
It is only *after* the Fall that we have men thinking that women were made to manage and rule, and women who are willing to be ruled for the sake of maintaining a relationship.
Genesis 3:16 appears to be a sad description of what life will be post-Fall. And, yeah, men do rule and have through out history and cultures. It’s one of the sad facts of the Fall, this dominating *eachother* stuff, just like painful childbirth and thorns and thistles are equally sad facts of the Fall.
But let’s not baptize the effects of the Fall and call them blessed of God. And that would include male rule. In Christendom, the strong do not dominate the weak. If a man is to love a woman as he loves himself, can we really assert that that includes, as Wilson says, managing, ruling, tilling, and keeping her? Does any man want to be managed and ruled? (What makes anyone think women want to be treated as perpetual children)? If he is to love her as he would want to be loved, can we find any place for ruling her in the same controlling way as a farmer “rules” over a plot of land?
I see that we are called to love. I do not need to be patriarchal to love and respect my husband. I only need to read the words of Christ, who told me to love those around me with His love. This includes respecting my husband, appreciating our differences as a man and a woman, and learning how to blend our lives into one unified effort to glorify God—which will look different for each marriage, but will have the same ingredients: large doses of the Spirit’s fruit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. There is nothing about gender here–gentleness is just as much for men as it is for women, just as strength is just as much for women as it is for men.
Okay, enough rambling…LOL…sheesh, sorry for the long comments! This is a near-and-dear to my heart subject, for obvious reasons…thanks for putting up with my long-windedness. And now…back to my Real Life! 🙂
June 22, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Molleth said: “Btw, re. #96 Wilson does not feel that girls should play sports and holds a VERY patriarchal view of marriage (Reforming Marriage was pretty shocking to read again recently—I loved it and passed it out in my patriarchal days), believes that slavery is a God-ordained institution (and has written a book to that effect), etc… I wouldn’t say he’s very far removed from Doug Philips, really—they are very much in the same general camp, only differing in some of the particulars.”
My understanding of Doug Wilson, after reading his books, his blog, his magazine, and sending my children to a classical school modeled after his Logos school, is that he is very much patriocentric. Not only that, but he is just plain mean. He takes great pride in his “serrated edge” interactions with others, using mean-spirited sarcasm and mocking to make his points. He is greatly lacking in love. Disagree respectfully with Wilson and you will feel the full lash of his tongue – as you will with patriocentrists Baylys, Phillips, et al.
Wilson is also a hypocrite. He is on record a number of times saying that adulterers and pedophiles should be stoned – yet when a pedophile was caught in his own congregation, he failed to tell his congregants about it for more than 8 months after the fact. Can you imagine being a parent, and not learning about this until after 8 months had gone by? Any opportunity you may have wanted for private investigation in questioning your own child would be long past by that time. Wilson also pleaded with the judge for leniency on the pedophile’s behalf, and the pedophile ended up serving a minimum amount of time.
My most intensely personal brush with Wilson came via my children’s classical Christian school, which they attended for 6 years. We’re on the east coast, and Wilson is in Idaho, but his reach and influence are long. The school board (all male – women were not permitted to serve) and most of the staff idolized Wilson. The school board also started their own church, of which they all became elders, and pressured staff members to join. Intellectual pride was rampant. The upper level theology classes were downright misogynistic. There was no grace in that school, just legalism. Little kids weren’t permitted to use the bathroom because it wasn’t the right time of day, and so they would wet their pants. Mention that your kid wet his pants to another parent, and you had the charges of “gossip” and “bitterness” flung at you.
My daughter, in 4th grade at the time, got in trouble for being “rebellious” when she had trouble following along in class. Turns out she just needed glasses. From the first year we attended, to the sixth, when we stopped, I saw the wives of board members turn from joyful, healthy, happy women into grey, drab, joyless Stepford Wives who were, suddenly, popping out babies again even though many of them were in their 40’s and had supposedly finished having children year ago.
And for more info on Wilson’s take on slavery, see http://www.notonthepalouse.com/
I could go on and on. But enough already. This is a picture of Doug Wilson’s influence, and it is NOT pretty.
June 22, 2007 at 8:15 pm
” Of course, her perfect time was 1950’s Hollywood. In essence, this is what is being sold through the VF catalog, a perfect time. The women who purchase the materials love the idea of reconstructing society, starting with their own children.”
Which only existed in people’s minds and in advertising. There is no perfect time. There have always been problems and there is nothing new under the sun. The same problems that plagued humankind were alive and well in the 50’s but people just hid them differently. Housewives were closet alcoholics and pill poppers. Abuse and incest/molestation were not talked about but covered up. Pregnant girls were sent away and forced to give their babies away for adoption and then they came home and acted like nothing ever happened.
I would love to see abortion abolished and divorce be a rare occurance but we cannot legislate morality. We can curb some of the outward manifestations of sin but inwardly people are the same and that sin will come out another way.
June 22, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Deputiy Headmistress,
I appreciate your posts here and it is obvious that you are striving to be just and objective in your opinions. I believe it is a good example to set.
I agree with you about Barbara Curtis. She is someone I can truly see myself wanting to listen to because she lives what she talks. She is also real and she doesn’t require that everyone fits into her mold.
I would LOVE to dress in period dress! If I had less children and less laundry and less mouths to feed, I would spend that time sewing aprons and lovely dresses. I am also not a very good seamstress so it takes me longer to sew something. And once I get sewing I do not like to get interrupted. I like to get it done. Just like when I drive. I don’t like to stop. I see the goal and I just want to reach it and I don’t like when things get in my way.
So, I gave up sewing while my kids are young so that I can be a nicer mommy. 🙂 I will sew once in a while and I want to start making aprons as gifts because they are so hard to find and I love wearing aprons. But, I do it late at night when everyone is in bed.
We are all so different and I would really love to see everyone appreciating that God made us so very differently and not any two of us are alike, much less can we lump all women into one box and stereotype them.
June 22, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Doug Phillips? You mean one of the FV guys who abhors his own denomination’s ruling that his theology is out of line with the church’s standards? A denomination, which by the way, while be complimentarian (ie, Ligon Duncan/Susan Hunt) has issued reports on women’s ministries that really conflicts with Phillips view on his blog. These guys scream headship and submission, but they’re just so bad at it themselves, IMHO.
June 22, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Okay, Light and Molly,
It has been a while since I read Doug Wilson’s books!
But, now you are reminding me of some things.
I still remember one issue about ministers in skirts and how the women robbed the men of their dark beer and made them drink light beer, instead?
It seems it was said that women like soft preaching so pastors are effeminate in their preaching. That makes no sense.
Can’t blame everything on the women! Bad preaching and heresy have been with us since the time of Christ. And what woman can wrestle a bottle of dark beer out of a 250 lb man’s hand?
And the serrated and mocking retorts I have seen and known. Not the way men of God should be behaving.
June 22, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Rebecca (responding to post #26), I’ve had some of your same experiences with “mainstream feminism,” especially studying/working in academia for a number of years, and I feel for you. A friend and I would get uncomfortable because a feminist professor we dealt with always made us feel uncomfortable, made us feel like we were never feminist enough–for example I was criticized because I took my husband’s last name (our choice and none of her business!). Wait, shouldn’t a feminist professor be working to make her female students feel comfortable in their work environment?
At the same time, I feel like there are stirrings of a new kind of feminism, if you will, even in the university, for example I know a couple of young professors who will brings their kids with them into the office as they do their research. Both of these women (one in a Christian university, one in a state university) are very well-respected by her department, and navigate their job and their motherhood/wifehood quite effectively from what I’ve heard. I’ve found many blogs by women with children who enjoy teaching at the university and/or studying.
In any case, I feel like this new feminism (when rightly handled) takes into consideration a wide variety of women with a wide variety of life goals. Without embracing all of feminism, I think it is important to acknowledge points where a movement (even a secular one) gets things right.
Bringing it back to the earlier conversation, I feel sometimes (rarely, I should state because most of the Christians I’ve come in contact with have been very open to my calling as an academic) that these narrow definition (being discussed) of what a Christian woman should be trap women like me and others into feeling like they’re pulled between two dichotomies:
Radical feminism–you aren’t “liberal” enough–going to church, wanting a family, being prolife, etc.!
Radical “womanhood” (whatever the right word is)–you’re too “liberal”–hanging out among the heathens instead of staying at home, contributing to secular academia, not helpmeeting your father to prepare for your husband (*shudder*), etc.
June 22, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Off Topic:
Hi everyone! I realize I haven’t responded to a few hello’s, so am just taking a quick sec to wave and smile at all ya’ll. 🙂
June 22, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Jen, thanks for sharing what you have observed and experienced. I’ve read what you’ve written about this, and I don’t doubt that there are many more families that have been burnt by DP in Texas.
What I was really curious about, though, since so many commenters here (spread out across the country, and beyond)are saying that they have witnessed or experienced the damage created by this man-made and imposed system, where are the husbands/wives/sons/ and especially daughters that have been spiritually strangled by hyper-patriarchy??? What about the conflict that must surely result from these rules within homes and immediate families, not necessarily the family/church relationship?
Jen, you mentioned on one comment on your site that you have seen fathers pull the rug out from under their daughter’s engagements. What did this do to these girls lives and relationships with their parents? Where are they now?
From what I’ve observed from the situations I’ve seen, is that relationships are still in very fragile states of reconciliation. Any exposure to warn others would result in complete severing of any future hope of renewed relationship. And apparently none of these families have come to a place where it could be a joint effort.
I’d be interested in hearing any theories or observations you all might have.
I’ve heard reports that Phil Lancaster’s daughter left home, was declared to be in rebellion, and that is why he pulled the plug on his Patriarch ministry. Does anybody know anything about this? I understand she is in a precarious spot, but I’d be interested in hearing how her life has played out. I’m sure she is not the only girl to have experienced this.
June 22, 2007 at 11:07 pm
So baseball is too masculine for girls but basketball isn’t? I played both and I would hardly say basketball is less masculine than baseball!
I agree that these types of sports are best segregated. I have seen some pitiful attempts at girls making a stink to be on the wrestling team. I had a good friend in high school who got on the wrestling team. It was horrible to watch. I was a cheerleader so I saw all the meets. Not only was it horrible to watch her grappling with the males but those poor guys didn’t know where to grab. 🙂 It was also horrible to watch her beat almost everyone of the guys she competed against.
I hate boxing. I think it is stupid. Why would any Christian, male or female, enjoy punching another person and making hamburger meat out of their face?
I love tennis. I was a cheerleader for football and I enjoyed playing flag football.
It seems like these are preferences, though?
And boys must learn how to get hit because that is what makes them men? I really don’t know what to say to that. I think I have a problem with that and not because I am raising girly men for boys. I don’t coddle any of my children. But how does this whole hitting thing fit into our Christian worldview?
““He must act as though he has the right to be where he is. He is the lord of the garden [wife], and he has been commanded by God to see to it that this garden bears much fruit. …The garden [wife] must be managed, and ruled, and kept, and tilled.””
So, she is just another piece of land that he is to take dominion of? And how exactly does a man do all of the above? And who tills the man? What if the garden is fine but the gardener needs help? What if the gardener doesn’t have a green thumb?
How far do you take this analogy? LOL
Molly is right. God gave the dominion mandate to the man and the woman and told them to take dominion of the earth and subdue it. No where does it tell man to take dominion of other people. It is only about the plants, fish, birds, and beasts.
I think that many patriocentrics fancy themselves to be Christ in all things when they are to be like Him in His love for His Bride. Husbands are never told to rule like Christ. They are never told to be like Christ in His 2nd coming. Christ told His disciples to be like He as as a servant who washes feet.
June 22, 2007 at 11:21 pm
#109 Nothing from No One: “Doug Phillips? You mean one of the FV guys who abhors his own denomination’s ruling that his theology is out of line with the church’s standards? A denomination, which by the way, while be complimentarian (ie, Ligon Duncan/Susan Hunt) has issued reports on women’s ministries that really conflicts with Phillips view on his blog. These guys scream headship and submission, but they’re just so bad at it themselves, IMHO.”
I don’t think you have the right Doug Phillips. This Doug Phillips is adamantly opposed to Federal Vision and is not a part of a denomination. He is definitely NOT complementarian, but you are right about his views on headship and submission.
Alisa, the stories I know are from around the world, not just Texas. Most of them have nothing to do with BCA, our church, but just Doug personally. I just wanted to make that clear. If it was just our church, I would have just dealt with it there. Doug has ruined lives all over the world, which is why I feel the need to warn others.
I’m going to take a stab at answering why people aren’t speaking out against hyper-patriarchy. From what little I’ve read from Molly, it sounds like she can answer this one as well.
When I was in it, I was fully convinced that we had all the answers and that we were FAR more spiritually mature than everyone else. At the time, I truly did not think myself to be judgmental, but looking back now, I was. I was a Pharisee of the highest order.
It was not easy to come to that realization – that happened about two weeks ago for me. I am just now coming out of legalism and attempting to learn about grace. God brought me through a MAJOR ordeal in order to bring me out of this legalism of hyper-patriarchy. And I will say that I am still attracted to it and WANT to stay there, even though I know it’s wrong.
So, my guess would be that many of these women feel it is a safe place to be. Everything is laid out nice and neat and you don’t have to think for yourself. Just follow the rules and everything will be fine. Everyone is just alike, so there is lots of sweet fellowship. Maybe that’s what I miss. (I am writing a whole article about this right now.)
Also, this hyper-patriarchy is rooted in a false doctrine. God had to start with me by exposing that false doctrine in my life. But I didn’t want to let go of it. It was very hard.
So, combine a deep conviction for this false doctrine with wanting to be with people who are like-minded and having a safe set of rules to guide your life and why would anyone willingly leave that?
Some do. Mostly young women. Some decide to marry against their father’s wishes. Each case is unique, but sometimes it is probably the right thing to do, as much as that pains me to say it.
Maybe there will be a place where these young women feel safe to speak out about their experiences sometime. I do think a lot of them have rebelled and gone to the other extreme and are living in sin (various kinds) now. In time, we will hear their stories. I pray for lots of these young people that I know personally.
I believe Phil Lancaster actually excommunicated his own daughter when she left home. It is very sad all the way around.
June 22, 2007 at 11:24 pm
I have to agree with many here. While making us more comfortable by appearing to be more balanced, patriarchy still eclipses the Gospel in Doug Wilson’s world, thus making it “patriocentric”. Many of the implications are the same. He just doesn’t wear a fedora. =o)
June 23, 2007 at 12:55 am
I still wouldn’t put Wilson in the same camp as Phillips. Here are the quotes I was thinking of when I posted above:
“If a woman is competent, and she should be, in due time her industry will take her outside the home (Pr. 31:10-31). The Bible does not teach that the woman’s place is in the home; it requires that the home be her priority, but she is not at all limited to the home.
(From Reforming Marriage by Douglas Wilson, c. 1995. page 40.)”
and
“Consider her work. This passage denies that a woman’s place is in the home. It affirms that her priority is the home. So what does she do? What is she like? Her husband delegates responsibility to her (31:11) and is not foolish in doing so (31:12); she is a weaver (31:13); she shops for food effectively over long distances (31:14); she cooks and provides food (31:15); she buys real estate (31:16); she starts a farm with her accumulated capital (31:16); she works hard and manufactures quality merchandise (31:17-19); she is involved in philanthropic work to the poor (31:20); she thinks ahead and clothes her family well (31:21); she make things for herself and dresses herself well (31:22); she poses no threat to her husband; she does not overshadow him (31:23); she is a fabric and clothing wholesaler (31:24); she is a wise woman, and a teacher (31:26); she manages her household (31:27), to the praise of her husband and children (31:28-29); and she fears God, placing no trust in fleeting vanity (31:30-31).
(From Future Men by Douglas Wilson, c. 2001. page 150-151.)”
Wouldn’t those quotes be more indicative of complementarianism rather hyper-patriarchy?
Alisa, I would agree with you about Wilson. Patriocentric? Probably. Hyper-patriarchy? No.
June 23, 2007 at 1:35 am
JRH,
I too have appreciated Wilson’s faithfulness in his more biblical portrayal of many patriarchal principles (especially in the quotes you cited), and applauded him for not jumping on other’s bandwagons. I’ve considered him to be a much better alternative to Phillips, Lancaster, etc.
So while I’ve held him in SLIGHTLY higher esteem than others leading the movement, I’ve sadly still seen his works used to exert an unbiblical authority over grown children of parents in his following. Wilson’s philosophies (which is what they are, his own, because their scope certainly exceeds what God expressly lays out in Scripture) in this area of male headship over wives and daughters (I don’t remember his thoughts about sons) still bears excruciating results for those under this type of abuse of authority.
I don’t know what your definition of hyper-patriarchal includes, but personally I believe it to mean any adherence to patriarchal doctrines or principles not EXPRESSLY written in God’s Word. If God didn’t feel the need to put the idea into black and white directives for us, I don’t believe others have the right to “fix” His “oversight”. Declaration of such extensive male-headship as “Biblical” or “God-mandated”, and thus imposed on others (especially daughters) against their conscience, I believe, constitutes causing others to stumble and God says the millstone about their neck is a better fate than that.
So while I agree with your point, Wilson’s positions still bear unbiblical fruit in many families.
June 23, 2007 at 1:50 am
“I don’t know what your definition of hyper-patriarchal includes, but personally I believe it to mean any adherence to patriarchal doctrines or principles not EXPRESSLY written in God’s Word. If God didn’t feel the need to put the idea into black and white directives for us, I don’t believe others have the right to “fix” His “oversight”. Declaration of such extensive male-headship as “Biblical” or “God-mandated”, and thus imposed on others (especially daughters) against their conscience, I believe, constitutes causing others to stumble and God says the millstone about their neck is a better fate than that.”
Alisa,
This is so well-stated, concise and to the point. Thank you.
I especially love the part where you say that people do not have the right to fix God’s “oversight”.
I would also like to know where a father is EVER called the head of his daughter?
Headship is only mentioned in marriage and in the metaphor of Christ and His Bride.
I find it highly suspect when hyper-patriarchalists claim that fathers are heads of their daughters.
They are missing the metaphor in scripture! They are not one with their daughter. Their daughter isn’t their body.
Marriage is the only picture of Christ, the head, and His Bride, His body.
When we superimpose the marriage metaphor on fathers and daughters it is very wrong and weird. It is all about the one flesh relationship in a MARRIAGE.
A man is only a head to one female and that is his wife. Daughters, if they marry, will have a head in their husband.
There are not different commands to a son and a daughter. There are not special commands to the father AND mother concerning their duties to their sons or daughters.
Fathers AND mothers are the authority over their children. Sons are to leave their fathers AND their mothers.
But people insist on taking the mother out of the equation when it comes to the whole process of authority and the releasing of sons and daughters from the home.
Here we don’t have people presuming to fix God’s oversight, we have people who are cleaning up after God and taking things away because it doesn’t fit what they want to teach concerning their hyper-patriarchal agenda.
June 23, 2007 at 2:34 am
JRH, Alisa and Corrie, (last three comments)
Well stated points. It’s amazing what has resulted because of the “theological grid” that is imposed on people because of these teachings. Because these people have a presupposition of male dominion headship, their “grid” must impose a meaning on scriptures that is not given:
– The Proverbs 31 woman then gets interpreted as being “delegated authority”.
– The daughter is then brought under a headship idea because she is a family member.
– Areas which are descriptive in Scripture are forced into a prescriptive interpretation for all cultures in their view.
I find it very sad and disturbing that people have to invent meanings or re-interpret scripture to fit their “grids” rather than accept that a Scripture is there and means just what it says.
June 23, 2007 at 2:44 am
Corrie, thanks for the kind words. I generally feel challenged in my vocabulary, so it’s actually quite shocking to find that I was able to say what I mean! =o)
“Here we don’t have people presuming to fix God’s oversight, we have people who are cleaning up after God and taking things away because it doesn’t fit what they want to teach concerning their hyper-patriarchal agenda.”
You’re right, there are people who are all too eager to find a more predictable and controllable method than the one prescribed in Scripture, i.e. being humble, submitting to one another, walking by the Spirit and having to be open to God being unigue to different people and situations. It may be nerve-wracking to control freaks, but at least it’s never boring! I’m continually learning just HOW different God likes to be in His children’s lives, and it’s nothing short of amazing.
As far as mothers not being in the picture, they’ve been edged out because they’ve ALLOWED it, if not ENCOURAGED it. So many are just so tired of their husbands leaving it up to them, and so the opposite extreme seemed like a welcome relief.
June 23, 2007 at 3:05 am
After watching the video a couple of times and picking up on so many obviously hypocritical features, I’m definitely wondering now whether the Gunn Brothers are even serious at all. Could all of this be a ploy? A sort of satirical inside joke?
June 23, 2007 at 3:13 am
Deputy Headmistress wrote:
“But I was very troubled by Jenny’s treatment of Barbara Curtis as well as the strange accusations (and, so far as I can determine, false accusations) against a third party.
But none of us are perfect. There is not a single person here about whom anybody could say, “She would NEVER sin.”
And I can believe all those things and still accept that Jenny is probably over all a lovely person, a good mother, a loyal friend, and generally compassionate.”
Thank you for your response. I was going to use similar statements in responding to comments #89 and 93, that bad theology makes bad character. I no longer need to do that, since you proved my point so well.
June 23, 2007 at 3:26 am
DW,
I thought the same thing about the first trailer! If they weren’t claiming to be serious and didn’t know the affiliation of those who made it, you could only come to the conclusion that it is a spoof aimed at those who adhere to the views they themselves hold to!
June 23, 2007 at 4:35 am
While bad theology does not bad character make, there does seem to be a “ends justify the means” attitude amongst some hyper-patriarchs. Consider, for example, the “anonymous” and foul websites “Still Fed Up” and “Tired of the Crap.” Or how certain persons are known to treat those who disagree with them. Etc.
June 23, 2007 at 4:44 am
“I couldn’t stomach this sort of rank hypocrisy. It would make me sick to think that the women and children with less money were not considered just as worthy as saving?”
Only women and children with money can afford the patriarchy books, tapes, and conferences!
Doug Phillips is a notorious revisionist historian in my mind – I almost have more respect for Howard Zinn. Sadly, Christians have a tendency to skew history in their “favor” as much as radical leftists.
June 23, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Joanna,
I really could relate to what you have said. I see the views of manhood and womanhood, amongst believers, as being on a continium. At one end are the radical feminists, even those who profess Christ, who are pro-lesbian and pro-abortion etc. At the opposite end are those I call patriocentrics, where the husband/father is at the center of the family or church universe and all else revolves around him. And then in between, somewhere, are the rest of us.
A few month ago I gread Sarah Sumner’s book Men and Women in the Church and it was quite helpful to me as I process where exactly I am. I want to find a place that isn’t hypocritical, that is Biblical and relevant. I have found that labels aren’t helpful when you are trying to find common ground.
Thanks for sharing your insights.
June 23, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Veracity wrote:
“Deputy Headmistress wrote:
“But I was very troubled by Jenny’s treatment of Barbara Curtis as well as the strange accusations (and, so far as I can determine, false accusations) against a third party.
But none of us are perfect. There is not a single person here about whom anybody could say, “She would NEVER sin.”
And I can believe all those things and still accept that Jenny is probably over all a lovely person, a good mother, a loyal friend, and generally compassionate.”
Thank you for your response. I was going to use similar statements in responding to comments #89 and 93, that bad theology makes bad character. I no longer need to do that, since you proved my point so well.”
Veracity,
II am a little confused. Could you explain please? Thanks.
June 23, 2007 at 1:14 pm
re #120
David, you have summed this up quite well. I never cease to be amazed at the things people can decide are “biblical” therefore are a pattern or a prescription for us today. I remember a woman whose mom had told her, when she was a little girl, that eye make-up was forbidden because of the verse “Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids.”
June 23, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Corrie, thank-you. I do try to be fair-minded. I have found that in general, people only appreciate that trait when it results in me agreeing with them, and since it ends up meaning I seldom agree 100 percent with anybody, I irritate a lot of people. Oh, well.=)
And, hello! We used to be on the Patriarch’s Wives list together long ago, and I was (briefly) on the Gothard list with you. I ask that you not use my name in public, as we have issues (ongoing) with a problematic birth mother and another real life enemy who likes to collect information about me from the internet. Cyber Drama. We thought they were resolved, but, sadly, no. If you can’t figure out who I am from knowing the two lists we were both on, email me and I’ll tell ya.=)
As for this:
“So, I gave up sewing while my kids are young so that I can be a nicer mommy. I will sew once in a while and I want to start making aprons as gifts because they are so hard to find and I love wearing aprons. But, I do it late at night when everyone is in bed.”
I had to laugh. I do not sew. I can’t sew. I have tried. But I hate to sew. I tell people I had to stop trying because it interfered with my sanctification.
I have seven children- six girls and one boy. And ONE of my girls sews. She is the one who makes the girls’ their Regency dresses (and currently she’s making me an Edwardian pattern which she will enter in the county fair- that’s not from Jenny. It’s from a secular company that specializes in reproduction patterns because there are quite a few people who think this stuff is just fun). She has a gift for it and largely taught herself, with a lot of help from one of Jenny Chancey’s online tutorials (I think it was Jenny). The things she learned from Jenny’s patterns have been very helpful and she’s been able to transfer them to other areas.
But I don’t sew and I don’t feel guilty about it. My mad thrift shopping/yard sale skilz make it possible for me to both clothe my family and provide my daughter with fabric for sewing.=)
Years ago I did feel guilty about it, and you know what?
The Christian sister who ‘gave me ‘permission’ not to sew, who reassured and comforted me that I was *not* an ungodly woman because I could not sew was a dresses only, headcovering, quiver full minded, women should NOT work outside the home, Elsie Dinsmore reading, Southern Christian lady who, frankly, I do not think would feel very loved, accepted, or welcomed in the homes of most of those posting here. It wasn’t anybody’s fault but mine that I had elevated sewing in my head to one of the seven fruits of the Spirit. I didn’t shock anybody in my patrio-centric circle of friends when I quit trying to learn to sew. I didn’t lose any friends from my more patriarchal circle of friends when I made it clear I didn’t sew and was never going to. Nobody was upset with me. I do know that there are some circles where this would be highly frowned upon- I’ve read some of those writings and disagreed with them. But none of the conservative, patriarchy minded ladies I knew thought I was a less godly woman because I didn’t and don’t and won’t sew.
You also said:
We are all so different and I would really love to see everyone appreciating that God made us so very differently and not any two of us are alike, much less can we lump all women into one box and stereotype them.
I totally concur. And I would go further. We can’t lump any people into boxes, either- not feminists, communists, or Patriarchs, hyper or otherwise.
We are all bearers of the divine image, and we are all humans, sinful, faulty, and madly inconsistant humans. We can speak of generalities and criticize and critique teachings, movements, and individual actions, but- for one example, I think Elsie Dinsmore is a dreadful character that I do NOT want my daughters to imitate and we won’t have those books in my house. I disagree with those women who think Elsie Dinsmore is lovely, but this doesn’t tell me whether they are good or bad mothers or say anything about their ability to be compassionate and generous to a neighbor in crisis.
People are just far more inconsistant than we realize. My own father was a dreadful father, abusive to the point that one of my siblings broke off all contact years ago and the rest of us limit the time we spend with him (he’s never really acknowledged that what he did was really wrong and his responsibility). And yet my dad has done wonders working with troubled young men in the public school and foster care system. Kids he’s helped come back and thank him. Sometimes I’m told how lucky I am that he’s my dad. I just smile and thank these people, because they have no idea and would not understand or believe me if I explained- and what would be the point? Why take away the benefit they have gotten? He has a youth minister at his church who admires and looks up to him as a mentor and my dad gives him great advice and has been very helpful and encouraging to him. I don’t understand it myself, but I have watched this happen time and again up close and personal- he is able to be somebody totally different to outsiders than he is to his immediate family, and he blesses those others while his immediate family can hardly be in the same room with him. I don’t know why, I don’t know how, and I think he will have a lot to answer for when he meets his Maker, and I am sorry for him. But it has really helped me see that people are much more complicated than we realize. People do believe mutually exclusive things. They (which means me and you too) *regularly* engage in actions completely adverse to their theology and philosophy, to their stated values- in both good ways and bad.
It’s easy to see the worst (and make the worst interpretations, even utterly wrong interpretations) of those we disagree with, to offer blanket condemnations, see people in strictly black and white terms (enemy, or friend) but that doesn’t mean we should not try to do better- *especially* when it’s somebody we disagree with. I doubt very much, for instance, that Molly would have made quite the same mistake in remembering what an author she agreed with said about girls and sports.
I have some overall criticisms of hyper-patriarchy, but I guarantee that if we examined the life and teachings of any given hyper-patriarch that I don’t care for we will find he has done good things we admire, been kind in personal life, or said things we agree with. You see, I do not agree that bad theology always makes bad character.
I know some delightful Mormons, but I think their theology is atrocious. They are sweet, thoughtful, kind, generous hearted people, my Mormon friends, and they have a theology from Satan.
I have known some atheists that had appalling character and I wouldn’t trust them with my spare change, but I know others that are sweet, kind, honest, warm, generous, and compassionate.
I mentioned further up that it was one of those headcovering, dresses only women who told me that I did not have to sew to be a godly woman. And that leads me to another interesting experience we had. A few years ago we made another change that did make a number of people upset with us. They dropped us from their circle of friends, and members of our local congregation went so far as to tell me not to tell anybody that I went to church with them and not to come to their children’s sporting events because it was embarrassing to their children for me to be seen near them. In fact, they even (I am not kidding) asked me not to come into town at all – all because I started wearing a headcovering. I started shopping in another town, and we moved away largely because of their hateful treatment of us- and this was even though I never, ever required that anybody else do this, I never, ever, tried to talk to anybody about it, I never, ever treated somebody differently because they did or did not wear a headcovering, and have never made it an issue of fellowship. My more ‘liberal’ brethren did. And this has been an experience repeated in so many ways (although never again quite so spitefully as the brethren in that local congregation behaved) that I do not usually tell people online that I wear one. In fact, I have had more than one cyber ‘friend’ that I was about to meet in real life tell me they would rather not meet with me after all when they learned that I did wear one.
You see, the intolerance, the dismissive, unkind treatment of others, the impugning of character and motives- it happens both ways, from both sides. It’s not theology that causes it- or at least, not always. It’s that pesky contradictory human nature.
June 23, 2007 at 4:35 pm
#43 Jen writes:
“I spent over six years in the military, so I feel I can speak to this part of the movie a bit. One of my first experiences in the Army was being gang-raped and all the guys got away with it. Instead, I was punished. This was not uncommon.
I was usually assigned to mostly male units, and I remember when I would first arrive, I was usually greeted with something like, “Oh, no, not another female.” I would have to work twice as hard as any male just to get any credit BECAUSE most of the females in the military were lazy, dumb, and knew they could get away with murder if they just cried, “Sexual bias.” I wanted to do well and get promoted on my own rights, but most females were content to get promoted because of affirmative action.
I wrote articles for Doug’s blog talking about the dangers of women being in the military (that was before he kicked me out!). There were lots of bad things that happened to women in the field and in the barracks. One of the main problems, though, in combat especially, is a man’s natural instinct to protect women and when he has to choose between doing his job and protecting a woman he’s working with, he will often neglect his duties. Personally, I think women should be allowed to do clerical and nursing duties, be a cook and serve in positions that won’t interfere with the men doing what comes naturally to men — fighting.
Another situation I found in the military that women should know about is abortions. When we would go to the field for 30 days, it was not unusual for women to get pregnant shortly before we would go. They were then exempt from going. However, when we returned, they weren’t pregnant anymore. There were women who would literally get pregnant on purpose to get out of going to the field and then abort so they wouldn’t have to have the baby either.
Sorry, ladies, but I do have to agree with the Gunn brothers on this one.”
Jen, I appreciate your service to the military and your agreement with the Gunn brothers on the issue. I agree that the best possible scenario is to either not have women in the military, or to clearly define their roles as support and out of the line of fire.
..however,,, I have 23 years of experience in mostly the Army (6 in the Navy) and I can honestly say that your description overall is not accurate. I do know of two women who did ‘intentionally’ get pregnant in order not to go to Iraq during the current OIF action. I have never seen a situation where a woman got pregnant on purpose and then had an abortion after the unit was deployed. Not that it has never happened..
Also, with regard to the idea that most women get away with all of those terrible accusations, I would have to again disagree. Within the lower ranks, perhaps good looks and batting eyes can get some favors that guys or not so good looking gals would ordinarily have. But when you start talking higher ranks – on the enlisted side, E-7 and above, and on the officer side — Women almost always have to be smarter, work harder, be more ethical, excel in every category. Women leaders in the military are generally more organized, responsible, and trusted.
As far as the much over-hyped and highly unprovable assertion that the male Soldier will naturally protect the woman, perhaps to his own peril or that of the unit – I would again have to disagree. In my experience and research, most of the men are much more bonded and protective of each other (or the closest buddy) than any of the women. In fact, the only cases where I’ve ever seen this as a problem is actually on the woman’s side. The female Soldier is much more inclined to protect and try to take care of a fallen comrade, even if she doesn’t know him.
Again, thank you for serving… but… Not my experience.
June 23, 2007 at 4:48 pm
DeputyHeadmistress said:
“The Christian sister who ‘gave me ‘permission’ not to sew, who reassured and comforted me that I was *not* an ungodly woman because I could not sew was a dresses only, headcovering, quiver full minded, women should NOT work outside the home, Elsie Dinsmore reading, Southern Christian lady who, frankly, I do not think would feel very loved, accepted, or welcomed in the homes of most of those posting here.”
I have to address this because it’s critical to the whole reason that this blog exists. The very first sentence of our purpose statement is: “The true woman of the new millennium seeks to honor the Lord Jesus Christ with her heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love her neighbor as herself.” We aren’t here to set up yet another system of rules, lax or strict. We’re here to talk about what it means and what it looks like to be a woman in this time who desires to love God.
I can confidently say that not one of us would say that that dear woman doesn’t have the right to be just as conservative as she wants to be. What we do get all riled up about is when someone turns around and says, “You must adhere to my standard,” and that standard is not a command of Scripture. There are a few fundamentals of the faith that Scripture is black and white about (the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the sovreignty of God, etc.), but the vast majority of situations that we encounter today are not specifically addressed. In those grey areas, we rely on our relationships with God and our studies of the Bible to make the best decision that we can. And each of us may decide differently.
Were that friend of yours to come into my home and attempt to force an extra-biblical standard on my life, then yes, she and I would both be quite uncomfortable, I’m sure. Were she to come into my home and simply practice what she believes God wants of her, I hope that she would find no other place more warm and welcoming.
June 23, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Dep, those are some GREAT thoughts. Thank you for sharing so authentically.
I think it’s fair to say that we humans don’t like change…anywhich way it comes, generally. One of my friends decided to wear a headcovering a few years ago and it did cost in some of her relationships. I was incredibly supportive (as during that time I wanted to cover too, but my husband didn’t give the okay), but I will admit, I think it did get a little difficult when I began questioning and leaving patriarchy (and the Pearls, etc, etc). I remember the first time I saw her after I cut my hair and felt a VERY distinct disapproval from her…but to be fair, I think she probably felt disapproval from me as I caught myself thinking a few times, why can’t she just chill out and look normal? And I know I’ve heard plenty of scoffs at her behind her back from other “brothers and sisters”…actually, not so much now, as folks are getting used to it, but at first, DEFINITELY.
I felt similarly condemned when I left patriarchy and fundamentalism, which sort of all happened in one painful year—felt that I was quickly lumped in with the liberal feminists and the unitarians, watched with wary eyes, concerned glances cast my way, etc… That whole idea that if you’re not in our little camp, you’re on Satan’s team or something, right? Very few people actually asked me what I specifically thought—it was more of a, “If you don’t agree with our party line anymore, then we already *know* what you think…”
Maybe it all just depends who your friends/circle is, too, I don’t know, so many it can be easier with a different crowd (?) but changing like that wasn’t fun in some areas of my relationships. It was hard enough on me, as I wrestled through my own turmoiled questions and painful conclusions and God-ward calls for clarity and for true sight, without all the “help” (aka, condemnation) I recieved from the outside, you know?
PS. As for my slip up with sports, I probably would have made it anyway. I’m rather notorious for forgetting specific details-lol-and making generalizations. I’m also very athletic (and grew up with all brothers), so when I hear that I need to play (carefully selected) sports with a ribbon in my hair in order to maintain my femininity, to me, that’s not exactly a positive statement about girls and sports, and that general thought is what registered (sharply) in my brain.
I do see where Wilson is coming from, though and it makes sense from their vantage point—-in that sort of camp, much is made about one’s gender, so why should sports be any different? I remember enjoying wearing dresses/skirts at first so much (when I decided to do it full time), because I thought, “Ah, at last, something that reminds me all the time that I am a woman!” (Not a person, not a human, but a woman–which at that time I had very sharply divided from man/male…and perhaps even from human being). It was a big deal at the time…I was trying very hard to fully accept my “role).”
Now I think that it probably means a lot less to the heart of God than I thought. I don’t know for sure, of course, but when I read the Scriptures (where I used to read gender issues into almost everything), I see a HUGE flashing neon sign’s worth of a message saying to lift up the weak, to help the hurting, to speak for the voiceless… I have a sneaking feeling that’s a lot more in line with what God wants of us than a lot of this other stuff (on either and any side) that we think of as righteous.
June 23, 2007 at 5:24 pm
“I felt similarly condemned when I left patriarchy and fundamentalism, which sort of all happened in one painful year—felt that I was quickly lumped in with the liberal feminists and the unitarians, watched with wary eyes, concerned glances cast my way, etc… That whole idea that if you’re not in our little camp, you’re on Satan’s team or something, right? Very few people actually asked me what I specifically thought—it was more of a, “If you don’t agree with our party line anymore, then we already *know* what you think…””
Molly,
I understand. I truly do. And now both of us understand what it is like to be on that side looking at people like us and what it is like to be on this side and having those false judgments hurled at us. We are in a unique position to extend compassion and empathy both ways.
When I left ATI, many of the popular ATI ladies tittered about how I must not be a Christian any more or that I had “back slidden”.
My life hasn’t changed much since I left. I still do a lot of the same things I did before. It is my heart and my focus and my attitude that changed. I still bake my own bread, grind my own grain, wear a lot of skirts and dresses (but now I have the freedom to go to Walmart in my capris and not worry if I will be seen by someone! I no longer “sneak” around), submit to my husband (or at least I strive to submit to him, always room for improvement!), etc.
June 23, 2007 at 5:45 pm
“Corrie, thank-you. I do try to be fair-minded. I have found that in general, people only appreciate that trait when it results in me agreeing with them, and since it ends up meaning I seldom agree 100 percent with anybody, I irritate a lot of people. Oh, well.=)”
Well, Deputy, that is probably why I like you. People who agree with me 100% of the time irritate me. 🙂
” We thought they were resolved, but, sadly, no. If you can’t figure out who I am from knowing the two lists we were both on, email me and I’ll tell ya.=)”
Color me clueless! I will email you. And I will not use your real name if I figure out who you are. I like calling you “Deputy”.
“The Christian sister who ‘gave me ‘permission’ not to sew, who reassured and comforted me that I was *not* an ungodly woman because I could not sew was a dresses only, headcovering, quiver full minded, women should NOT work outside the home, Elsie Dinsmore reading, Southern Christian lady who, frankly, I do not think would feel very loved, accepted, or welcomed in the homes of most of those posting here.”
I will have to disagree with you here. I have many friends who still headcover and wear dresses only and we are the best of friends. We love each other and we discuss some issues but we do not think we are better for what we do.
My best friend is one who covers and has been a Mennonite for a long time.
“It wasn’t anybody’s fault but mine that I had elevated sewing in my head to one of the seven fruits of the Spirit. I didn’t shock anybody in my patrio-centric circle of friends when I quit trying to learn to sew. I didn’t lose any friends from my more patriarchal circle of friends when I made it clear I didn’t sew and was never going to. Nobody was upset with me. I do know that there are some circles where this would be highly frowned upon- I’ve read some of those writings and disagreed with them. But none of the conservative, patriarchy minded ladies I knew thought I was a less godly woman because I didn’t and don’t and won’t sew.”
That hasn’t been my experience. My headcovering friend sews and she quilts beautifully, too, and she has NEVER made me feel like less of a woman but there are people who put a great emphasis on bread baking and sewing.
“We are all bearers of the divine image, and we are all humans, sinful, faulty, and madly inconsistant humans. We can speak of generalities and criticize and critique teachings, movements, and individual actions, but- for one example, I think Elsie Dinsmore is a dreadful character that I do NOT want my daughters to imitate and we won’t have those books in my house. I disagree with those women who think Elsie Dinsmore is lovely, but this doesn’t tell me whether they are good or bad mothers or say anything about their ability to be compassionate and generous to a neighbor in crisis.”
I agree.
“You see, the intolerance, the dismissive, unkind treatment of others, the impugning of character and motives- it happens both ways, from both sides. It’s not theology that causes it- or at least, not always. It’s that pesky contradictory human nature.”
I am truly sorry this has happened to you! I love to be around people that are different than me because they challenge me in many ways. I would’t be embarassed to meet with you! Hey, if you get to St. Louis, I would love to have you over. 🙂
I once invited a woman with 5 or 6 children to church. She wore a head-covering. She is a sweet and wonderful woman and a very good mom. It was at a reformed baptist church. I was so embarassed at the treatment she received and the comments made. People said the most horrible things about her behind her back. I think it is because they felt judged. We didn’t stay there and become members because my husband was very concerned with the immodest dress of some ladies. Mini-skirts, go-go boots, boob-jobs, skin-tight jeans and t-shirts, etc. But I have seen the type of treatment that you speak of and it is not right.
But, to tell you all the times I have been judged for not wearing a head-covering, not wearing “dresses only”, for not embracing Elsie with my whole mind, heart and soul [grin] and for disagreeing with many of Gothard’s twisting of scripture? I know the pain.
If I could count how many times people have called me immodest, feminist, back-slidden, liberal, etc, it would be a lot.
I love my head-covering friends because they are NOT judgmental and they love me for who I am and they don’t think I am any lesser of a Christian or they don’t deem me unworthy to be around. I love them because I know them and I appreciate them as a person.
I would never judge anyone for being dresses only or wearing head coverings. But, if they use those as measuring sticks for other people’s spirituality, then I have a problem with that.
June 23, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Monica,
Thanks for the clarifying reminder in #132. That is exactly why these issues are being discussed, because they ARE being imposed on others as biblical, when they clearly are a matter of preference (and to be honest, some of their personal “preferences” actually go against Scripture and therefore hurt their own families).
I attend a large church with a wide variety of lifestyles (homeschooling, private and public schooling, etc), and there are a handful of women that do where headcoverings. And while I hate to admit it, it sometimes acts as a deterrent to interacting with them, they are actually some of the sweetest, most loving women who actually have joy flowing out of them. I think a crucial reason for this is that it is THEIR choice to cover their heads, according to their conscience, and not their husbands or anybody else telling them they must.
June 23, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Jen,
I’ve spent hours reading thru your whole site and am impressed with your manner and gentleness. I want to know the truth more than anything. This is close to my heart.
Where is this attack by Mrs. Chancey on Andrew? I would like to see it…
June 23, 2007 at 6:19 pm
“I would never judge anyone for being dresses only or wearing head coverings. But, if they use those as measuring sticks for other people’s spirituality, then I have a problem with that.”
Corrie, this is PRECISELY what really is the issue behind it!
It is when these things become what gives them value and pride instead of deriving it from their relationship with God. When it constitutes their devotion, instead of it flowing out their love for Him. When it becomes the mark of true piety, instead of the fruits of the Spirit.
It’s when headcovered, dress-wearers either cast their haughty eyes (Proverbs ring a bell, anyone?), or walk straight up to you, and even sometimes sweetly, ask “Why do you wear pants? The Bible says women ought to wear skirts!”
Frankly, some of us in the other camp are no better, when we let our comfort zone dictate whether we will even give these sisters a chance, to find out exactly where their heart is. I guess it just goes to show, that if you still can’t know a person completely by their wardrobe, that “Strength and dignity are her clothing”!
It’s our demeanor and attitude that REALLY give us away!
June 23, 2007 at 7:05 pm
“I would never judge anyone for being dresses only or wearing head coverings. But, if they use those as measuring sticks for other people’s spirituality, then I have a problem with that.”
And the worst offenders are those who publish books and articles and are paid to promote these views at conferences.
I have a difficult time seeing how we can label someone who does these things as a sweet, godly woman. How is this different that what the Pharisees did? Would we ever consider them to be sweet or godly? Can somebody help me out here? I feel like I am missing something from this discussion.
June 23, 2007 at 7:17 pm
“You see, the intolerance, the dismissive, unkind treatment of others, the impugning of character and motives- it happens both ways, from both sides. It’s not theology that causes it- or at least, not always. It’s that pesky contradictory human nature.”
Deputy, (I’m with Corrie, I like that name!)
Help me understand what you are saying….
Theology is what we believe about God. So, what is puzzling to me is how many people who hold to the doctrines of grace are the ones who are so parsimonious with dispensing it themselves.
For example, I read a blog this week, a blog owned by one of the patriarch wives, that talked about this woman and her daughters seeing a young lady shopping for clothes with her mom. The girl was wearing a WWJD t-shirt and it was, according to this mom, too tight across the chest. When this girl raised her arms, this mom could see a pierced navel. She went on to judge the motives of this girl’s heart and to distract her children so they would not be tainted by the experience. I felt nothing but condenmation and judgement for this girl in question. Where was the grace?
Then I asked myself “What would Jesus have done in a similar situation?” I look at example of the woman at the well or Mary Magdalene. Not once do I recall any mention of the clothing these women wore. I saw no example of telling others to turn away from them so as not to be tainted. In fact, Jesus said that the person without sin is to cast the first stone. So where would we find the person to toss out the first pitch?
Recently I read, perhaps on Jen’s blog, the beliefs regarding Old Testament law and the stoning of immoral women and how modern day patriocentrists hold to those views. I wondered as I read this account if this patriarch wife thought this young girl should have been stoned to death since, obviously, to her anyway, she was immoral.
The only conclusion I can come to is that these people do not really understand God’s grace nor do they trust in the sovereignty of God in the lives of others. To me, the teachings nullify what they claim to believe about the nature and character of God, thus their theology is flawed or they don’t really believe what they claim to believe.
Do you see where I am coming from? Help me understand what you are saying.
June 23, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Name Withheld, thank you for pointing out that I painted women in the military with too broad a brush. I probably did. I was lower enlisted while I was in, and so saw it from that perspective. In my field, there were very few women, so I am remembering those women I did know. However, some of the laziest, most unintelligent soldiers I ever met were women who were higher ranking. And how did they get that rank? Affirmative action. The worst ones were females of a different color. Of my six years in, I cannot think of one upper-ranking female in that category that deserved her rank and position. It was a travesty. I met a couple good female officers, but I met FAR MORE pathetic wimps who had no business being in the military, let alone being an officer. There were a few women who worked hard in my experience, but very few. I am glad to hear that that is not always the case, but since my husband is still associated with the Army, I know that the two females in his unit cause FAR MORE problems than all the men put together. In fact, they are both under criminal investigation now. Being a female myself, I wish this just wasn’t so, but I put much of the blame on affirmative action and the equal opportunity programs that unfairly treat white men like dirt while falsely elevating everyone else.
But you’re right; I did paint with too broad a brush. There are some real decent female soldiers in the military.
June 23, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Marie, you might be surprised to know that only six months ago I attacked nearly everyone I “met.” God worked a miracle in my life this year and He totally changed my heart. I’m glad you can see Him working in my life.
Here is the link to Jennie Chancey’s article about Andrew Sandlin. Here is a link to a blog where Lynn has written three articles about this.
June 23, 2007 at 8:46 pm
ThatMom: “At one end are the radical feminists, even those who profess Christ, who are pro-lesbian and pro-abortion etc.”
This is very true. I know a couple of lesbian ladies who are about the sweetest Christians one could meet. They love the Lord dearly and are truly committed to God, and totally radiate God’s presence.
It works for them and they live a decent and God fearing life, although they do have more liberal political beliefs.
I guess it wouldn’t make sense to patriocentrists or even most conservative Christians, but if these ladies are each at peace with God, it is not my place to judge them.
June 23, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Heck, it’s probably not my place to judge them even if they don’t have internal peace with God.
June 23, 2007 at 9:20 pm
The only conclusion I can come to is that these people do not really understand God’s grace nor do they trust in the sovereignty of God in the lives of others. To me, the teachings nullify what they claim to believe about the nature and character of God, thus their theology is flawed or they don’t really believe what they claim to believe.
Do you see where I am coming from? Help me understand what you are saying.
Generally speaking, If trying to persuade people to your own point of view is not trusting the sovereignty of God in the lives of others, then we are all guilty. Some of us are more persuasive and some of us take the battering ram approach, but most of us have tried at some time or another to convince somebody to come over the light side, if only to try our favorite food, more often in some more important (at least to us) matter.
Trying to deliver these poor girls out of the bondage of the Botkin sisters’ binding (and I do not like the Botkin sisters message)- is that also not trusting in the soverignty of God? Cannot he free them without our help?
Or do you think He can, but He might call humans to participate in that work? Then can’t even the Botkin girls, the Gunn brothers, or the woman whose blog you read, believe, with all their hearts (even if they are, as I think they are, wrong) that they are participating in God’s sovereign work right now?
And again, people, again, are rarely that consistant in logically thinking through everything they believe and measuring it up carefully against practice. That’s why most of us find that our ideas, values, and actions are changing as we continue to learn and grow.
For example, noted here, several of the same people who believe in that grace and sovereignty have admitted that yes, they do sometimes not give those who dress more conservatively a chance. It was actually those ‘grace’ led people in my former congregation who talked the loudest about cleansing the inside of the cup and not the outside and not judging people by their appearance who were the most grace-less in their treatment of our family that I have EVER witnessed. (I totally agree with those who pointed out that this comes and goes from both directions, btw.) I don’t believe that they didn’t really believe in the grace of God. I don’t believe that they did not really believe that we shouldn’t judge by appearance. I think they were just flawed human beings who were not aware of how disconnected their treatment of us was from their beliefs.
I have known too many people who were meanspirited legalists who became meanspirited ‘grace based’ believers and vice versa to believe it was the theology that drove the meanness. All that changed, like Elizabeth and her pirate’s heart, was who they were judgemental about. They still treat people who disagree with them the same as ever. All that changes is who they disagree with, not how they treat them.
Here’s a fun example, although it’s based primarily on an educated guess. I understand that Douglas Wilson used to not be reformed. He was evangelical/Arminian (If I remember right). Do you think he was a sweet, mushy, sentimental teddy bear then, or do you think maybe he was sarcastic and pretty sharp with both his pen and his wit even then? My guess is that except for the fact that he was younger and so had not yet honed his serrated edge quite so sharp as it has grown with age and use, that he was probably much as he is now, personality wise.
And, human-like, I liked his serrated edge when he used it for slicing Elsie Dinsmore books into so much ruffly edged confetti, and I did not like it when he used it against women in headcoverings (I think he once referred to us as dour and glum). One example was funny. The other was just plain rude.=)
June 23, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Sarah,
The Bible is very clear on homosexuality…it is a sin. “If it works for them” is not an option in my book.
However, I do not see it as any worse sin than gossip or hatred etc. Responding to someone who has chosen to live a life of homosexuality should be the same as the way we respond to those who are cohabitating etc. We need to show the love of Jesus, while hating their sin and building a relationship with them so as to earn the right to confront them.
Romans 15:14 says:
““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.” So, in order to be in the position to admonish someone else, we need to be full of goodness and all knowledge, which, of course, we know comes from God’s word.
June 23, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Deputyy,
I guess the difference I see is that one side has established the standards for all believers, calling anything outside of that standard “sin” and the other side is requesting grace for the rest of us to make our own choices about the extra biblical teachings and to not consider us to be sinning when we don’t do it their way. I am not trying to persuade anyone to my point of view regarding women since I don’t see only one choice, but rather the Christian liberty to make many choices regarding women’s roles.
AS far as Wilson is concerned, yes, I see what you are saying about personality traits.
I guess where I am coming from is that I see “character” as a virtue that comes out of faith. (2 Peter)
Character and virtue aren’t always equated with niceness.
June 23, 2007 at 10:10 pm
I guess the difference I see is that one side has established the standards for all believers, calling anything outside of that standard “sin” and the other side is requesting grace for the rest of us to make our own choices about the extra biblical teachings and to not consider us to be sinning when we don’t do it their way.
I do see what you are saying, but I think it’s more complicated than this. For one thing, it only looks like that from your point of view. From theirs, if Side A on any issue believed that issue was extra-biblical, or gray, or ‘optional,’ in any sense, than they would not be insisting that side B see things their way.
The problem is that we don’t all agree on what is and isn’t ‘extra biblical’ and what is and isn’t sin, and I don’t think that’s ever going to change until Jesus takes us home (in general- individuals may change, but there will always be those who think elective issues are binding doctrine and those who think that binding doctrine is an elective choice).
And when we disagree on those things, I think different things are required of those on side B (that is, the side who does not feel something is a sin).
I believe that conviction always trumps preferences (at least, I think I do. Or at least generally trumps preference. Or at the very least, deserves more, um, charity? I’m probably not making any sense. Let me try again).
Okay, let me try this example, even though it is almost as embarrassing as admitting I wear a headcovering.
We, um, read Harry Potter (picture the looks THAT gets me at the bookstore or the homeschooling moms meeting. Whew!). I even have ordered an advanced copy of the seventh book from Amazon and I have every intention of reading it from start to finish when it arrives. Yes, even before my Progeny (four of our seven children also read them). And we are not ashamed. We do not believe this is a sin.
But I do know many, many, sweet believers who find this shocking, who worry about my faith, and who really do believe I am sinning by reading those books. I also know some far less than sweet believers who find this shocking, naturally. Would it be grace in me to demand that they violate their convictions and consciences and never tell anybody not to read those books or why they find them offensive? Would it be charitable of me to talk about Harry Potter at the dinner table when they are in my home or I am in theirs?
The family living with us right now believe that reading the books or watching the movies is a sin. They are trying really hard to be gracious about it, but obviously, this is much harder for them than it is for me, because the very presence of those books in our home is a prod to their consciences, a brand on their convictions, while their objection to them does not violate my conscience in the least. I simply smile, accept their promises of prayers, and we try very hard not to bring the books up in front of them. I do not think I can demand of them that they stop believing that I am sinning. I only have the right to remind them that they are supposed to love me anyway.=) I could explain why I think they are mistaken, but if they are not persuaded, I don’t think I have the right to insist that they change their minds about it and stop thinking I am sinning. How can they help it? If they wrongfully believe that something is a sin and for whatever reason cannot at this time be persuaded that it isn’t a sin, how could they avoid thinking I am sinning if I do that thing?
I regret that they think that, but their conscience in this area is between them and God, and they may think I am in sin if that is consistant with their convictions. Although I think they are quite wrong about Harry Potter, I am quite sure there is some area where I am not yet fully in line with God’s grace and will for me, and their prayers can never be amiss. I wish they did not think I was sinning. But I do not understand how I could say to them, I don’t think it’s a sin NOT to read Harry Potter, but you have no right to think it is a sin TO read Harry Potter.
I do not see how I could require that they not consider me to be sinning, since we cannot agree that this is an area of liberty. They think it is perfectly black and white, and I do not. The best we can have here, as far as I can tell, is for me to let them think me a sinner and for them to love me anyway.
June 23, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Sarah,
As thatmom pointed out, homosexuality is clearly stated a sin in the Bible, and to say so is not so much a judgment about your friends (or any homosexual) as it is about “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” and judging what it says there.
I wholeheartedly agree with both of you that we are to love them. Jesus loved the woman caught in adultery and the woman at the well, to a shocking degree. And was because of His great love for them that He wished them to be free from the bondage of their sin, ans so said to them, “GO, AND SIN NO MORE”. If this was Jesus’ method of loving them, then how can we do less? (And just as a note, I’m preaching to myself here, because I have a much easier time being loving to a person’s face, but have no clue how to say the uncomfortable! Frankly, I’m a chicken!)
June 23, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Deputy,
I agree with you. I don’t think it is a sin to read Harry Potter. This verse comes to mind, “Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial”. While Paul also advises us to dwell on good things, he is also clear that it does not HAVE to be ‘beneficial” (spiritually?). If your family can derive entertainment from the stories without a single pricked conscience or point of stumbling, then you are in the clear. It is to “him that knows to do good and does it not, THEN to him it is sin”.
That being said, while I don’t believe I would be sinning in taking in the stories (and I really enjoy a good fantasy story), I personally cannot shake a sickening feeling of demonic activity emanating from them. For some reason, my husband and I are very sensitive to things of this nature. But that is my comfort level and conscience, NOT yours.
Now, it’s those who cannot abide the magic in Narnia that I REALLY can’t understand. (smile) =o)
June 23, 2007 at 11:15 pm
DeputyHeadmistress: “Trying to deliver these poor girls out of the bondage of the Botkin sisters’ binding (and I do not like the Botkin sisters message)- is that also not trusting in the soverignty of God? Cannot he free them without our help?
Or do you think He can, but He might call humans to participate in that work?”
Deputy, I’m not sure which position you are taking here, or if you are. I think there are times for both. Although God certainly can free them without our help, I find that He often uses others to do so. I was more extreme than the Botkin sisters, in some ways, until just recently, when God sent a retired pastor into my life to chew my up one side and down the other. I needed to be hit REALLY hard to see that I was a Pharisee of the highest order. I came to that realization just two weeks ago, after three months of intense Bible study with this man and some others here. I believe it was God’s perfect timing in my own life and if God wants to use other people to do the same for someone like the Botkin girls, I pray that He will. Hey, we live pretty close to them … 🙂
Alisa, as part of my turning from deep legalism to grace, the Narnia books keep coming up. Maybe someday I will be able to read them without guilt.
June 23, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Deputy (re #148 and #151),
AMEN.
In other words, you seemed to be saying life isn’t so clear cut. Real life is messy. I love this quote of yours from #148:
“I don’t believe that they didn’t really believe in the grace of God. I don’t believe that they did not really believe that we shouldn’t judge by appearance. I think they were just flawed human beings who were not aware of how disconnected their treatment of us was from their beliefs.”
That was SO well said. Theology certainly plays a part in the way we act, yes. But sometimes I think we give it a much bigger role than it really occupies.
Personally, I see this error stemming from our fascination with a “spreadsheet” view of human beings and relationships [does this come from the church world still being steeped in modernity, what with it’s reliance on scientific formula’s and exact recipes in order to have success?], instead of viewing people as living breathing growing COMPLICATED unique creations?
[I agree that post-modernity has it’s negative issues, but bringing back a holistic/whole view of looking at relationships and life is, in my opinion, NOT one of its problems but a blessed counter-balance to one of modernity’s worst errors]!
There is wisdom in acknowledging the MANY facets of a person and their behaviour, theology being just one facet of many. I think we, especially those of us who’ve spent time in conservative camps, perhaps (?), tend to think of theology as a “fix-all” curative (“If only they had the right theology (ie. MINE), all their problems would be solved.”).
Theology has an important place, to be sure, but I believe Paul wrote about it as if it was a secondary matter in 1 Corinthians 13, reminding us that while perfect theology can be ours, we can–even with that perfect theology–be completely and dreadfully missing God’s heart.
June 24, 2007 at 12:04 am
DeputyHeadmistress: “Trying to deliver these poor girls out of the bondage of the Botkin sisters’ binding (and I do not like the Botkin sisters message)- is that also not trusting in the soverignty of God? Cannot he free them without our help?
Or do you think He can, but He might call humans to participate in that work?”
Jen: “Deputy, I’m not sure which position you are taking here, or if you are. I think there are times for both. Although God certainly can free them without our help, I find that He often uses others to do so.”
When it comes to God’s sovereignty, some would argue that it is His sovereign will that they are IN those families and situations! While the family part is true, we are clearly called to run the race unhindered, and this type of bondage certainly constitutes a hindrance.
Frankly, just as we are called to assist the orphaned and widowed, we are also called to set the captive free, and open our mouth for the mute (Prov. 31:8-9).
While the Spirit can and does speak to these girls, can you imagine the unimaginable position they are in? For those who do NOT see this application of patriarchy in Scripture and truly wish to honor God, they contradictions between their conscience and their physical situation is crushing. They are instructed to honor their parents and wish to obey, and yet what their parents insists that requires of them restricts them from callings specifically laid out in Scripture! Even if God should bring them to the point of stepping out from an abusive authority, few have any money, prospects for income, or any type of godly support since their only social circle was patriarchal as well. All the while, they are accused of being rebellious because they refuse to see the “truth” in Scripture, to the point that they are excommunicated prisoners in their own home, when all they really wish to do is honor God by being faithful to His Word in it’s entirety. Please tell me that you can see where we are directed to pray for them and prayerfully assist them if God should so call us.
I don’t know about you, but the discussions these past few weeks have compelled me to pray ever more for ALL (fathers, mothers, son AND daughters) in bondage to man-made, Satan-assisted chains. I pray that God is able to use the recent examination of the Tenets of Patriarchy against what Scripture REALLY says over at Jen’s Gems to help accomplish this.
June 24, 2007 at 12:22 am
Alissa, agree completely about Narnia.=) and I would never, ever try to talk somebody into reading Harry Potter or demand that they agree with me that they are harmless. My point there isn’t really to defend my reading of the Rowling books, but to defend your right to be convicted in an area where I am not, even if that means that you consequently think I am sinning in that area.
Jen, when I said this:
“Trying to deliver these poor girls out of the bondage of the Botkin sisters’ binding (and I do not like the Botkin sisters message)- is that also not trusting in the soverignty of God? Cannot he free them without our help?
Or do you think He can, but He might call humans to participate in that work?”
I was responding to this:
For example, I read a blog this week, a blog owned by one of the patriarch wives, that talked about this woman and her daughters seeing a young lady shopping for clothes with her mom. The girl was wearing a WWJD t-shirt and it was, according to this mom, too tight across the chest. When this girl raised her arms, this mom could see a pierced navel. She went on to judge the motives of this girl’s heart and to distract her children so they would not be tainted by the experience. I felt nothing but condenmation and judgement for this girl in question. Where was the grace?
[ ]
The only conclusion I can come to is that these people do not really understand God’s grace nor do they trust in the sovereignty of God in the lives of others. To me, the teachings nullify what they claim to believe about the nature and character of God, thus their theology is flawed or they don’t really believe what they claim to believe.
And I was also throwing in there my remembrance of somebody in one of these threads saying something about hoping to help girls escape the bondage of the Botkin sisters teaching- the specifics are not important, the general equivilance of the two situations is. The main side I am taking is that this looks inconsistant to me. I think it would be better to stick to issues than personalities. To be honest, I am also seeing a lot of condemnation and judgement for that mom in question. I might also ask, ‘Where’s the grace?’ for her?
If it’s wrong for the blogging woman to share her conviction that tight shirts and pierced navels are wrong, if this is showing a lack of grace and a lack of trust in the sovereignty of God then why isn’t it wrong and showing a lack of trust in the sovereignty of God to try to persuade people that the teachings in the Botkin girls’ book and the Gunn’s movie are wrong, or that it was wrong for her to feel as she did, blog as she did, and redirect her children’s attention?
My position is that while the position itself might be wrong, trying to persuade others that what you are convicted of is biblical is not wrong.
If you honestly believe and are convicted in your heart that flashing pierced belly buttons and wearing tight t-shirts are a sin, then why is it wrong to say so on your blog or to redirect your children’s attention from it in real life? Isn’t that better, after all, than that horrible ATI exercise where you go to the mall or airport and actively point out all the sinning people and their naughty clothes?
And why is it bad to say you don’t think tight shirts and showing bejeweled belly buttons is becoming to a Christian girl, but it’s okay to say, as I have seen hither, thither, and yon in these and similar discussions, that people in long skirts, period dresses, or headcoverings look stupid, unfashionable, and ugly? The blogging woman’s criticism is at least based on her belief (right or wrong is irrelevant to this point) that God condemns it as well.
I doubt that any of those who have criticized the frumpy really are convicted that God condemns the unfashionable as sinful, after all.
So you see, I *agree* that there are times for both. That’s what I was hoping I said.
And I am willing to extend that grace even to those I think are totally wrong, even if they are Saducees or Pharisees. Because chances are, somewhere on some issue, that would also describe me or you or any of us here.
I don’t know about you, but I can look back over nearly fifty years and see that I loved my God when I was a sinful young woman prancing around in skimpy skirts and braless t-shirts, and I loved Him just the same when I thought I was living ungodly and unwomanly because I could not sew- my understanding of how I should act on that and what it would look like in my life has changed and will continue to change- and that is true for those to the left and to the right of me, for those who think I am sinning for reading HP and for those who think I am a stupid legalist for wearing a headcovering.
June 24, 2007 at 12:50 am
I think it is ironic that both Alisa and Jen have missed that this: “Trying to deliver these poor girls out of the bondage of the Botkin sisters’ binding (and I do not like the Botkin sisters message)- is that also not trusting in the soverignty of God? Cannot he free them without our help?”
Was a very close paraphrase of something somebody else said- it was fine and went without comment when used as a criticism of Patriarchy- and that’s what I mean about the double standard I am seeing. I quoted and paraphrased not because I agreed with it, but to show that it’s problematic.
Alissa asks me Please tell me that you can see where we are directed to pray for them and prayerfully assist them if God should so call us.
Alissa, I am not the one who has indicated that trying to talk others into seeing the scriptures as you do is demonstrating that you do “not really understand God’s grace nor do [you] trust in the sovereignty of God in the lives of others.” I completely disagree with that statement. I was quoting somebody who agrees with you.
I think that statement is incorrect, whether applied to people I agree with or not.
June 24, 2007 at 1:48 am
Karen, (#132)
Here’s the oddest re-interpreting of scripture I ever heard: a temperance pastor teaching in sermon that when Paul told Timothy to “take a little wine” for his ailment, he actually intended Timothy to rub it on his chest.
Kinda like Vap-O-Rub! I’m not making this up. The things people come up with to stay within their “grids”.
June 24, 2007 at 2:22 am
Deputy: “I think it is ironic that both Alisa and Jen have missed that this: “Trying to deliver these poor girls out of the bondage of the Botkin sisters’ binding (and I do not like the Botkin sisters message)- is that also not trusting in the soverignty of God? Cannot he free them without our help?”
“Was a very close paraphrase of something somebody else said- it was fine and went without comment when used as a criticism of Patriarchy- and that’s what I mean about the double standard I am seeing. I quoted and paraphrased not because I agreed with it, but to show that it’s problematic.”
In a very long thread like this, Deputy, I am bound to miss plenty! I am not sure which comment you were paraphrasing. Would you be so kind as to let me know which comment that was, please? The comment you wrote in #157 does not sound like a paraphrase at all, unless I am missing it.
I am trying to understand your point here. Help me out. I think you are saying that when we judge anyone for being different from us, whether we consider them to be in sin or to be legalistic, that we are, in fact, just plain being judgmental, and that that judgmental spirit is wrong, in and of itself. So, it is just as wrong to judge the Botkin girls, for example, as it is to judge the girl with the too tight shirt and the belly ring.
But then you say this: “My position is that while the position itself might be wrong, trying to persuade others that what you are convicted of is biblical is not wrong.”
And now I don’t know what you think!
Let me give you an example of what I think you are saying here. Before I was excommunicated from BCA, it was a “dresses only” church in spirit. In other words, there were no “rules,” per se, about wearing dresses only, but it was definitely implied. Still, there were a few who didn’t always wear dresses. Some of the ladies took it upon themselves to show these women the error of their ways regarding what they wore. I did not know this was happening when I attended there; I found out about it later.
The reason I found out about it is that after I was excommunicated, some ladies felt free to tell me how grateful they were that even though I was a “dresses only” lady, I never talked about it with anyone unless they brought it up first. So, in the end, my living testimony was more powerful than those who felt it was their responsibility to indoctrinate everyone else with their “convictions.”
Deputy, those ladies turned off a lot of people by trying to persuade others of their biblical convictions. I’ve seen this happen time and time again.
So, based on your two quotes above, I am clueless as to what you are really trying to say! Help me out here.
June 24, 2007 at 2:29 am
Jen and others,
Thank you for the information and links. Indeed there is a whole world of dialogue and such I didn’t know existed. 😛
It is wonderful to have such a gentle, honest discussion. I truly believe this blog’s posts have glorified the Lord.
June 24, 2007 at 3:41 am
Here’s the oddest re-interpreting of scripture I ever heard: a temperance pastor teaching in sermon that when Paul told Timothy to “take a little wine” for his ailment, he actually intended Timothy to rub it on his chest.
Kinda like Vap-O-Rub! I’m not making this up. The things people come up with to stay within their “grids”.”
David,
This is so funny! The lengths that people will go through to make their pet doctrines fit scripture.
I know they used to rub people with rubbing alcohol when they had fevers to bring it down but I don’t know how wine on the chest can cure someone’s stomach trouble. That is a new one!
Kind of like people who smoked pot and didn’t inhale?
June 24, 2007 at 3:56 am
Marie,
“Kind of like people who smoked pot and didn’t inhale?”
ROFLOL!!!! =O)
June 24, 2007 at 4:46 am
Jennie Chancey used to be a “Christian feminist”?
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2005/04/1044.aspx
June 24, 2007 at 5:00 am
Deputy,
I too am confused, but in case I contributed to the confusion, let me clarify:
I am with you on the gray areas not forbidden or mandated in Scripture, as we already covered with Harry Potter.
Nor am I endorsing knocking on the doors of all families “practicing” patriarchy, and telling them what I think about their “system”. I’m sure there are some families that are able to take it IN THE SPIRIT and God can grow them through aspects of it. But those same people that are walking in the Spirit are not likely to be in danger of making an idol out of it, or elevating it above the Gospel.
That being said, what I was referring to in my previous comment was this: I have witnessed families who have done all the prerequisites to being patriarchal… They’ve homeschooled their children, seen to it that they have been brought up in Bible believing churches and taught proper hermeneutics. Their children love God and seek to honor, obey Him, and rightly divide the Word of Truth. When these children reach their teenage and adult years (and are ready to become useful workers in the Kingdom), their parents learn that they must now proceed to the next level of “doing it the biblical way”, and that they are well on their way to being the picture perfect patriarchal family. These parents aren’t going to let the chance to be the next successful quiverfull homeschooling family, or most godly courtship/betrothal spread in the revered patriarchal newsletter/magazine escape them! It’s within reach!!! They are sooo close… and then their adult child throws a monkey wrench in the works. They discover that (gasp!) their adult child doesn’t hold to ALL the tenets of patriarchy. It doesn’t matter that this grown person has deferred to and honored them as their parents in reverence of the 5th commandment, stayed at home, helped their father in his vision, all the while denying their own God-given dreams and callings so as not to break their parents hearts. None of this matters, all the parents can see is that they failed to do their most important objective; to brainwash their children into being their patriarchal clones. They re-teach, cajole, lecture and finally demand that their adult child see the “truth” they are teaching from Scripture. How does an adult in this situation, after honestly and prayfully considering these tenets over a matter of YEARS, force themselves to acquiese to someone else’s conscience? It cannot be done without serious injury to their own conscience before God.
THIS is the crux of where we ARE called to intercede: I have seen these situations deteriorate into spiritual, mentally, and physically abusive relationships, these parents actually violating their own grown child’s conscience and personhood. This is NOT what God had in mind when He instructed fathers not to exasperate their children.
Deputy, I am not making this stuff up. I have witnessed it and the destruction that results, in both the grown children and the parents, and really anyone that knows and loves them. I’m not talking about being judgemental of other familes; I’m talking about those who live with this constant judgement within their own homes, from the people that should be their cheerleaders and greatest support, and instead are met with disgust and manipulation. Imagine being in this situation with all recourse taken away from you. You are declared rebellious for believing the Bible to mean what it says. They demand that you repent for the “sins” that they declare you to be in. But to do so, would be lying and THAT would be what you would REALLY be guilty of. So since lying is out, you have two choices; remain in an abusive, emotionally crushing situation, or actually leave your parents house, often with nowhere else to go.
THIS is what I’m talking about.
June 24, 2007 at 5:29 am
Alisa, Karen: “As thatmom pointed out, homosexuality is clearly stated a sin in the Bible, and to say so is not so much a judgment about your friends (or any homosexual) as it is about “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” and judging what it says there.”
By judgment, I was more referring to judging the nature/reality of their salvation and relationship with God.
June 24, 2007 at 5:32 am
Deputy,
God also has the ability to free people from sexual slavery (a real problem), prevent murder, provide manna for the starving, and heal illness.
This does not mean we should not seek to rescue people from slavery, imprison killers, feed the poor, or go to the doctor. In fact, in many cases, we have a moral imperative to intervene, as commanded by God and the teachings of Christ.
Your argument is a straw man, plain and simple.
June 24, 2007 at 5:49 am
Sarah, I do pray that your friends do truly know Christ. But if this is the case, I believe that He will show them before too long that they are still carrying around chains that He has released them of. In fact, He commands them to lay them down.
My husband worked with an older woman who was a practicing lesbian, but the sweetest, motherly, most caring woman who read devotionals at work everyday (not showy, I guess, he just happened to know somehow). I pray that she too genuinely knows Christ.
June 24, 2007 at 6:19 am
Jen said,”Alisa, as part of my turning from deep legalism to grace, the Narnia books keep coming up. Maybe someday I will be able to read them without guilt.”
Jen, you might want to start by reading some of Lewis’s other books – “Mere Christianity” and “The Great Divorce” are two excellent places to start.
And while we’re on the subject, a major difference between the Narnia books and Harry Potter is the mindset of the respective eras in which they were written.
Think back — in our younger days, most of us read fairy tales, and never for a moment believed that the magical goings on in them could ever be real, let alone demonic.
As children, we KNEW that the world of make-believe, with its fairy godmothers, “magic”, dragons, etc, was pure fiction, and had nothing to do with the real world of parents and houses and schools and supermarkets, where magic was only make-believe and the supernatural was all about God, prayer, Church, and the miracles that were performed by Jesus and the apostles. Back then, nobody (unless they were mentally unbalanced) gave credence to the idea that some people might attempt to practice “magic” for real, with the aid of demons, and up until about 1970 or so, even people who believed in “psychics” believed that they did what they did by means of natural, not-yet-understood capabilities of the mind. If anyone had suggested to us as children that fairy-tale magic was real, and that the Devil was the power behind it, we would have figured that they were escapees from the looney bin! This is the era in which the Narnia books were written.
Then the New Age Movement came along, and people started believing all sorts of crackpot things, and as the decades went by, in Christian circles all kinds of crazy ideas began to take hold — Latter Rain, Gothard, “Name it and Claim it”, and pastors who blamed everything from headaches to hemorrhoids to smoking to schizophrenia on demonic activity.
Suddenly the most innnocent childhood tales, which any eight-year old could tell you were pure fiction, were being villified as “demonic,” and kids who formerly would never for a moment have believed that magic could be for real picked up on this idea, and began to look to Wicca, Buddhism, and even Satanism as a means by which they themselves could do supernatural things.
And, this is the era in which Harry Potter has been written.
I myself am VERY uncomfortable with the amoral aspect of much of what goes on in the Potter stories — a good fairy tale always has a moral, and in Potter, the witches and the spooky realm they inhabit are the good guys, rather than the other way around — but I am equally uncomfortable with the fact that they are being read in a day and age where adults have lost their ability to distinguish fact from fiction, and where many grown ups have less discernment in that area that did the average eight-year old of forty years ago.
June 24, 2007 at 8:11 am
Practicing Lesbian:
“Sweetest, motherly, most caring woman who read devotionals at work everyday.”
Doug Phillips:
By several accounts, arrogant, cold-hearted, and likely narcissistic (also probably reads devotionals everyday, so maybe that’s not criteria).
Who strikes you as closer to Jesus? Whose fruit is sweeter?
I suppose the best we can say is we are all sinners and all have our own challenges before God. If lack or sin or persisting in sin is the sign of a Christian, then I am definitely a heathen.
June 24, 2007 at 11:26 am
thatmom said:
“She went on to judge the motives of this girl’s heart and to distract her children so they would not be tainted by the experience. I felt nothing but condenmation and judgement for this girl in question. Where was the grace?”
Deputy said:
“If you honestly believe and are convicted in your heart that flashing pierced belly buttons and wearing tight t-shirts are a sin, then why is it wrong to say so on your blog or to redirect your children’s attention from it in real life? Isn’t that better, after all, than that horrible ATI exercise where you go to the mall or airport and actively point out all the sinning people and their naughty clothes?”
Deputy, you missed my point. I didn’t say it would be wrong for a mom to point out to her children clothing that she considered to be immodest. It IS wrong, however, to believe you can judge the motives of someone’s heart. This is EXACTLY the same thing the Gothard exercise instructed us to do. I recognize it because I am guilty of practicing it!!!
June 24, 2007 at 11:36 am
Deaputy, I had something else I wondered as reading through your latest posts. Do you think that a Christian ought to dress in such a way as to not offend another believer? For example, if I feel the personal liberty to wear either dresses or pants, neither is a conviction for me, should I not wear pants when I know I will be with people who have a dresses-only conviction? Are you saying that we need to set aside all preferences for the convictions of others?
June 24, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Sarah wrote that the patriarchy movement seems to have an “ends justifies the means” aspect to it. This is no different from what the “Purpose Driven/Church Growth” movement does.
One can have that attitude and still have traits of warmth, compassion and caring. One does not mean the exclusion of the other.
I really need to respond to people’s comments in these threads right after I read them. 🙂 Otherwise I get confused and mess up the numbers of the posts (like I did in my earlier post-oops, sorry about that folks)
Thatmom asked:
“II am a little confused. Could you explain please? Thanks.”
It seems that people missed it when I originally said that this discussion was not about personality or bad character.
Thatmom wrote:
“A person’s beliefs and teachings ARE a reflection of his or her character. If someone promotes any teaching that is extra-biblical or imposes burdens on others that cause them to lose hope or become bitter, it is a reflection of his or her character.”
The nature of this statement implied, to me, that someone doing this would be considered as having bad character. Which at some point, as Deputy Headmistress pointed out, would mean all of us. Not one of us has our theology 100% correct. We can’t, because we are human and “see through the veil darkly.” At times, some of us have perhaps caused others to lose hope, become bitter, or impose extra-biblical requirements of others. Does this mean we all have bad character, because of these well-intentioned, but misguided mistakes?
Thatmom, you don’t need to answer this, because I read your post further down where you clarified your position. I understand your position now, and I hope that you now better understand where I was coming from.
June 24, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Thatmom wrote:
“…If I feel the personal liberty to wear either dresses or pants, neither is a conviction for me, should I not wear pants when I know I will be with people who have a dresses-only conviction? Are you saying that we need to set aside all preferences for the convictions of others?”
While I am not the one you asked this question to, I wanted to respond to it as this particular issue is one I have been wrestling with this past year. A year ago I would not run errands in town without a dress on for fear of running into a “dresses only” friend. As I look back on this time in my life, I realize that not only was I desiring not to offend those friends with convictions on dress, but I also was not wanting them to judge me in this area. At one point I talked about this struggle over with my dad, a wise pastor who grew up in a very legalistic Christian culture. He told me that when he was a young man, he thought he and his friends were just about as conservative as one could get. He was surprised, then, on leaving the area where he grew up and found people who were MORE conservative than he was.
His advice to me was that there will always be people more conservative than you are. You can never be “conservative enough” to meet every Christian’s standards. Therefore, you need to pray and ask God to lead you in what He would have you do and then follow your convictions. If something challenges your convictions, pray and ask God if you need to change your thinking. If not, then you are free to follow your beliefs.
I now go shopping wearing either pants or skirts, depending on my mood and the weather. If I run into a friend and she judges me by what I am wearing, then that is between her and the Lord. There is no way that I can be “all things to all people”, but as long as I am following what the Lord has asked me to do, then I am at peace with that.
June 24, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I forgot to add that if I go to a “dresses only” friend’s house or to a homeschool conference etc., I will wear a dress in honor of their convictions and because I do sincerely enjoy wearing dresses.
June 24, 2007 at 6:31 pm
“I forgot to add that if I go to a “dresses only” friend’s house or to a homeschool conference etc., I will wear a dress in honor of their convictions and because I do sincerely enjoy wearing dresses.”
I have done this, too. If someone invites me to their home, I try to respect their standards (within reason -i.e. I’m not going to pray toward Mecca because I’m visiting a Muslim).
June 24, 2007 at 7:04 pm
I think that a lot of our fears really boil down to being pleasers of men instead of pleasers of God.
If I feel there is nothing wrong with listening to Christian music with a beat and with wearing pants then why do I fear running into people? It is because I am worried about what man thinks of me and that realy is sin.
I am preaching to myself. This is one thing that God has been teaching me over and over again. I am a man-pleaser and it is wrong. I should only fear God and what His judgment is.
If I know I am going to a dresses-only type of meeting or a person’s home that wears only dresses, I dress appropriately. I leave my feather bikini top and my crocheted shorts at home.
Just kidding!! 😉 I just don’t wear capris or skorts or pants or what have you. I wear dresses/skirts to church. And, when I go to a home school convention I divide up what I am wearing. I wear a dress one day and pants the next day. That way I can be all things to all people since many, many ladies are wearing pants to these things. 🙂
OTOH, I would NEVER expect a woman who covers or wears dresses only to make me feel comfortable by wearing what I wear. I would never expect people to listen to my kind of music or drink a glass of wine or watch what I watch on TV or read the books I read or whatever in order to not offend me. If they come to my home, I will not do ANYTHING that I know will cause them to stumble or become offended.
I do give up many of my liberties in order not to offend. And I do it willingly out of love and want of fellowship with my brethren.
June 24, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Cynthia,
Excellent post, #169!!
I had my son, when he was in his teens, read Harry Potter and then ask him to compare it to all the hub-bub out there about children who read these books will go out and try to be wizards, warlocks and witches.
He laughed! He got no such impression nor did he have any desire. It was fiction.
You are right. When I was a child, I KNEW that this was make-believe and I knew what was real life stuff.
We don’t give children enough credit. They are very bright from an early age. I think we actually foster confusion in them when we coddle them and guard them and make everything suspicious to them.
June 25, 2007 at 1:01 am
“…If I feel the personal liberty to wear either dresses or pants, neither is a conviction for me, should I not wear pants when I know I will be with people who have a dresses-only conviction? Are you saying that we need to set aside all preferences for the convictions of others?”
If someone is being a Pharisee about a matter of Christian liberty, whether it be dresses-only vs. pants, headcovering vs. not, dancing, movies, homeschooling, etc., then it is vital that we choose to exercise our liberty in situations where we encounter these folks. Christ has set us FREE from all sorts of legalism, including the type that creates laws for our behavior where God has not.
Now, if someone holds that conviction and does not lord it over my head, then I am bound by the weaker brother principle and I should dress in a way that will not cause them to stumble- in this case, in a dress.
Here is another example: a group of girls got together at a friends house. This friend holds a very strong conviction that all women should cover their heads. There is no wiggle room for her- if you are married and you do not cover, you are in rebellion against God and your husband. So, while we were there, two of my friends covered and I did not. Neither of these ladies believe that external covering is mandated by God. I would maintain that, according to several passages in Scripture (Romans 14 is the first that comes to mind), they were sinning against God by violating their conscience on this matter.
So exercise your liberty, ladies! Wear pants! Go to college! Let down your hair! If you encounter a Pharisee, lord your liberty over them (in a nice way, of course). If you encounter someone with a sincere conviction who is not a Pharisee, behave in such a way that will keep your weaker brother from stumbling.
“Whatever is not of faith is sin.”
June 25, 2007 at 1:35 am
I dunno, JRH…I’m a little bothered by the phrase, “lord your liberty over them.” I know what you mean (I think), and I’ll bet you didn’t intend it in a bad way, but could that maybe be a little bit too “in your face”? Wouldn’t that violate the spirit of, “in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself” (Philippians 2:3)?
This discussion fascinates me, because so many of the comments here highlight what a bizarre, touchy subject our “freedom in Christ” really is. I’ll be honest, when I read Deputy’s comments about her head covering and, later, about Harry Potter, I couldn’t help myself. I wanted so badly to post something to the effect of, “I’d be much more concerned with what goes IN my head rather than what goes ON my head!” (And I wanted to say it with a little bit of a snappy tone, too.)
BUT…that was my flesh speaking, wanting to lord my freedom over her (in the same way that she could lord her freedom, to read Harry, over me).
Going in that direction puts us in grave danger of forgetting the ultimate command, “above all, put on love.”
I appreciate everybody’s kind and polite tones here. As I said, I’ve really been grappling with all this stuff lately. Until just a few months ago, we attended a church which focused almost exclusively on freedom. We’d even sing songs about it, like “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom!” (I’m humming it now…) This is a Scriptural truth, but it was one that got over-emphasized, at the expense of other things, like modesty. Week after week, I’d often sit there and be horrified over how some of the ladies dressed. One woman (who was about 50 years old) in particular bothered me SO MUCH, with her obviously plastic-surgery-enhanced figure, her tattoos, her bizarre 2-toned hair, and, to add insult to injury, her skin-tight spandex tank tops. She wasn’t a new believer, either. She’d been in that church for more than 10 years and was part of the pastor’s wife’s inner circle.
When we left that church, I was so thankful that our new church seemed to take a much more serious stance on these kinds of issues. But how does one draw the line? How does one define what “decency” is? How much should be stated specifically from the pulpit (or other suitable teaching venues)?
When do guidelines like a dress code turn into mean-spirited legalism and promote Pharisaical behavior? When should we, as the church, set down “rules” or guidelines, and when do we sit back and allow each believer the freedom to make his own decisions?
June 25, 2007 at 1:51 am
You know, though, it can be hard to avoid giving offense, because people are SO different. There are some areas of the country where wearing a dress is considered IMMODEST — where I grew up, women who wear dresses for casual occasions, like picnics, or in work situations where pants are just more practical are seen as a show-offs, snobs, or worst of all, “on the make.”
June 25, 2007 at 1:52 am
“I would maintain that, according to several passages in Scripture (Romans 14 is the first that comes to mind), they were sinning against God by violating their conscience on this matter.”
JRH,
I’ve always loved Romans 14, and I had to re-read it before I responded just to make sure I was fresh.
According to what I just read, you all were within your liberties; the friend who covers, because she does it for God (v. 6), your two friends who deferred to the first (vv. 13-15), and you, who exercised your liberty to not let what is good for you to be spoken of as evil (v. 16). And so long as the first headcovering friend does not speak evil of what is good for you, she is in the clear. And the same goes for those of us who don’t cover, because we’re instructed “Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died”.
So while we are free to exercise what can be put in the “liberties” category, our liberties should not mean more to us than our brother or sister in Christ.
June 25, 2007 at 2:00 am
Joan, your comment made me think of one of my favorite lyrics:
“When your eyes are on the Lord, you can’t see nobody’s hair!”
(Now if any of you recognize that, you’ll know what a wide variety of music I’ve had the liberty of enjoying! And then, I guess you too! =o)
While we have eyes that can get easily distracted, I’ve found many a soft, open, and sometimes hurting heart with funky hair above it!
June 25, 2007 at 3:05 am
You know, I’m grateful that God has given mankind the gift of eyesight, but did you ever think just how much church baggage would fall by the wayside if the whole human race were blind?
June 25, 2007 at 3:29 am
Cynthia…that’s a funny observation.
Truly, though, the lady at my old church would probably have caused just about anyone to be distracted, no matter how sweetly sensitive he or she might have been to this woman’s heart…or no matter how open-minded.
And the fact that this woman was in leadership, that she was allowed one of the coveted seats in the front row, that she was supposedly a mature believer, made it worse.
I guess my point was not that I couldn’t ignore her inappropriate style (for awhile, I could and I did), but instead, how does one draw the line? How does one set forth guidelines for things like dress without turning into a Pharisee? Or was my old church correct in allowing this gal to remain in leadership, never bothering to offer her some correction, because of her “freedom in Christ”?
(I’m not trying to hijack this conversation to discuss this woman in particular, but rather, I’m curious what you all think about how we DO address issues that aren’t specifically spelled out in Scripture. IS there a time when they should be addressed? How do we balance our freedom in Christ with having standards? And whose standards, then? Mine? Deputy’s? The spandex-lovin’ lady from my former church?
As I’m writing this, I realize this very issue is probably why God, in His wisdom, has permitted all the different denominations of Christianity! 🙂 )
June 25, 2007 at 3:45 am
Joan, I guess what I mean is that, when we encounter Pharisees, we have a duty to express out liberty as long as we are not sinning by doing so… meaning more of less that we can wear pants (but not a bikini, as my extreme example.)
As for Romans 14, I guess what I would say is that I see a difference between exercising one’s liberty and being a Pharisee. Because my friend who covers is pharisaical (sp?) about it, I believe Romans 14 requires those of us who do not hold the conviction to cover to NOT cover. Verse 23 states that the man who *does* eat and therefore violates his conscience sins because of this violation.
Alisa, I would totally agree with you if this person did not lord her conviction over the rest of us and just went about her way quietly. And I guess that’s where I see a distinction being made between the Pharisee and the person of conscience. There are other places that talk about this issue and, for the life of me, they are escaping my rattled brain at the moment. I’ll see if I can dig them up and come back later.
Thank you, ladies, for being gracious to me in this discussion. I’m not always the best at saying what I’d like, and your responses have been very kind.
June 25, 2007 at 4:49 am
JRH,
You are right. Romans 14 does give specific freedom of CONSCIENCE if done for the Lord, but it forbids a lording of either, be it a weakness or a strength, over a sister with the opposite opinion. So both of us are called to the same calling of love over judgement (in the GRAY areas, of course). Not that this is easy to do, mind you. =o)
June 25, 2007 at 5:03 am
Perhaps “lording it over” is a bit too strong a way to put it. However, I think the text is clear that to violate one’s conscience by eating (or headcovering or wearing dresses-only or not homeschooling etc.) when one does not believe it to be a command of God is sin.
We are not called to pacify Pharisees but to show them, in love, how they are mistaken and how they are to find freedom in Christ… which is why you’ll see me wearing pants at the next Vision Forum event I go to… which will be never, of course, but that’s beside the point 🙂
The Pharisee has no right to demand a restriction of my liberty where God does not restrict. I don’t know… maybe this is just my thing, but I’m not going to cave because someone else has a mistaken belief that I’m sinning when I wear pants. To wear a dress to pacify them- what good does that do? Doesn’t it give credence to their mistaken belief? This isn’t pride on my part- its principle. The friend I mentioned above (IMHO) is wrong in her interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 and she would be equally wrong in passing judgment over me because i do not cover. Isn’t that what Romans 14 is talking about? We have the freedom, in Christ, to act as our conscience dictates where God has not explicitly commanded us to do otherwise?
I guess I’m drawing a distinction between the weaker brother (or in this case, sister) and the Pharisee. They are not the same.
Is this all just something I’ve made up in my own head?
June 25, 2007 at 5:32 am
Just out of curiousity. . . Alisa is not a very common name, and I was wondering if your maiden name begins with V and if I know you from over a decade ago. . . *grin*
June 25, 2007 at 5:35 am
JRH,
I think what you are proposing is within Scripture, but I also think that the critical factor lies in the intentions, motives, and attitude with which it is carried out.
No, we don’t have to “cave” and conform to their convictions, because they are just that; THEIR convictions. Nor should we expect that of them.
Just as a side note, I think there is a difference between judging and the comfort level we have around other believers with such obviously opposite preferences.
I think the top characteristic of a “Pharisee” is pride and condemnation (either verbal or otherwise), so I think it’s crucial to check ourselves for these first before proceeding, just to be safe (because I could easily see myself falling prey to them).
I’m kind of torn with how to treat those that are obviously Pharisees over these issues. As far as “proselytizing” the Pharisee (as I THINK you are encouraging; correct me if I’m wrong), this is the one thing we cannot stand from them, so I hesitate to try this myself.
But then thinking about how Jesus handled them, He didn’t really pull any punches, did He? I don’t think He went looking for any fights either, though, unless overturning the money changer’s tables counts.
So, while I still hold to my feeling that Scripture advocates loving eachother in our freedom, I’m curious to hears some other’s opinions in how to handle the “Pharisees”.
June 25, 2007 at 5:45 am
Alisa, I think we’re actually on the same page here. It is paramount that we examine our own hearts when dealing with Pharasaical types. Are we just trying to “stick it to them” or are we seeking to genuinely help them? Of course, our motivation MUST come from a care and concern for their relationship with God and neighbor. Otherwise, I think we are no different from them.
In terms of “proselytizing”, I would suggest leaving it alone verbally and letting our testimony to liberty show through our actions. I know the whole “win them without a word” concept is spoken by Peter in the context of husbands and wives, can we apply it to our brothers and sisters in Christ as well?
And now, for other opinions… and I’ll shut up now and get back to lurking. See what happens when you drink coffee at 8 o’clock at night?? Cheers!
June 25, 2007 at 5:55 am
JRH, I thought we were thinking the same thing, I just wanted to be sure. Glad to hear it!
June 25, 2007 at 2:32 pm
“Because my friend who covers is pharisaical (sp?) about it, I believe Romans 14 requires those of us who do not hold the conviction to cover to NOT cover.”
That’s a very good point.
Certain modes of dress carry certain messages: men who wear yamulkes are Jewish; Sikhs wear turbans; Moslem women dress in accordance with their religion; Conservative Anabaptists wear their church-dictated dress, etc.
Where I live, women who cover generally are Anabaptist or else belong to a hyperPatriarchal church.
Since I am a conservative Anglican and do not belong to either of these groups, I do not wear a recognisable covering for church (rather, I either wear my hair hanging down or up in a bun with a cloth hair accessory around it), nor do I wear capedresses, baggy denim jumpers or prairie dresses, because to do so would send out a false message.
Too, there IS a difference between weaker brothers and Pharisees:
Pharisees see everyone else as being wrong and are determined to correct them. Weaker brothers, on the other hand, are unsure in their faith. The danger for them is that they might see another Christian doing something against which they themselves have scruples, thus be led to go ahead and do a thing which they feel might be a sin, simply because other Christians who do not see it as sin, do whatever it is freely.
Dressing so as not to tempt or offend someone whom you KNOW to be a “weaker brother” is fine, as is respecting the sensibilities of other cultures — for instance, I don’t wear a sleeveless top to go to the Mennonite-run garden store in our neighborhood — but to dress like you belong to a denomination other than your own just to make the pharisee-types happy is akin to lying.
June 25, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Cynthia, thank you for being 100 times more eloquent than I! You have summed up exactly what I wanted to say.
June 25, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Aw shucks… 🙂
June 25, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Cynthia,
Great post about pleasing pharisees and not “lying” by our dress.
I thinkyou made a lot of great points for us to think about.
Another thing abou the weaker brother is that they are to despise the stronger brother when he is exercising his liberty.
June 25, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Jen, You said: “I think you are saying that when we judge anyone for being different from us, whether we consider them to be in sin or to be legalistic, that we are, in fact, just plain being judgmental, and that that judgmental spirit is wrong, in and of itself. So, it is just as wrong to judge the Botkin girls, for example, as it is to judge the girl with the too tight shirt and the belly ring.”
Nope. That’s not what I said. I don’t think it’s wrong to judge. I think Christians are required to exercise some judgement. I just think that judgment should be fairminded and evenhanded, and I’m not seeing that here.
As for the paraphrase, in #157 I copied both my paraphrase AND the quote from the post which I was paraphrasing, and I said who had said the original statement. I don’t know how else to help you there.
You say, “Deputy, those ladies turned off a lot of people by trying to persuade others of their biblical convictions. I’ve seen this happen time and time again.”
Of course it happens. So what, honestly? I am not suggesting we go out of our way to offend people, but I am saying two things about this. 1. is that this is no standard. Sometimes it happens because the person trying to persuade others of their biblical convictions are wrong or obnoxious or both, and sometimes because the people being persuaded are oversensitive, easily offended, or just irked because of something else altogether.
2. And most importantly, there is a double standard being displayed here- repeatedly. Do you not think that this blog and your comments are offensive to somebody? Do you not think you and others here (every one of us, including me) have ‘turned off’ some people because of what we have said? Of course we have! Does this prove anything about the rightness or wrongness of what we’ve said? Of course not. People get turned off for all kinds of reasons and this is not logically a good basis for criticism.
I guarantee you that somebody dismissed me altogether when they learned I read Harry Potter (ahh, I see that Joan’s ‘in your head/on your head statement’ and I am so glad she thought better of judging my heart like that;0D), and I guarantee that somebody else said, “Hmm, she wears a headcovering and she reads Harry Potter? That’s kinda quirky, I want to know more about that person.” That’s just the nature of human communications. NEITHER response says anything about whether it is right or wrong to read HP or whether I was right or wrong to share that I did read them.
You seem to be saying that turning people off PROVES there’s something wrong with the message, but whether or not people get offended by it is purely subjective and in general also largely irrelevant. I disagree that ‘turning people off’ tells us anything conclusive about the rightness or wrongness of the message or even how it was delivered.
I am also pointing out that you and others here have a double standard (I know I’m repeating myself, but it’s distressing that my main and almost only point keeps getting ignored).
Turn your statement on its head see if you still think you have a good point:
“it was a “pants only” church in spirit. In other words, there were no “rules,” per se, about wearing pants only, but it was definitely implied [incidentally, I’ve been places like this, where looking too dressy ‘proved’ you were in bondage or, as Cynthia said, ‘snooty’]. Still, there were a few who didn’t always wear pants. Some of the ladies took it upon themselves to show these women the error of their ways regarding what they wore. I did not know this was happening when I attended there; I found out about it later.
The reason I found out about it is that after I was excommunicated, some ladies felt free to tell me how grateful they were that even though I was a “pants only” lady, I never talked about it with anyone unless they brought it up first. So, in the end, my living testimony was more powerful than those who felt it was their responsibility to indoctrinate everyone else with their “convictions.”
Deputy, those ladies turned off a lot of people by trying to persuade others of their biblical freedom. I’ve seen this happen time and time again.”
I have, too. And I’ve seen people turned off by people trying to persuade others that their convictions were bondage. It happens time and time again. Am I saying both sides should shut up?
NO. I do not think either side should be telling the other to shut up. I am saying it is not wrong to share your convictions, even if your convictions violate mine. Joan has the right to be concerned about my reading of HP, even though I think she’s totally wrong. If I did not feel totally at liberty to read HP, I wouldn’t be reading it, and if she didn’t feel convicted about the books, she wouldn’t be shocked that I read them nor would she imagine there is some sort of contradiction between wearing a headcovering and reading HP. I would feel ridiculous saying something like, “You must acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with me reading Harry Potter,” and Joan would rightly feel that it was painfully unfair of me to demand such a concession from her.
You have every right (although it’s not always prudent) to try to talk people out of wearing headcoverings or dresses, reading Harry Potter, or the Botkin sisters, or whatever, particularly if you believe that these things are done in error. But don’t you see that this means that the same freedom and courtesy must be extended the other direction, so that people have the right to try to talk others into dressing more modestly or more femininely if they believe this is what scripture teaches?
———-
Alisa, with all due respect, I understand perfectly well that what you talk of in 165 is perfectly real, I am well aware of it (bad, hateful parents are not found only in Patriarchal homes of course), and I know that is what you are talking about. The problem is that you don’t seem to understand that these points have nothing to do with what I’ve said, and they are not the issues I have responded to or addressed in any way, and I don’t see a need for me to say anything about them here and now. I have said what I think about parents like this to the parents I know and their children, grown and otherwise. It doesn’t need repeating here.
I am talking about a double standard here, in this thread, where it’s only bad to try to talk other people into your understanding of scripture if it’s more conservative than the norm here. I am talking about the logical fallacy in saying that if you try to persuade others to your point of view it shows a lack of grace and trust in the sovereignty of God- I think it should be obvious that if this is true (and it isn’t) then the statement itself paradoxically shows a lack of grace and and trust in the sovereignty of God. If you really want people in those in hyper-patriarchal circles to listen to you, you’re going to have to begin by extending the same grace to them you demand for yourselves.
I have disagreed when That Mom said she had the right to demand that others not think she was in sin. We don’t have that right. Sometimes we have to accept that people will think we are in sin and we need to have the courage of our convictions of liberty and not be resentful. I do not have the right to demand that other people stop writing articles against Harry Potter, nor do I have the right to demand that they tell me they don’t have a problem with me reading Harry Potter. You don’t have the right to demand that people who are convicted that women should never wear pants (I am not one of them, btw) acknowledge that you have a right to wear pants if you choose. You do have that right. You don’t need anybody’s permission. But you don’t get to force people to deny their convictions about it, either, however muddleheaded those convictions may be. I don’t have the right to insist that you never think I am in bondage or being legalistic for wearing a headcovering, even though I think those who think this are as wrong as it is possible to be.
————
Sarah, in 167- good grief. You are quite right. That argument is ‘a strawman, plain and simple.’ But there’s a problem. That wasn’t ‘my’ argument. It was *ThatMom’s argument-* and I was showing why it wasn’t a successful or accurate or logical criticism of those with whom she disagreed. I am glad that you agree with me.
———-
thatmom Says:
“June 24th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Deaputy, I had something else I wondered as reading through your latest posts. Do you think that a Christian ought to dress in such a way as to not offend another believer? For example, if I feel the personal liberty to wear either dresses or pants, neither is a conviction for me, should I not wear pants when I know I will be with people who have a dresses-only conviction? Are you saying that we need to set aside all preferences for the convictions of others?”
Sometimes a person should dress in a certain way so as not to offend others, sometimes not. I think it’s impossible to answer that question with a blanket statement and it would be legalistic to try. This can only be decided on a case by case, individual basis and it’s between you and God for the most part, between you, God, and the other person for the rest. I totally agreed with Corrie’s post about not changing how you dress out of fear of how others might view you. If you change the way you dress it shoudl be out of love for the brethren, conviction from God, and a conviction that what you are doing is totally pleasing to God.
As a matter of interest, when I started wearing a headcovering and my brothers and sisters at our home congregation were so hateful, I did try as much as possible to change how I dressed to please thm. I wear it at times I don’t feel I need to because it is convenient to me, but I took it off during those times when they were near, even though it really was terribly inconvenient and frustrating to me. I did quit going to their children’s ball games because they asked me to, even though I was at perfect liberty to attend them if I liked. I switched to hats rather than scarves because I thought that would be less offensive to them (it wasn’t, because they were determined to be offended). Should everybody act as I did in those circumstances? No. It seemed best to me, after prayerful consideration with my husband, to try to meet those who would impose their ‘liberty’ on my convictions as best I could. It was a waste of time, or so it seems to my flesh because I didn’t see any positive results or responses to that. It was probably good discipline for me, and it may be that one day somebody there will look back and be ashamed of telling a Christian sister they were embarrassed to be seen with her because she wasn’t fashionable enough for them and it will stop them from hurting somebody else less able to bear it (not that I didn’t put a *lot* of salty tears into my pillow the year that we were there).
But that’s not really what I was talking about. I am saying that if you feel the personal liberty to wear pants, then you cannot demand that people who feel convicted that pants are a sin not believe you are sinning. I am saying you should have the courage of your convictions of liberties not to take offense over that. Obviously, I think those who don’t cover are wrong about 1 Corinthians 11. If I did not think I was right in my understanding of it, I would not be wearing one. If I didn’t believe in what I was doing, I wouldn’t do it. I’m okay with you being wrong. =) I am not offended that you think I’m wrong. If you’re not wearing one, you’d better think I’m wrong, or you have bigger issues than headcoverings to worry about.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think anybody should ever wear a headcovering if they are not convicted before God that’s what He calls them to do. I personally would be uncomfortable with somebody dressing in a headcovering just because I did. It would be like, I don’t know, looking around to see what other people put in the collection plate so you can put in the exact same amount.
——————
I’ve tried to answer all the questions I could see. Now, can somebody explain to me how you ladies can make this “distinction …between the Pharisee and the person of conscience….” unless you are judging other people’s hearts, and I thought you have all agreed this was bad?
Jesus was very harsh on the Pharisees, true, but He also knew their hearts, which we do not. He also talks about them putting restrictions on others they did not follow themselves.
So it seems to me it is not being a Pharisee to say that any woman not wearing a headcovering is in rebellion- it’s merely being wrong, and possibly obnoxious.
But while all Pharisees are probably obnoxious, not all obnoxious people are Pharisees. It would only be being a Pharisee if you were a woman who taught that women had to wear a headcovering or be in rebellion and then you came up with some trumped up excuse why YOU didn’t have to wear it (like the corban (sp) argument in the NT).
Dressing like you belong to a denomination not your own just to make the pharisee types happy? That’s just weird. Who ARE these ‘pharisee types’ pleased by such shallow imitation? I can’t think that the true Pharisees in the NT would have been happy to have nonPharisees dressing like them, either. Seems to me they would have been offended at some uppity outsider trying to look like he belonged in the elite inner circle.
————————————
I guess this would not be the right time or place to explain why I think that sexual sin for the professing Christian really is (according to the word of God) worse than other sins?
June 25, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Deputy said:
“But while all Pharisees are probably obnoxious, not all obnoxious people are Pharisees.”
Actually, I am sure that some Pharisees are sweet and nice.
I am trying to understand your point, here, Deputy, since it is me that you seem to have the most problems with. Is this what you are saying….I have not shown grace to patriocentrists because I believe that they are teaching extrabiblical standards and I say that doing so is Pharisaical?
June 25, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Deputy says:
” guess this would not be the right time or place to explain why I think that sexual sin for the professing Christian really is (according to the word of God) worse than other sins?”
I would actually like to hear what you think about this, Deputy.
June 25, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I think all of us need to be careful when deciding that someone is weaker in the faith due to their convictions. Sometimes that belief can lead to an attitude of superiority-we’re more spiritual because we do…or we don’t do….
And sometimes folks that have convictions we don’t are indeed strong in their faith.
June 25, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Hoping not to further muddy the waters… but I do think I see Deputy’s basic point: that it is unreasonable for anyone to be expected to stop calling something sin that they sincerely believe to be sin, whether it be construed as an addition to Scripture or an omission. (“We” want “them” to leave us alone with our legitimate choices; isn’t this exactly what pro-choice and gay movements ask of all conservative Christians? But we all say that some things aren’t legitimate choices.) I also recognize the point someone made somewhere up there…that we can’t even make it a request to grant liberty in nonessentials, because we can’t agree on what the essentials are.
We all are meant to be engaged in discerning what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior for Christians, and a good healthy debate can “sharpen iron” quite nicely. Now, I think what those of us who object to “patriarchal proselytizing” really mean is not that we don’t want them to participate in the conversation, but that we don’t want them to presume automatically that those who differ from them are either not Christians at all, or are engaged in conscious, wilful disobedience. You can’t have a conversation with people who do that (and it works both ways). I don’t have a lot of immediate experience with VF, but I did grow up in ATI which seems to have a similarly dismissive approach to critics.
I also don’t think anyone is saying that there aren’t people on all sides of the issues who ARE wilfully disobedient, selfish, judgmental, or oppressive. But we shouldn’t presume that the exception is the rule, although we CAN discuss whether certain viewpoints are more conducive to certain types of errors.
June 25, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Dep, I am hearing you and really agreeing, though I have also appreciated a lot of other folks comments as well.
The ultra-patriarchs are doing what they are doing because they think, “We’re right, they’re wrong, our way is best and theirs is sinful, so let’s use our talents to spread the word about our right way.”
If, in saying that we’re wrong, we’re arguing by saying, “We’re right, you’re wrong, our way is best and yours is destructive,” then how different from them are we? And how exactly is God’s Love being put on display through our actions?
What if we agree to respect eachother’s differences, which includes giving eachother the right to discuss and debate said differences together (with respect!).
I think that even if we end up disagreeing, the atmosphere of respect would be a powerful witness to all watching.
And I think that we usually don’t quite *get* the impact a respectful loving demeanor has on many conversations. I know that I had all sorts of folks yelling at me (online) over my support for the Pearls, for example…I couldn’t hear a thing they said (over my yelling back).
It was only when a good friend shared her concerns with quiet simple gentleness that I finally *heard,* that I was able to stop *defending* long enough to actually listen to her heart-felt argument…and THEN was able to dig inside myself and better examine the things I’d believed but realized I had not carefully examined.
Her grace let me hear her when the former hundred (or was it more?) angry debaters never got through my thick skull .
And isn’t that how God spoke to us in the midst of our grave error? When He sent Christ, it wasn’t a big stick coming down and wapping us, or an angry diatribe about how wrong we were, but rather the ultimate act of humiliation and mercy and grace—and His humbling of Himself enabled us to be able to HEAR His Word and respond.
If we say that we are against legalism and pro-grace, but then act like legalists (when we demand the hyper-patriarchists to cowtow to our beliefs as well as demand that they stop believing their stupid/dumb/ignorant/fill-in-the-blank beliefs), er, how exactly are we demonstrating a grace-filled life?
Don’t get me wrong here. I’m opposed to hyper-patriarchy. Heck, I’m opposed to patriarchy. I’m opposed to complimentarianism ala-Piper and Grudem (went through that big book with a fine-toothed comb and a thick Bible). I’ve lived 8 years of a hyper-patriarchal marriage, text-book style in almost every way. I feel like Jesus brought me out of that way of thinking (I say “feel” not because it was emotion-based, but simply out of respect for the fact that I could be wrong—no one is infallible but God, you know?). And I feel that it was terribly detrimental to us, doing me no favors as well as doing my husband no favors either.
But, that said, in order to be true to the liberty found in Christ (and to the work of the Cross that has made us all ONE), I need to give the hyper-patriarchs the SAME grace I wish they would extend to me—whether they extend it or NOT.
I need to work on extending that Grace *even* while openly and actively disagreeing with their assertions. (Grace does not mean we have to pretend like we all agree).
Misc.:
On dressing like my dresses-only friends so as not to offend them, NO WAY. 🙂
I don’t dress up for Sunday services, either… on purpose. I hate that custom and am actually rather opposed to it (and yes, I’ve heard all the justifications for it…I just don’t agree).
I think the things that cause weaker brothers to stumble are things to be very very careful about, YES. But I can’t imagine somebody actually stumbling in the faith because I love Jesus and wear jeans. If anything, wouldn’t it widen their faith (hey, look, Jesus-lovers come in all shades, even sometimes those terribly evil jean-wearers!).
As for the lady with tattoos being so horrible in the front row…hm…I love tattoos. I think they look cool. I have NO problem with people looking funky and would rue the day the “Church” decided to make us all look homoginized. Blech. The only time I have a problem with clothing is when a person is terribly immodest, which is often an inner spirit letting everyone know they’re sexually available, which can be done easily and obviously and often has little to do with the outside clothing. We humans love to look at the outside of the cup, because it’s all we can see. It’s important to remember that our God has said, more than once, that the outside isn’t what He’s looking at. “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice…”
June 25, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Thatmom, I wouldn’t say I had a problem with you, I actually like you tremendously based on what I’ve read.
There is a double standard here, though, and it’s not just you or even primarily you, (“Lording your liberty over them…? that’s not very loving, is it? Calling a lady a Pharisee because she believes others who don’t see things her way are in rebellion? That’s simply not what makes a Pharisee)
This quote in particular:
“The only conclusion I can come to is that these people do not really understand God’s grace nor do they trust in the sovereignty of God in the lives of others” Remains problematic to me. I don’t agree that this is the only conclusion, and it’s certainly not the best one or the most logical one. I think it is, as Sarah said when she thought I said it, a strawman.
You ask: “Is this what you are saying….I have not shown grace to patriocentrists because I believe that they are teaching extrabiblical standards and I say that doing so is Pharisaical?”
I do not think there is anything wrong with believing somebody is teaching extrabiblical standards and saying so. But you have criticized these people for doing exactly that- believing somebody is wrong and saying so.
Obviously *they* think that others are teaching extrabiblical doctrine and allowing liberty where Christ did not allow liberty (and we see from Sarah’s statements about homosexuality that this is certainly true)- and your criticisms (and those of others here) have gone beyond teaching “I believe that they are teaching extrabiblical standards and I say that doing so is Pharisaical” dangerously close to “the have no right to teach what they believe, but I do.”
I think your application of what it means to show grace means one thing when you apply it to patriocentrists and something else when you apply it to yourself. I believe you and others have not shown the *same grace* to Patriocentrists that you demand of them and accuse them of denying to others.
I don’t understand how you can be so critical of those you accuse of judging people’s hearts when it seems to me that calling somebody a Pharisee is certainly doing that very thing- especially when your definition of Pharisee does not seem to me to be in line with Jesus’ definition.
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees not just for being legalists, but for creating rules and regulations not in the Bible and *also* being unwilling to follow those rules. “pharisees’ in this discussion largely seems to be defined as “people who have more conservative convictions than I do and hold those convictions strongly enough that they follow them and think others should too. Plus they look funny. And I knew some people who look like that and they’re mean.”
Why is it that it’s only showing that you don’t “understand God’s grace or… trust in the sovereignty of God in the lives of others” when Patriarchs are doing the criticizing, and persuading? Could it be because believing you are right and trying to persuade others to your own understanding of scripture is NOT showing that you don’t understand God’s grace nor is it because you don’t trust God’s sovereignty?
June 25, 2007 at 10:30 pm
First of all, I do Jesus forgives all sins.
If somebody commits sexual sin, as with any other sin, and repents, then Acts 12:38-39 applies to them.
But ongoing sexual sin is not sin where repentance is taking place.
In the situation of two homosexuals who profess Christianity while living together we have a situation where fornication and licentiousness are ongoing, public sins being committed continually without repentance (like the man living with his father’s wife in 1 Corinthians 5). The Bible is quite clear that believers will leave homosexuality and other forms of sexual sin behind them. You might just as well suggest that it would be acceptable for a man whose profession was robbing banks to convert to Christianity and continue to rob banks for a living. But this is worse, because it is sexual sin.
Again, I am speaking of the Christian, not the unbeliever. For the *Christian*, 1 Corinthians 6 seems to me to indicate that sexual sin is much
different than other sins.
First of all, I see in this passage (verse 16) that during sex the two are become one flesh. This mystical bond is something deeply spiritual, and is
connected with the act of intimacy. It is not within marriage alone- it appears to be the act of consumation itself- else Paul would not point out that it happens even in a union with a harlot. I can’t explain it, I can’t fully comprehend it, but I know
that biblically, the act of physical union is not merely a physical act, it has profound spiritual implications.
All sin separates us from God, all sin requires forgiveness, but sexual sin does something more- for the Christian. Because our bodies are now members of Christ (verse 15), when we participate in an act of physical union, we bring Christ into that union as well (also verse 15). Paul says that when we fornicate we take the members of Christ and make them
members of a harlot instead.
I know of no other sin where this is said.
Verse 18 also seems to make it clear that sexual sin stands apart (for the Christian), as Paul says “Flee immorality. *Every _other_ sin that a man commits is outside the body,* but the immoral man sins against his own body.” Obviously, he distinguishes between the two, so I must also.
I don’t think homosexuality is worse than any other sexual sin, but there are grave problems in associating
yourself with Christ and yet continuing in sexual immorality- and, as you have already made clear, TM, the Bible has plainly put homosexual acts in the realm of immorality.
I also think the passages on disfellowshipping members of the church are instructive. Clearly, the church is not to
disfellowship for *any* and *every* sin (or there would be no members)- and most of the examples I see in scripture have to do with sexual immorality. I don’t see anybody being disfellowshipped for gossiping, gluttony, or coveting. Therefore, God must view sexual immorality as different in some fashion from these other sins.
————
Here are some scriptures specifically about homosexuality:
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination…. If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13)
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10).
See also
Rom. 1:24-28, 32
And 1 Tim. 1:8-10, where perjury, murder, and homosexuality are included in those things contrary to ‘sound doctrine.’
I write this even though it grieves me greatly. You see, my favorite relative was homosexual. He’s dead now, and I miss him dearly. I loved him with all my heart. He had many wonderful qualities. He was kind, generous, loving, affectionate, and loyal. He loved me unconditionally, and I loved him just as much. But he lived daily in rebellion to God, as does anybody who lives day to day in denial of God’s plain direction, no matter how sweet, loving, and dear they may be to us.
Matthew 7:21 says “Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but he that does the will of my Father who is in the heavens.”
If ye love Me, keep My commandments. – John 14:15
“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” 1 John 2:3
“Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12
Homosexuality is clearly not God’s will, and continuing to live in a homosexual relationship day after day is simply not compatible with loving God enough to take his commandments seriously and obey them. I regret it, but that is God’s definition and arrangement not mine, and we must submit to it.
June 25, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Deputy,
If you’ve had a chance to read my comments to JRH about Romans 14, then you know now that I think we are in agreement about proselytizing others to our preferences.
I was stating that we ARE in danger of practicing a double standard. Families have the freedom to hold certain patriarchal views, and like I said: I’m not about to knocking on their door telling them they are wrong.
Now, as JRH was differentiating, there are those brothers who in their conscience do so for the Lord, and then there are those who are Pharisees about it, and these are the ones that have a higher propensity to cause damage with their “convictions”. My point was this: There is a line that can be and is being crossed too often in these homes. Their “convictions” are actually causing these parents to sin against their children. THIS is what I was trying to illustrate, and it is these situations that leave the parameters of Romans 14 and jump into the category of “turning your brother from sin”.
And btw, I don’t think you are in bondage for wearing a headcovering. I actually respect you for it, because it is obviously something you do “unto the Lord”.
June 25, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Molly, Veracity, and Dana-
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Whew.
Shutting up now.=)
June 25, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Veracity,
We are actually not the ones determining who is stronger and weaker in the faith. Paul did that in Romans 14.
Verse 2 – “One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables”.
Paul is clearly stating stating which side the weaker brother holds to.
The argument in it’s original context is this: Animals were butchered as offerings to idols in the temples, and then sold at dirt cheap prices in the market place. Some believers could not in good conscience consume meat that had been consecrated to pagan idols, and others felt it was better stewardship to save money by purchasing this meat, and felt no tug at their conscience, because these gods that they were supposedly sacrificed to don’t actually exist, so the meat was really no different than any other.
Paul goes on in verse 3 – “The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for Gohas accepted Him”.
I don’t know if this is a good illustration or not, but I don’t like to watch movies if I know that there is more than a little language (I generally try to avoid at least rated R, period). My husband loves all the war and cop movies that are totally saturated in pervasive language, and it doesn’t faze him, because his work environment is just as bad, and sometimes far worse. He is able to enjoy these movies without is being a stumbling block to him, and even though he is surrounded by it, language is not a problem for him.
But I am WEAK in this area. I cannot view scenes and get bombarded with language without it reverberating in my head, and it wanting to come out my mouth. Now, to avoid this becoming a pitfall for me, I simply avoid it altogether. So, I am not able to exercise what might at times be an enjoyable liberty because I am weak in this area.
Make sense?
June 26, 2007 at 3:45 am
Alisa,
I do understand your post, but I’m still not sure folks are using the weaker in the faith idea correctly.
In your example above, you are weak concerning language. Does your weakness in that area mean your entire faith is weak in God? This is sometimes the extrapolation that comes out of the weaker brother argument-that there is something wrong with one’s faith/relationship with God because they have a weakness in an area.
Do you think that other people who don’t struggle in that area are spiritually superior to you?
Scripture tells us we all have areas of weakness, so does that mean no one is strong in their faith?
When the weaker brother argument leads us to look down on others, have pride in our hearts and think we are superior to others because we have “evolved” (for lack of a better word) beyond their convictions, that is the kind of thing we need to avoid.
June 26, 2007 at 4:22 am
Point taken, veracity.
I don’t think Paul intended the adjectives of weaker and stronger to apply to a believer as a whole, but to the specific topic being discussed. Nor did I intend to imply the former.
We all have different areas of strengths and weaknesses, that range and vary all across the board. I think the true determining factor for a believer’s faith as a whole is the status of His relationship with Christ.
And just to clarify, I really don’t use foul language; I just don’t like that stuff rolling around in my head and having to take up the struggle to “take every thought captive”. =o)
June 26, 2007 at 4:36 am
Hi Deputy,
I don’t get that impression from Thatmom’s posts.
Did you ever really try and reason with someone who is steeped in hyper-patriarchy? I have been doing it for years and I will tell you that I can’t really remember a time where I could actually discuss scriptures and what the bible teaches without my very being and every thought and motive being judged and impugned.
I have no problem understanding what Thatmom meant about hyper-patriarchalists not understanding God’s grace.
It isn’t that we are right, it is that we are constantly being judged as wrong. Not only wrong but we are judged as “less than” Christians, as feminists, as backsliders, as women with motives to make other men stumble by our immodest dress, etc.
I do think they are wrong and I don’t call them names in order to show them they are wrong. I go to scripture.
I have not been able to engage a hyper-patriarchalist in a discussion concerning what scripture actually teaches without it almost immediately resorting into name calling and motive-trashing.
I don’t think that Thatmom has a problem with modest dress, head coverings, wifely submission, pure daughters, etc. I know she readily accepts those things and does not begrudge another person’s convictions in this area.
June 26, 2007 at 4:59 am
Molly,
I appreciate your post.
I wonder if everyone was yelling at you or if that is the way you perceived it? 🙂
When I was toting around my Big Red Book from ATI, the Pearls’ books on child training, “Me Obey, Him?” and a plethora of other “classics”, I didn’t HEAR what people were trying to say to me. I had already judged them. If they didn’t agree with me, then there was something wrong with them.
I look back now and I see that I wasn’t hearing them at all. I heard what I wanted to hear because I had been taught to have a certain knee-jerk reaction to anyone who took issue with my superior belief system. I twisted their words and I accused them of being less than spiritual.
I do agree we need to extend love and grace to those we don’t agree with. I think that these things are good to remember. But, the Bible clearly takes a tough stand against those who want to put people back under a system of bondage because Christ has set them free.
God is not more pleased if I wear a blue dress rather than a pink dress but they would have us believe that God likes the blue dress and anyone who wears the pink dress is a feminist who despises the word of God. All this man-pleasing, humanistic teaching is being passed off as the very precepts of God. It is causing division, faction and contempt in the body of Christ. There is no freedom or liberty in this system.
Christ prayed that we would be one as He is one with the Father.
I am very open to allowing people to have liberty to wear dresses only and to wear head coverings and to not go to college if that is what they want. But, when it is being taught as “thus saith the Lord” and people separate from others who don’t follow their personal preferences, then I have a problem.
June 26, 2007 at 5:42 am
“I wonder if everyone was yelling at you or if that is the way you perceived it?
YES, that was probably the case 99% of the time. lol… Still, any thing that smacks of condescension or an, “I’m right and your view is stupid,” simply does NOT help one engage in productive conversation (especially when one is EQUALLY convinced [and taught] that *she’s* right and that the other views are stupid). 🙂
I’m very opinionated, personally, and can’t help but “lead,” as it were, so it is very easy for me to share my views in an authoritative way. I’m also a bit dramatic and love to play-act when I speak, so I also find it incredibly easy to make the other side look stupid.
I just say that to say that while I really agree with the fact that we need to be TRIPLY-sure we are respectful and warm even as we hotly disagree, I am also all too aware that this is something I need a LOT more work in (note the angels all nodding their heads as I type)… 🙂
June 26, 2007 at 11:42 am
Corrie said:
“I do agree we need to extend love and grace to those we don’t agree with. I think that these things are good to remember. But, the Bible clearly takes a tough stand against those who want to put people back under a system of bondage because Christ has set them free.”
Corrie, this is EXACTLY correct. We need to show mercy where we see Christ showing mercy. And where He rebuked, that ought to give us a clue as to what things are “rebukable.”
For the record, I can’t remember making light of someone’s modest clothing choices. If I did, I am sorry. Modesty is good. But sometimes, things I think are modest aren’t considered modest by those who sell books on modesty.
And that is part of the problem. Those of us who merely have opinions and share them are one thing. But when people sell books that teach legalistic standards, there is another layer of accountability. Many of these people have been set on pedestals and have become hoemschooling gurus, where their words mean more than anyone elses. I think that most of us here realize this and our criticisms are directed that way.
June 26, 2007 at 3:48 pm
” Modesty is good. But sometimes, things I think are modest aren’t considered modest by those who sell books on modesty.
Well, there’s “Lands’ End modest”, as in the kind of clothing that makes a stranger think, “There goes a nice, wholesome, normal woman (or girl)”, and then there’s “MODEST!!!”, the kind of “modesty” that reaches out, grabs people by the eyeballs and shrieks, “THIS WOMAN IS MODEST!!! MODEST,DO YOU HEAR ME???? SHE MAKES ALL OF HER CLOTHES, SHE BAKES BREAD FROM SCRATCH, AND SHE GROWS THE WHEAT TO BAKE IT FROM, BECAUSE SHE IS BETTER THAN YOU!!!!!”
There is a bit of a difference, LOL!
June 26, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I agree, thatmom. There is a place for calling a spade a spade. Jesus and the Apostles make it clear that it’s okay to rebuke. The trick is knowing when and where. If our goal is to help the other party hear us, often rebuke (especially if we’re not someone they respect in the first place) is likely to get us nowhere…
I’ve appreciated a lot of your commments, btw. Thanks!
June 26, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Molly,
#211
You crack me up! Yes, you are a born leader!
June 26, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Well, there’s “Lands’ End modest”, as in the kind of clothing that makes a stranger think, “There goes a nice, wholesome, normal woman (or girl)”, and then there’s “MODEST!!!”, the kind of “modesty” that reaches out, grabs people by the eyeballs and shrieks, “THIS WOMAN IS MODEST!!! MODEST,DO YOU HEAR ME???? SHE MAKES ALL OF HER CLOTHES, SHE BAKES BREAD FROM SCRATCH, AND SHE GROWS THE WHEAT TO BAKE IT FROM, BECAUSE SHE IS BETTER THAN YOU!!!!!”
There is a bit of a difference, LOL!
That did make me laugh, because it’s very witty. But it’s not very nice, and it’s a complete violation of the spirit of James.
Honestly, the main difference between the two examples you used is in YOUR heart, not the other woman’s. It’s all about YOUR attitude and YOUR interpretation of what somebody else is wearing. You just demonstrated perfectly an example of judging somebody else’s heart and impugning her motives by the clothes she wears.
This is apparently bad if I see a girl in a tight shirt, bared stomach, and spandex pants with a cameltoe problem and suspect that she didn’t put on those clothes while humming “how I love Jesus.”
But supposedly it’s defensable and dead on if you do it to somebody else based on a different set of criteria.
You can tell all those ugly things are in a stranger’s heart because of what she’s wearing? No, Cynthia, you can’t, and her clothes aren’t screaming any of those things. That noise is in your own head and you’re projecting.
June 26, 2007 at 6:41 pm
What I got from Cynthias’ comment isn’t that she thought the bread baking women in question acutally thought of herself as more modest. Cythia was mocking those people who would assign the inward heart attitude of modesty to a woman like that simply based on outward appearance. Is that right Cynthia?
June 26, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Well, there’s “Lands’ End modest”, as in the kind of clothing that makes a stranger think, “There goes a nice, wholesome, normal woman (or girl)”
Thatmom, I’ve looked again, and I cannot make Cynthia’s statement mean what you say it means. For one thing, if your understanding of her intention is accurate and Cynthia is only mocking (I am glad we at least both see that she’s mocking *somebody*) other people’s assumptions about the woman in the dress that shrieks “I bake bread” among other things, than who was she mocking with the Land’s End part of her comment?
What is the point of concluding a post contrasting and comparing two different sorts of dress, one described sweetly and one mockingly, with ‘there’s a difference, LOL’ if you’re not talking about the two women and the differences in their dress?
June 26, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Deputy,
I took it that Cynthia was saying that her definition of modest would be a Land’s End model woman and she wasn’t mocking that at all. But she was making fun of those whole would assume a woman to be modest if she dressed the part of the stereotypical bread baking woman. Maybe it would be best for Cynthia to answer for herself. I am only explaining what I got out of that comment myself.
June 26, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Dep, I see what you’re saying here (re. #217), though I have to say that I also fully related to what Cynthia was laughing about. We tried going Charity-Gospel type style for a while, and there really is that spirit there in that sort of a crowd (more often than not) in a similar way to the VF dresses-only type crowd…that usually-unspoken-but-always-there thought that those who look/dress in such-n-such ways are the *real* Christians…
So you are dead-right–it’s not fair to see someone in homespun clothing and automatically go, “legalist.” But I think it’s fair to say that there truly *is* a lot of condemning tsk-tsk’s that are sent our way from those sorts of camps in regards to the way others dress. Our reaction shouldn’t be to send condemnation back, though, so you’re right.
I’m still annoyed about the tattoo comment. 🙂 I have a tattoo. My husband has a mohawk. Can we love Jesus while liking fringe styles, or do we all have to order from Land’s End (barf) in order to be godly? Are we going to say that VF’s standards are wrong but turn around and enact Land’s End standards now?
(Just a friendly plea for graciously-allowed diversity!)
June 26, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Hey, Dep admitted her headcovering, so I thought I’d admit the mohawk… LOL…
(One of the worst things about being in the whole ultra-conservative-type camp was that we couldn’t be ourselves anymore…we had to give up that alternative-fringish way of looking, etc, because “godly” people looked such-n-such… We are enjoying our freedom again.
PS. I think Jesus doesn’t waste much time thinking about whether or not someone has a tattoo or wears a Lands-End dress. I think Jesus is thinking a lot more about the poor single mom down the street who could sure use a helping hand, the foster kid that could sure use a loving home, the homeless man on the street who could use a fresh pair of socks and a warm burger…
June 27, 2007 at 2:30 am
After reading to the end of this discussion, 1 Timothy 1 (the whole chapter) came to mind.
But what stands out is this:
“Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.” (v.15)
I cannot judge any of you for your convictions, rightly or wrongly held. I can seek to understand your point of view. I can love you. But I am not allowed to judge anyone. The Scripture makes it quite clear: “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” (Luke 6:37)
And woe unto me~ for this is serious battle in my spiritual life! I am always making snap judgments about people, constantly criticizing. And God constantly reminds me to pay heed to Matt. 7:3, about the plank furiously lodged in my own eye.
I think it is okay to question a viewpoint, to examine it, to hold it up to the light, to “rightly divide the Word of Truth”~ but we also need to remember God’s mercy and grace (and above all, Love!) in our dealings, with everyone, patriocentrist and homosexual alike.
And hopefully, I have not completely lodged my foot in my mouth. I just think it needs to be said.
June 27, 2007 at 2:58 am
Alisa wrote:
“I don’t think Paul intended the adjectives of weaker and stronger to apply to a believer as a whole, but to the specific topic being discussed. Nor did I intend to imply the former.”
I agree-it’s to a specific topic at hand. And my comment was not to you personally-it was a reminder to us all not to apply that argument to a believer’s entire faith.
I have seen it done many times before-it is so easy to fall into that trap.
June 27, 2007 at 4:58 am
Okay, you know how they say that 3 different people can witness an accident and each person has a different take on it?
Well, what I got out of Cynthia was that she was contrasting two different kinds of modest.
The Lands End modest, which I love! (Hush, Molly!!! 😉 ) and the kind of modest that SCREAMS modest.
She wasn’t talking about a judgment in either of the woman’s hearts but in a 3rd party judgment.
Some would look at the Land’s End woman and say that she is modest. Some would look at the Land’s End woman and say she is worldly and not modest enough or worse yet, that she wears men’s clothes because she has a pair of pants/capris on.
There are many who would judge the other woman who “screams” modesty to be the one closer to Jesus because she bakes bread and makes her own clothes.
I am sure Cynthia can explain herself very well but I don’t think that she was intending to be nasty about either one of the women.
June 27, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Hi there… Cynthia here.
Actually you’re all three right. First of all, let me say that I was trying to be humorous, not nasty. It looks like I failed, at least in part. I’m sorry about that.
To begin with, I’m not picking on anyone here… it’s rather an uncomfortable feeling for me, this critiquing “MODEST!!!” women, because they certainly are trying to serve God, and I do know what I’m talking about: I’ve been there, I’ve done that, and I’ve got the denim jumper… but, I’ve come out the other end, and having been there myself, I maintain that for many women, “MODESTY!!!” isn’t truly modest at all.
Let me explain:
When it comes to “Lands’End modesty” vs. “MODEST!!! modesty” I consider the Lands’ End modesty to be the more genuine of the two, for several reasons. First of all, Lands’ End modesty is better termed classic modesty, and that’s how I will refer to it from now on, before folks here start to think that I’m getting a kickback from the Lands’ End company…(Shhhh!) 😉
Classic modesty is the type of modesty that most mainstream Christian women over the age of about 40 were taught by their mothers, grandmothers, and home economics teachers when they were young. It’s not part of some new-fangled religious movement and it’s not a fad, it’s simply good taste and commonsense. It’s all about wearing ladylike clothing that is appropriate to the occasion, the wearer’s activity, and the weather.
A classicly modest woman does not draw attention to herself and her clothes; more specifically, she does not draw attention to herself BY her clothes. She likely doesn’t think about her clothing much at all, once she puts it on in the morning, and this helps her to forget about herself (this “self forgetting”, by the way, is one definition of humility: shifting the focus OFF of oneself, and onto others.) The classically modest woman blends in with the crowd. She generally doesn’t wear shorts to church, and she doesn’t go swimming in a dress, unless she falls in by accident! She’s probably more circumspect than most of the women around her, and she may even appear to be a bit matronly by comparison, but she doesn’t stand out like a sore thumb.
“MODEST!!” modesty, on the other hand, is all about focusing on oneself, whether one is aware of that motive or not. “MODEST!!” women go to heroic lengths to be good Christians, and I’m pretty sure God loves them for it and appreciates their efforts, but following the MODESTY!! fad is, in the end, self-defeating: aggressive modesty focuses everyone’s attention on the “MODEST!!” woman and on her “MODEST!!” clothing.
It also tends to focus the “MODEST!!” woman’s attention on herself, on what other people are wearing, on where to buy the clothes, on how to make the clothes, on where to buy the patterns to make the clothes, on how to keep warm or cool or engage in sports or do chores, all while wearing the “MODEST!!” clothes — etc, etc, etc. (The proliferation of e-groups discussing bears this out: Yahoo alone has group after group dedicated to this topic alone, and modest clothing purveyers are raking in lots of $$$, all over the ‘net.)
In the end it can become an obsession — many of “MODEST!!” women are as focused on their clothing as is any mall-dwelling teeny bopper. I was headed in that direction, once.
All of this focus on clothing seems to me to be the very opposite of true modesty and humility, the kind our mothers practiced. People who see a “MODEST!!” woman notice her clothing first, and unless they are also into “MODESTY!!!”, they tend to give her a wide berth. Not so with the classicly dressed woman — people simply see a nice lady, someone approachable and normal, and that’s a big help if you want to witness to people about Jesus, or even engage in converstion about the weather.
It makes shopping a lot simpler too. 😉
June 27, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I wish WordPress had a wy to fix typos… that should read, “many a “MODEST!!” woman is as focused on clothing as any mall-dwelling teeny bopper”…. oh well.
June 27, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I think I understand what Cynthia is saying. Let me just give a couple of examples to clarify…
I know several head-covering women, who have come to that conviction through prayer and Bible-reading. It’s not one of my convictions. But I’ve never heard them criticize another woman for not covering her head either. In fact, I didn’t even realize a couple of the women were head-covering women until one of their daughters told me (she was not a headcoverer, and her mom was fine with her convictions as well). They were very discreet and gentle in the way they practiced their convictions, wearing pretty little hats (nothing gaudy and “I’m A HEADCOVERER,” like the kind of “I’M MODEST!!!” that Cynthia was alluding to).
Now, as a contrasting example, in a church that I once attended, there were a group of believers who became convicted of exclusive psalmody. Our church, though not believing that as a whole, accepted their practice. However, some of these people as the congregation was singing hymns, pulled out metered psalms and sang DIFFERENT words to the tunes at the top of their lungs, disrupting the service and distracting everyone around them.
The first way was a way of practicing the liberty of Christian conscience in a godly way, the other disrupted the fellowship of believers. The thing that I’m hearing in the discussion is that many times the patriocentric movement is allowed to disrupt the fellowship and freedom of believers. Not that it’s wrong to practice many of the ideas individually, but that sometimes the ideas are being made the standard of Christianity.
June 27, 2007 at 3:46 pm
“However, some of these people as the congregation was singing hymns, pulled out metered psalms and sang DIFFERENT words to the tunes at the top of their lungs, disrupting the service and distracting everyone around them.”
Joanna, this is exactly the same thing as “MODESTY!!!”
I don’t know a good word to describe this attitude, but it certainly exists.
July 25, 2007 at 5:21 pm
[…] Updated 7/25/07 There is great commentary on this topic by Spunky […]
October 20, 2007 at 5:59 am
I just got back from seeing “Queen Elizabeth” with Cate Blanchet. She [Elizabeth] was surely a “monstrous woman”. It was a very good movie and covered a lot of angles. She was one of England’s greatest rulers and she ushered in a golden age of peace and prosperity. Under her rule and great leadership the might Spanish Armada fell when the odds were humanly impossible. She punished deeds and not “thoughts” and allowed religious freedom.
John Knox anonymously penned the “First Blast of the Trumpet” to Bloody Mary when she was still on the throne. It seemed he thought she was “monstrous” but you didn’t see him dare say that about Elizabeth.
I wonder if the monstrosity had more to do with the fact that Mary was Catholic and Elizabeth was Protestant than it had to do with being a woman?
October 21, 2007 at 3:07 am
What I find funny is that “First Blast” was written as a political pamphlet against the reign of Mary Tudor, who was known for her persecution of Protestants.
January 9, 2008 at 7:03 am
[…] Online Interview with the Botkin Sisters (at TrueWomanhoodBlog–don’t miss the comments) Monstrous Women (again, at TW— don’t miss these […]
February 15, 2008 at 8:28 pm
It has been a real blessing for me to find this site. I have found the disussions interesting and it seems like I’m talking to friends! So great to find like-minded individuals.
Concerning the issue of P ideas being widespread, I’d like to relate a bit of my own story.
Although I have been living in Europe for the past couple of years, I lived in South Africa for many years prior to this and attended church there.
Although the church was sound and the teaching of a high standard, there was a strong undercurrent (from American missionaries, who had founded the church- sorry ladies, no anti-Americanism intended)focusing on an ideal Biblical womanhood.
Although it was certainly not taught that higher education for women was a sin, it was certainly viewed by many as a waste of time AT BEST.
I was studying towards a M degree at the time and continuously had to defend myself against accusations that I was really a feminist at heart.
Insiniuations were made that my pursuit of an advanced degree were indications – if not clear signs – of:
a. materialism
b. a lust for status
c. a desire to compete with my future husband, instead of a desire to support him
I had to explain that I did not dislike babies – this despite my volunteering for babysitting service dring the church services.
I had to explain that I did not dislike children – this despite the fact that my M degree was in EDUCATION and also despite the fact that I voluntarily taught Sunday school for some time.
I had to explain that I did believe in submission – people took it for granted that I didn’t just because I wanted an advanced degree.
Many ladies would be friendly while they still hoped to persuade me to their vewpoint but demonsrated indifference, and sometimes downright hostility – when they realized that I was holding firm to my convictions that it was not a sin to study, that I wanted to serve by using my talents in the realm of teaching and that I thought that this could be a worthwhile ministry.
I often asked my critics for Bible verses to prove that I was sinning by wanting to study, but was always told in reply that there were none – no verses to prove this.
However, this did not prevent people from treating me like an outcast as a result of the choices I had made.
Hurt by many demonstrations of unfriendliness, I approached the wife of several church leaders to discuss my concerns about the presence of these issues in what was otherwise a Biblically sound and very wonderful church.
I was admonished for daring to think that the chuch was less than perfect, and was told o focus on loving others and not to care what their attitude was towards me.
February 15, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Sorry that my message was so long – I guess I got a bit carried away.
I guess the point I was trying to make that even in places where the P movement is not well known, legalistic standards – that are to some extent in line with those of the Patriarchy movement – are placed on women. I find this true especially in the case of women’s education.
My own experience has taught me that these curents within a church lead to much hurt (for non-adherants)and too much division among believers.
February 15, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Irene,
Glad you found this spot.
What a sad bit of advice you got from the wife of a church leader. It is interesting to me that those who are so quick to rebuke are so slow to understand their own shortcomings.
“Insiniuations were made that my pursuit of an advanced degree were indications – if not clear signs – of:
a. materialism
b. a lust for status
c. a desire to compete with my future husband, instead of a desire to support him”
Interesting list.
I am surprised that there was not a d and e.
d. unwittingly acting like the harlot in Proverbs 7
e. boisterous and rebellious
I am quite sure that most men secure in their own person are not in the least bit threatened by an educated woman. In fact, I believe most men welcome educated women and would be proud to have an educated wife. They wouldn’t feel that their wife was trying to compete with them just because she was just as, if not more, knowledgeable about certain issues. It would be a point of taking pride in their wife instead of being threatened in their manhood.
Of course it is not necessary for a woman to go to college to be highly intelligent but I have found that there are patriarchal type men who are very threatened by women who know what they are talking about, especially when it comes to scripture.
I agree with you that many of these legalistic standards are placed squarely in the laps of women. The burden is loaded on the woman’s back, which is ironic since the patriarchalists believe it is the man who is to take the brunt of responsibility for the relationship.