When my sister and I were young’uns. We always wanted to be the first to open the jar of peanut butter and get the first spoonful. After a while, the competition for that first spoonful became fierce and we resorted to opening the can even before we were allowed to eat any of it. The first person to the jar of peanut butter would carve their initials into the peanut butter to show that they had been there first.
So I jumped on this new thread, eager to leave my initials and found that there was already a “CK” carved there.
This isn’t the place for this, but it’s urgent, and I wanted everyone to see it.
If you have time, please pray for my friend, Sheriden, who fell off a roof this afternoon. The doctors have done tests and they are saying that there is some brain stem activity, but they are “confidant that that activity will fade before tonight” — in other words, the doctors ane saying that he is going to die.
Sheridan and his wife are Christians, and Mrs. Sheridan is praying for a miracle. Please ask God to help.
I have another analogy that I’d like to offer that I’ve used on many occasions with a family member and some dear loved ones that explains how forgiveness and wanting to not repeat painful and unproductive experiences are completely different things.
I went to church with a dear sweet man who drove a truck for a living. In the course of working one day, a small child ran out in front of his vehicle, and he injured the child terribly. But for grace, I could be either driver or child in that circumstance, but for whatever reason, this devastating trauma dropped into the lives of both these lives and the lives of their families. Everyone walked away from the experience with their lives forever altered. What do you do with that and where do you lay blame.
The man driving the truck never intended to hurt anyone. He loved God and cared for his family by working most all of his life at a job he loved and was excellent at his job. He had grandchildren that were beautiful and that he loved dearly, and he loved children. Would he ever seek to knowingly, willingly hurt a child? He’s said many times that he wishes he could go back and take that child’s place, suffering those injuries himself.
The child suffered tremendously and despite the care of one of the most excellent pediatric neurosurgeons in the world in one of the most famous and excellent hospitals in the world, this child suffered permanent and severe brain trauma. He had siblings with him and one of the siblings was deeply traumatized as a result of witnessing the event.
It is not right or fair or accurate to lay blame on the man driving the truck for having some intent to hurt these children. And in all earnest, this man contemplated suicide long after the event and said that he’d wished that he’d hung himself rather than go to work that morning. He certainly was culpable for his actions, but his human qualities of fallibility just happened to manifest that day in such a way that it brought lasting harm to a whole family that has been forever changed — their hopes and dreams dashed on the rocks and destroyed. He had no intent to harm, but in the course of using his gifts and talents to live his life, an act of worship unto the Lord, a terrible thing happened. It could have been any one of us in his stead. Would you glibly call him a baby killer or a butcher, or some such horrible name, laying more guilt and blame upon him, knowing that this was completely out of character for this loving, conscientious Christian?
Both of those children have been drastically harmed. Drastically and in many aspects, irreparably. Would you tell that mother that she should not be angry or depressed or fearful for the lives of her other children? Would you tell the brother of the boy that he either should not or tell him that he DOES NOT have fear or anxiety or guilt when he goes down the street where the accident occurred or hears the same beep that many trucks make when the drive in reverse? If the mother or the little boy were at the grocery store, and the man who drove the truck walked by, would you tell that mother or that little boy that they either should not or do not feel a teeming flood of violent emotion in response? Would you tell all three of them that they had no right to weep?
In the course of living, we make honest mistakes, many of which are unavoidable and understandable. And most people are compassionate enough to understand and give people a measure of grace, understanding and forgiveness. And in some matters, we may not realize that we are hurting one another, and we count on information from others to help us learn, especially when we do things that we would be mortified to know hurt someone. We would likely do anything but those things to avoid hurting people. But some of that is unavoidable, and fortunately, we can take that information and learn from it so that we don’t repeat whatever it is that we are doing. And there is a great sense of remorse that accompanies a realization that our otherwise innocent actions have caused harm or pain or offense, particularly when we failed to recognize that these things even occurred.
We all hurt people in different ways through the course of living and growing. That’s also another great burden of being a parent, because it’s your job to help teach your children to the best of your ability to live in such a manner that they do no harm. But we do rub one another like iron sharpening iron, and sparks do fly, just as the Word of God tells us. My great hope is that when I leave this life, that the sum of all the good might outweigh the bad, and that all of it is used to glorify God. And that’s what so wonderful about faith in Jesus is that he takes all of our failures and uses even our shame to show forth His glory. He takes our ashes and transforms them into beauty through a miracle that only He can do. But we are still stuck in the process at the moment and don’t see all the outcomes, so we have faith that God is at work in all things.
And the flip side is that we all get hurt in some way, often by those we love the most, just as a matter of function. Those we love do not intend to hurt us or use us or forget us, but we are all human and fallible. It’s just an occupational hazard of living in an imperfect and fallen world.
So just as it is wrong to ascribe malice to the truck driver and to tell the family who has experienced loss that they “do not feel,” it is also wrong to ascribe these things to one another when we scrape one another. We are called to repent and forgive, two things that are often very difficult to do and processes that do not happen immediately.
“So just as it is wrong to ascribe malice to the truck driver and to tell the family who has experienced loss that they “do not feel,” it is also wrong to ascribe these things to one another when we scrape one another. We are called to repent and forgive, two things that are often very difficult to do and processes that do not happen immediately.”
I admit that I got lost in the analogy, Cindy, but I don’t always do well at following analogies. My husband has an analogy for everything and I often have to have him explain what fits into the analogy where for our specific situation.
So, I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be the truck driver or the child or the brother or the mother. Or, maybe I’m missing something and this analogy doesn’t include me at all? I guess I’m confused. LOL!
Another good analogy that I think applies to all this — There is an old story that circulates in 12 Step Groups and such by someone whose first name is Portia, but I don’t remember her last name.
One day, I walked down the street, and I fell into a pit. It took me forever to get out of it and I didn’t even see the hole in the ground. Before I knew what was happening, I was falling.
The next day, I walked down the same street, and I saw that hole in the ground, and I scrambled to avoid falling in again, but I only fell a short distance and was able to pull myself up out of it quickly.
The next day, I walked down the street, and I tripped as I walked near the hole in the ground, and I scraped my knee on the rubble at the edge, but I did not fall in.
Today, I walked down a different street.
When you start a new relationship and one where you have communication problems (which we all really have to some extent here because we only see type on the internet without facial expression and voice tone), or different belief systems or different language barriers, or you use the same words to describe what each person understands to be different things (note “Christian Right” discussed yesterday on the Palin thread), you’re going to have to learn how to navigate around some holes in the road. Some are serious and deep.
I think what we’re learning is where exactly the holes are.
With many here on TW and with new folks like Mom of 4 and gpmm, we’ve already learned that not everyone who uses a particular term ascribes the same meaning to it that the other party does. We’ve learned that we have some very strong opinions about some matters that we are unwilling to compromise, so we agree to disagree. And we have different reactions to the subject matter and the manner in which is it discussed (how things sound). All these are growth in the process of learning about one another, and I think those things have been done in an atmosphere of respect. We give one another room to talk, but we should be able to express things that are different or unpleasant. We set limits with one another.
In the process, we are learning where the streets are located, which ones are under construction and which ones are rocky but passable. I don’t think that’s unforgiveness either, and it doesn’t mean that there is anything wrong with the streets or that there should be shame that there is construction going on. It’s just a learning process.
We are both the truck driver at times and we are both the child at times. It’s an exaggerated way of demonstrating how we don’t intend to hurt one another and do, but also how our hurts teach us wisdom about how to survive. It’s a process, and life is messy when we try to work this stuff out. I wish it were not and I’d give about anything to change the world and have it not be messy. But I can’t. (How easy it would be without the mess!)
None of that means that one party or the other does not care about the other or does not want to know about their experiences.
I mentioned vulnerability some time ago. That vulnerability is necessary if we are to learn about one another.
This is really hard to do when you think in terms of all-or-nothing, but this is how we learn. We go from the general and then learn about the specific. Kids learn hot and cold. Good and bad. Happy and sad. Then they build from there, fine tuning as they go. Then things get really complicated… So because of how we learn, we can easily get stuck in that same kind of thinking of us and them. And it’s often hard work to sort that stuff out, particularly when discussing opinions, religion, politics, our own experiences or feelings… And it’s really easy to say “They’re one of them…” Sometimes that’s an appropriate conclusion, but not usually a very good first assumption.
So we are each, in some capacity, driving trucks, running over one another unintentionally, getting run over, learning how to stay out of the middle of the street and learning how to drive so that we are doing something productive instead of destructive. And then there’s vehicle failure and human driver error thrown in there to keep things interesting…
We all fail, we all suffer — but hopefully we all are focused on the same endpoint — overcoming those things and improving so that we have the best possible outcomes. Here, ultimately, it is communication and greater understanding of truth, of the Body and of Christ. But these specifics are subtle and messy.
“She commented that my communication was honest, neutral, polite and concise. She also didn’t see me as antagonistic.
I was just thankful that she expressed that so that I could see that there was someone who read what I’ve written the way I intended it.”
Yes, I went looking for it after you said something about it.
Marcia is not new to TW. People have bent over backwards to try and understand Marcia and extend grace to her both on these boards and in private email.
It is always nice when someone reads what we have written in the way that we intended it to be read. That is affirming and encouraging. But, I also have to consider the source and whether or not they have an axe to grind and whether or not they are thoroughly unbiased and have a history of certain behaviors before I get excited that someone finally understands me. This isn’t a scorecard kind of thing. Her opinion does not negate my experience and my experiences, for example.
Hopefully this will be remembered and applied in all situations. I know exactly what it is like to have something I wrote taken the wrong way and then, after explaining until I am blue in the face that I didn’t mean what another person was saying I said, they still insist that they are right and I am wrong, even though I am the one who wrote and I KNOW what it was that I was saying.
I think Cindy K. has shown us, very clearly, the ups and downs of communication and relationships and what it takes to establish relationships of trust so that we can really hear each other.
I wouldn’t discount her pov, altogether. It is easy to discount another person’s experience if you haven’t stood in their place. It is easy to say something didn’t happen if you were not there and haven’t witnessed it. Having seen both Marcia and Cindy in discussions over the past year, it is my opinion that Cindy tries very hard to be objective in what she says and she does not shrink back when it comes time to correct me concerning something I have done wrong.
Just because someone agrees with me does not make me right and the person who saw something else, wrong. There are a lot of considerations that are needed in order to make a sound judgment. Track record is a major one.
OK, Cindy. Thanks for explaining it. Like I said, I’m not an analogy person. 🙂
“I wouldn’t discount her pov, altogether.”
I’m not sure if “her” refers to Cindy or Marcia. I know I haven’t discounted Cindy’s pov at all. I hope that’s come through from my end.
I’m also not discounting Marcia. This is the first time I’d seen her but she only talked about the way I came across which gave me some sort of balance to know that, at least to someone, I was read the way I intended.
I’m not saying that anyone who considers me a brute is wrong for feeling that way but it’s still encouraging to know that not everyone saw me that way. I was feeling downright demoralized and Marcia gave me a bit of hope that I wasn’t a total monster.
I never thought you were a “total monster” at all. Far from it. And I assumed that you were a genuinely kind person with deep convictions who has demonstrated faith in Jesus Christ and knowledge of the Bible and several different theologies. You’ve also demonstrated a willingness to figure things out and both give and receive apologies over misunderstandings. You’ve also agreed to disagree, showing to me that you are not “holier than thou” at heart, because people that are that way in their hearts usually have walked away from such discussions in the early stages of them. Those are all very admirable traits of a mature Christian.
I expressed how I’ve both read and felt demeaned by comments you made, and how I had felt that way and noted the same subtle patterns were repeating again. Coming from a person who has demonstrated and modelled mature Christian responses, for me, the gnat straining and the focus on certain things doesn’t really add up and balance things. (How does anyone else know how I feel or what my motivations are? And once I’ve stated them, people have to decide whether they trust them to be genuine. Again, this discussion requires a certain degree of vulnerability.) If I didn’t believe all good things about you, also considering that we are likely far more alike than we are different, I wouldn’t have responded at all. The fact that I did shows respect for you and acknowledges many good things about you and not bad ones. I took a risk in communicating those things, but I thought it was a risk worth taking. So in my mind, it shows that you have value and that I have respect for you.
That’s what I both think and feel about it. What I don’t want to do is take another stroll down “Major Conflict” street, one I’ve found myself on twice and down in some uncomfortable holes which could easily turn into pits. And I could very well pull the whole blog down in there with me. But I can certainly stand from a distance and say “I’m not going down there again” and this is why.
If I observe a situation or belief, and you observe the same situation or belief from your vantage, we will have different perceptions to some degree. Add to that our previous experiences and our emotions. If I come out and say “I observed X and I feel A, B, and C,” and someone comes along and says “You have no right to conclude A, B and C because I didn’t personally observe A, B or C and they were not mentioned specifically in my reading and estimation,” then I would like to avoid those discussions. (That’s a world away from “I don’t understand A, B or C” or “We disagree because of our perspectives, but based on what I know, I think Q and not A,B or C.”)
Some of it was communication style. That’s why I didn’t take it too much to heart, though I did work to avoid lots of hooks. So my assumption yesterday morning was “This a reasonable and mature Christian who is dealing with more than just tampons and some divorced woman’s blog.” And if I have good faith and trust in all that’s been said, “I have good reason to believe that this person does not know how they sound.”
If a person was a monster or if I’ve had too many previous failed attempts to come to an agreement in the past, I would not have risked explaining myself, potentially hurting you, having you misunderstand and risking criticism from others. You only take such risks for people for whom you have respect or great compassion. I did not think that I was casting pearls before swine, so I took the risk and deemed you as precious as the pearls.
I just want to clarify that I certainly don’t see you as a “brute” or a “total monster” at all. Those thoughts never crossed my mind. I don’t think anyone saw you in that way at all nor did I see that expressed in anyone’s words to you. That is why I was cautioning against bringing our feelings into this because we cannot read into another person’s words what we are feeling.
I am sorry you feel demoralized. No one knows who you are or anything about you, so maybe you can take comfort in the knowledge that you are unidentifiable and that way those feelings will be greatly lessened.
Hey all, thank you for your prayers, and if you can, keep praying…. contrary to the doctors expectations, Sheridan is still alive today. I just recieved this:
“There has been no new change in his status since last night. That is to say, there is still some brain stem activity. While the Sheridan we all know and love may no longer be here, there has not been an official time of death declared.”
Praise the Lord…..
Thank you for your prayers, Cindy.
When a man in the prime of life with everything to live for falls off his porch roof and dies, people naturally wonder, “Where is God?”….. and undoubtedly some of Sheridan’s friends are wondering that right about now. I pray their wondering leads them to Him, and not away.
I hate, hate, hate saying I’ll pray as I am still convicted about how all that has played out in my life. As a part of my testimony, the fasting stuff is significant when it relates to how absolutely desperately frustrated I was while in authority-submission oriented Christianity, but I don’t like to say that I’ll pray. If I forget later when I’ve said that I’ll be praying and don’t, that’s a vow that I have not lived up on. And then there’s the conviction and remorse I have over making a big public deal about prayer and fasting in the past, that which we are to do in private, so I am still wiggy about making that point online. Somehow an emotocon seems like it would be less pious sounding to me.
Over the past few days, I thought of my experiences in the hospital with patients who had injury to this part of the brain, usually resulting from a stroke. I also worked for most of a summer as a unit secretary for a neurologic ICU when I was in school, and I had the opportunity to observe and interact with families who had loved ones who were going through this very thing related both to trauma and stroke. When you mentioned Sheridan, I found myself revisiting all of these memories.
Of the many varieties of diseases and deaths of many people over many years, I think that this kind of process that extends over a couple of days actually has some great blessings in it. The trauma is still trauma, but I really felt like those patients that I’ve cared for with this type of injury have a very strong sense (for me) of being there and understanding everything that’s going on. I don’t always get that sense with patients with different disorders. I had some really good prayer time with these patients and their families over the years. And I don’t know if that makes any kind of sense, but as a nurse, there’s more of an opportunity to help these families (and I would say the patients) to start to grieve with some support. And I found myself focusing on the sweetness of being at the bedside of my past patients, and I prayed that Sheridan would have that same sweetness if the outcome that was projected became a reality.
So when you pose “Where is God,” I had all that wash over me again. God was there for me at the bedside when I cared for people with this kind of trauma, as I usually felt like singing and had a great sense of love when caring for these patients. (Again, I think there is a kind of grace that comes with the trauma, allowing a connection with the patient that isn’t always possible with people who have other injuries or those who die suddenly.) He’s there for the health care staff when the observe how Christians process this kind of tragedy, because the responses of those who are sure of their loved one’s salvation and their own are very different from those who don’t have that peace.
And I’ve been overwhelmed with my memories of patients and families who had God’s love to lean on, and God is very much at work. It does not ever seem fair, but this life is far from fair. But the consolation of Christ is sweet, and God’s faithfulness is beyond our capacity to even understand. And God is very much in that in ways that are profound, so I praise God that even this grief will be a testimony for Him that shines forth both His love and glory.
People far beyond our ability to understand observe these things, and I pray that God also uses this mightily. I look forward to you introducing me to Sheridan one sweet day.
Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate the time you took to write.
You’ve asked me a couple of times if you know my and I’ve answered that I don’t think so. However, I’ve just spent way too many hours reading through one of the Prairie Muffin threads and noticed that you said you were on TPW unitl about two years ago. So, I’m fairly confident that we have crossed paths and I just do not remember. The thing is that I’m not good with names at all so, while I don’t recognize your name, we most likely have communicated in the past.
Hi everyone, including those I haven’t met …haven’t been here in a while. When I finally checked up here, it felt refreshing.
As I live, study, and continue to grow, I only become stronger in my opinions about what it means to be a young woman and how wrong some who have the ear of many have been about it all. And as my mind continues to fight and soar, becoming more and more itself, I undergo a lot of frustration. I need desperately to talk about what I am learning and thinking about life, identity, and the church. But the Christians around me – friends and mentors and aquaintances – will often mention a book they’re reading, or make reference to some idea I am ALL too familiar with, and I will try to explain my take on it or problem with it. But so often they don’t see it – or they see it, but don’t understand why I am so passionate about these things, as if they were easy to deal with or work through. Or they will, but dismiss it. Only a very few people in my real life seem to actually get what I’m saying.
I am still a little stressed, I had this draining conversation the other day with a family and community friend who thought my father was my spiritual head until I got married. He quoted some Scripture references, but I can’t remember them. It does seem that they were more about husbands and wives … he also thinks that parental authority continues into adulthood and referenced the stoning laws in the Bible … I felt so shaken afterwards … the man is very nice (had no idea how traumatic he was being) and I feel I was respectful to him – an older person – as I dialogued, but it was still stressful. Oh, and I got the whole women-are-more-emotional-and-need-protection thing. Ick.
Forgive me if we’ve been over this before, but is there Scriptural support for any of those things he mentioned?
The only scriptural support for those ideas are the kind that require yanking a verse or two out of context and then using them to say what their context does not.
And I’m sorry, but the “women are more emotional” stuff comes more from John Gray (Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus) than from ANYTHING in the Bible. I suspect that older gentleman might be making the classic mistake of thinking the Bible calls women “weaker vessels,” rather than what it actually says: husbands should treat their wives LIKE weaker vessels; that is, treat them as the ornate, fragile vessels of their households, rather than the nearly unbreakable thick water pots and storage vessels. In other words, treat them with care and consideration, as something precious. Sheds an entirely different light on the more common misreading, doesn’t it?
He’s just repeating the bad teaching he’s received. Sad, and common.
That’s what I thought … but though I do not feel the need to convince him or someone like him yet, I will probably need to explain my views in some depth at later points … and I am still at a loss as to how I would exactly respond to such a conversation … I do think I would say that the idea of finding your spiritual identity in anyone but Jesus is definitely heretical … I can at least put that into words!
It’s just really hard, to feel alone and like one’s views have no merit – and like people will not see the damage some things can truly have – or don’t care, because they are God-ordained.
But – I do know that I am not alone, and that I have thought carefully, and am not done dialoging with the Scriptures, but have already found a lot of things I hadn’t before, and that God is honoring my search for Him.
Still – if anyone remembered or had time, I would love it if you would ask God that I could have some more community with believers like I need. I still have to go to the FIC church. And while I am very much in love with God, I do struggle with wanting to stick with His church sometimes – not that I’m perfect by any means, but I’m sure everyone understands how I feel.
Psalmist said: “The only scriptural support for those ideas are the kind that require yanking a verse or two out of context and then using them to say what their context does not.”
Beatrice said: “He also thinks that parental authority continues into adulthood and referenced the stoning laws in the Bible … I felt so shaken afterwards”
You SHOULD feel shaken by that. Oh my goodness. I woulda been looking for the nearest exit. Taliban, anyone?
Dear Beatrice, you ought to give yourself more credit than I’m sensing. Since you’ve been digging deep–here and other places–you recognize these ideas as evil. The fact that you can immediately spot the crazy, yet still remain respectful, indicates you are a young woman of some maturity.
I have little doubt that God will use you in some awesome ways.
It is amazing how silent the Bible is concerning being a leader and authority over others. In fact, one would think, by reading the patriarchal teachings, that this is a major theme in the Bible. It is not. The major theme in the NT when it comes to believers is mutual submission one to another; if one wants to be great, one must be servant (slave) to all.
I think it was you, Psalmist, who once said something about servant leadership really being “leading the servant” and that about sums it up. The buzzword “servant leader” is not about actual bondslave service to the one being served. It is a very pious sounding term used to describe the “prophet, priest, king and lord” who takes on the role of representing his wife and children to the Lord (there is only ONE mediator and that is Christ Jesus our Lord), something the Bible does not teach. We are ALL God’s royal priesthood and we will ALL judge the world and angels one day. We all have access to the Father through the Son and we are all endowed with the same measure of the Holy Spirit and if we humble ourselves and truly believe that it is He who gives wisdom, it will be given to us and not on the basis of our gender. It is Christ the Lord and His Helper that sanctifies, teaches, keeps, protects and matures us. There is no protective covering or umbrella in the form of a mere human being. Christ Jesus is our covering and it is His blood that has covered us. We all have the same ability to be deceived or to sin willfully and through the Holy Spirit’s power, we all have the same ability to resist temptation.
Now, if people actually taught servitude as the role of a husband, I might pay more attention to their teachings. But, most of the teachings are just pomp and circumstance, which sound nice but don’t ring true.
Those who put a heavy emphasis on authority, who is in charge, who is the boss, where the buck stops and so on, is mostly concerned about losing their perceived authority and position over others.
They are not concerned about the things Christ told us to be concerned about because the two are opposed. One is of God and the other is a pagan notion and something sought after by the unsaved.
“And I’m sorry, but the “women are more emotional” stuff comes more from John Gray (Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus) than from ANYTHING in the Bible.”
Anger, sarcasm, stoicism, arrogance, whining, ignoring, determination and even shyness are emotions and ways of being ’emotional’ It is just that some are more accepted than others. There are more but you get my point.
Beatrice wrote: Only a very few people in my real life seem to actually get what I’m saying.
Chances are that they are actually as stymied as you are by all of it. But to fill in the difficult holes in the argument, they will defer to a book or the standard dogma without thinking about it. It’s uncomfortable and a lot of work to think these things through, considering that sometimes, there may not even be sufficient answers to all the problems. You’re likely giving them an opportunity to think it out for themselves, and consider that you may have delved into it far further than they ever did.
About the question of parental authority over a young adult…
From what I’ve ascertained, as you know, it seems that the Scriptures that are argued to support this largely come from that Old Testament material, much of it from Numbers 30. Again, I think this is largely fiduciary, and an woman of age is not mentioned because the responsibilities do not apply to her. The Hebrew language itself denies this ownership principle, as a woman is called either available to any man (and this is not assigned to the father) and then upon marriage takes on the status as set apart for one man.
Men are called to leave mother and father and cling to their wives, and this also repudiates the responsibilities that are assigned to grown adults. As Don Veinot in his article on Vision Forum in ’07 points out, if this were all the case, we would all have to rely upon the wisdom we receive from Uncle Ned. Anyone younger than the oldest family patriarch would have to second guess and get permission for all their actions in life. Yet the Word says we are to leave and cleave.
We also do not see the example of getting a patriarch’s permission for service and worship in the NT. Esther ran everything past Mordecai, but in the NT, so many women were portrayed as autonomous agents. This is what made Christ so controversial. He broke with all of these old conventions, even the patriarchal system that was followed in the OT. He spoke directly with women who were not required to have a male intercessor to approach Him.
I think if you are an adult believer, you have good reason to believe that you do not need a Spiritual intercessor in the person of a father. It is a different thing to be living under your father’s roof and decide to revolt against the rules that come with his provision. But even the Jewish traditions allow a woman the recourse to work and be self-determined, even keeping her own money if she does not also use her husband for support.
I would seriously like to see some of these patriarchs argue their model apart from the OT, using only the NT to support their claims. I don’t know that they can do it. The rules for husbands and wives have been detailed, but the NT Scripture argues an independence from parents that is superceded by the Body of Christ. Matthew 10 in particular comes to mind, as Jesus did not come to bring peace but a sword, sometimes requiring family members to divide from one another. Nothing supercedes one’s duty to following Christ. Now how we go about responsibly discerning that may be a matter that we might look to our earthly fathers to guide us in, but I don’t believe that once a person reaches adulthood that they are bound to give an account to parents. They are called to show them honor, but they are called as adults to be obedient to Christ.
I think this is why the “helpmeet” argument is so essential to patriocentricity, for they can then claim the submission Scriptures as applicable to daughters who are unmarried. But I, along with many others, deny that these are applicable to unmarried, adult daughters. I’d like to see that in the Scriptures also.
Let’s not also forget that women were typically married much younger, and men much older in the Bible. So as far as the parental authority over grown children, this applied far less to girls anyway, since they were never really fully grown before leaving home.
Children living with their parents until marriage is a common cultural practice in the Middle East–in Christian and Muslim and Jewish families. This is not due to some mandate of Scriptures, but because of financial things. Parents also don’t exercise much authority over their grown children, sons or daughters, and yet, they live at home until they marry. And the adult children often don’t marry until they are closer to thirty.
The patriarchal society here in the U.S. is very unusual because of the exercise of authority over adult children, mostly because even if it was safer or more practical for children to stay with their parents until marriage, there is no reason for an adult to not shoulder the responsibility for his or her (typically her) own choices. I feel a lot of sorrow for the girls like the Botkins who have been trained to think that this is an acceptable thing and somehow Biblical. I guess Mary and Martha were disobedient to the Biblical decrees because they did not answer to a father’s authority (there’s also no evidence that Lazarus was their “boss”–seems a lot more likely that Martha was the oldest based on her “take charge” attitude.)
Sorry; I didn’t see the new thread when I left this comment at the end of the old one:
You’re right in that I am given that freedom to speak my mind here, and I appreciate that.
I don’t become part of the conversation here because I simply don’t have time. Y’all are so prolific!! (I mean that as in definition 2. producing in large quantities or with great frequency; highly productive: a prolific writer.
but in Corrie’s case, 1. producing offspring, young, fruit, etc., abundantly; highly fruitful
would also apply. ; ) )
Anyway, I mostly just read here and don’t comment for that reason, but momof4’s sad retreat made me speak up. Been there, done that.
Shutting up now.”
I have just skimmed the comments in this thread. Momof4, what Corrie said is absolutely true–these women went above and beyond for me when I had a personal crisis earlier in the year. I don’t doubt their sincerity and their Christian love.
Cynthia, my condolences on the loss of your friend. That is so very tragic.
I’ve just come to the end of the epic (thousand-comment) thread that began with the Visionary Daughters video. I’ve been reading the related patriocentricty threads off and on the same time.
I hope I’m not out of line by coming here. I am a real live (secular) feminist and not at all the intended readership of this blog, so I don’t want to intrude on this discussion too much. But I did want to thank you for it. I’ve spent many months researching the “patriocentric” movements on and off the Internet and found so many heartbreaking stories (not to mention oceans of sloppy exegesis) that it has sometimes been difficult for me to continue.
This thread and its predecessors have been both informative and incredibly heartening. The level of conscientiousness, humility, intelligence, and just plain niceness I have seen in this thread is beyond refreshing.
Laura, I’m just an occasional commenter on this board, but I know the ladies here appreciate this and are glad you’re reading (and you’re welcome to comment anytime you have anything to add-especially since you’ve been studying the phenomenon)!
Robbins was raised a Pennsylvania Yankee, just like me. I don’t know that I agree with him on every point that he makes, but I especially appreciate the fact that he points out that what Doug Phillips preaches classifies as both Romanist and pagan.
And I married a Yankee who was declared an “officially domesticated” Southerner and Son of Virginia by the Corps of Cadets at Virginia Tech. The individual who had the honors of making the declaration was born in Forfolk, VA who had to teach my husband the appropriate pronunciation. I’d write it out phonetically, but I’d get into all sorts of trouble.
My rebel French ancestors (3 wild brothers) came to the US to fight under a militia flag bearing a rattlesnake in the War for American Independence, and more 60 of their Pennsylvanian descendants bearing my family name (that translates “militant”) fought for the Union.
Things can get interesting around my home sometimes…
Cindy – you made me think of the high school cheer that caused quite a scandal at Norfolk high school when I was a teenager. The cheerleading squad tried it out without the knowledge or approval of any teachers and got in huge trouble. It was:
“We don’t drink,
We don’t smoke,
Norfolk, Norfolk, Norfolk.”
I guess you have to know the pronunciation to understand why that cheer was such a scandal – especially in the 70s.
“Speaking of family projects in the next Vision Forum catalog, our family has been working on something too. We found a rare old book at a library sale and were captivated by the story, so we set to work on having it republished. Our family retyped the manuscript, did some editing, created a map and glossary, and here is the finished product, published for us by Vision Forum: Princess Adelina: An Ancient Christian Tale of Beauty and Bravery! What do you think?
Can you tell that we’re excited about it?”
This is from the “In a Shoe” blog. It looks like the Coughlin family found the book, did some “editing” and VF published it for them.
I would like to know what “editing” means and how extensive it was.
Sort of off-topic but Re: the new Vision Forum catalog… the first thing one of my daughters said was- “This isn’t a homeschool catalog.” She also thinks it is incorrect for Vision Forum to be listed as a “homeschool resource” in our local homeschool directory.
We had a good laugh once again at the glorious range of outdoor activities and science for boys vs. the tea parties,dressing for the 1700’s-1800’s, cooking, babysitting, and harp playing for girls.
I found it humorous as well that Victoria Botkin has CD’s for homeschooling… *if* Vision Forum is a homeschooling catalog and Doug & Beall homeschool, how come we’ve never heard of their methods or curriculum choices?
Corrie, here is a quote from Stacy about Andelina:
“From across the ages — thirteen centuries ago, when the fearless Scottish and Irish missionary bands are sent out from the Isle of Iona — comes the story of a virtuous young woman of unshakeable faith, filled with determination to fulfill the role to which God has called her.
She finds herself whisked away from a simple life to become the queen of a kingdom where she wrestles with temptations from her past and faces down enemies intent on her demise.”
I am assuming that she is whisked away to become a wife and mother since that is THE ONLY AUTHORIZED ROLE for women according to PAssionate Housewives, Doug Phillips, and Vision Forum. But why doesn’t the promo of the book include info about her husband and children?
Anyone else notice the absolute silence from “yoursacredcalling” regarding the upcoming election? Any thoughts about that? Jenny has been outspokenly against Sarah and James has been outspokenly for her. Inquiring minds want to know.
I am wondering if anyone else is hearing Y2K-like rumblings from the patriocentric camp? I have noticed some PW discussion on stocking piling and fear of complete disaster on the horizon. No mention of weaponry yet but I imagine it will come.
I am just curious if Gary North or any one else is resurrecting the Y2K scare.
Well, I’m ready. I still have about 600 pounds of wheat sealed into buckets in my basement from the last go-round. (Not so good for the low-carb way of eating I’ve since adopted … maybe when things fall apart, I can barter it for some weapons or seeds or something)
thatmom says, “Anyone else notice the absolute silence from “yoursacredcalling” regarding the upcoming election? Any thoughts about that? Jenny has been outspokenly against Sarah and James has been outspokenly for her. Inquiring minds want to know.”
Well the Botkins have certainly made their opinion about the election known. They posted some Q&A about Sarah Palin just a few days ago. Check out the Visionary Daughters website.
I think this has more to do with the stock market than it does the election. This economic crisis was expected in ’94 (hence the book entilted “Bankruptcy 1994”) which is exactly what’s happening now, and I remember McAlvaney preaching gloom and doom about it in his newsletter back then.
You can always make wheat grass out of those wheat berries. Eat them as sprouts, then they count as a vegetable. 😉
WOW, the Visionary daughters blog’s definition of feminism about made me choke on my tea. Feminism is whenever females make decisions about what they think and why they think it, instead of obeying the dictates of a human males opinion of what they should think and how they should think it???
I can’t tell you how sorry I feel for those young women. 😦
I agree that the economic climate is the big impetus for panic, but they have been predicting The End Of The World As We Know It for awhile, and yes, Gary North has plenty of info up on a website. The food shortages of this year made people more frantic and start hoarding. I think the election is mainly involved because there is a fear of higher taxes (thus more economic turmoil, leading to social chaos), rights taken away (like homeschooling and guns)and things like the draft being reinstated for women as well as men.
It’s not hard to find a lot of sites where people discuss plans for this; you can google TEOTWAWKI, Rawles (a big survivalist), survival or economic apocalypse, to name a few.
What’s with the Botkin girls on voting? (Wonder if they even would vote, since some VF folks don’t believe in women doing so…) Are they US citizens now?? If not, why are they “advising” us on what to do??
I read the Q&A on the sisters’ site and was grieved. That’s just so twisted to state that feminism = women “Women hav[ing] the right to decide for themselves what is right and wrong for them.”
From my own former home church pulpit I heard the teaching elder (well-known in the Teen/Homeschool movement) encourage his congregation to watch “The Return of the Daughters” and know that the video got at least somewhat around the congregation. When he said that, we stopped attending that congregation. I’ve been sort of singing a song in my heart, “I can see clearly now the rain is gone.” And, yes, I knew a man who subscribes to those teachings who told me he didn’t believe women should have a right to vote (he must gnash his teeth like the Baley brothers). Shocking, oppressive, non-Gospel centered stuff out there.
I talked to a friend of mine in Oklahoma a few months ago who asked me where Mike Farris had to say about patriocentricity. Her family did not join, but most people recognize HSLDA and hold Mike Farris in high honor. I suggested that he might be a major source of much of this nonsense, but she did not seem willing to consider this as a possibility. It sounds like such a good cause and we just give Christians a pass.
Shortly thereafter, I talked to this lady named Kathleen…. and I wondered why people like Raymond Moore and Kevin Lehman had not weighed in with opinions on the aggressive tactics of these brave, new homeschooling leaders. Kathleen told me to read Raymond Moore’s white paper: apparently he did weigh in on the matter.
In a document written in 1997 and updated in 2002 before he died a year or so ago, Raymond Moore wrote about his not-so-glowing opinions about both Mike Farris and Gregg Harris. It seems to echo the same kinds of general opinions of the Guenthers (on the HSLDA critique site that Corrie posted). Moore felt that the group was seriously hurting homeschooling with reactionary and alarmist tactics and their “Protestant Exclusionary” mindset as a prerequisite for all homeschooling (excluding all non-Christians). Moore states that Gregg Harris “raped” his business (while working for him)and how Mike Harris called Raymond Moore an habitual liar and senile. Nice. The Moore’s pioneered homeschooling while Harris and Phillips and Farris were running around wearing diapers and playing with pop guns while watching Wild Wild West (before it went into syndication). Much of what Moore said is what I have said — that these separatists are operating like the Massachusetts Bay Colony circa 1640.
The same types of “out with the elders who know nothing” tactics also go on within my husband’s small profession. I wonder if the terrible arrogance has something to do with younger Baby Boomers?
Anyway, reading that story of the Guenthers on that site about HSLDA reminds me of the same kinds of tactics and complaints in Moore’s “White Paper.”
Corrie, the one aspect of that website and those articles that popped out at me is how intertwined the “leaders” are with each other.
Here is something I am wondering about…over the past few months, I have heard from many people who live in Colorado and who are fed up with Kevin Swanson and his brand of homeschooling, the patriocentricity that is rampant in the leadership, and the sheer numbers of people they each know who have been so turned off at homeschooling conventions. I never understood until recently that HSLDA invites various “leaders” to attend their national conferences, which they just had in September/October. On what basis does HSLDA invite people to be part of this? It can’t be made up of local leadership because the McDonalds attended and why are they considered leaders? They certainly don’t represent me from my area and they are on no board from here. I would like to see a list of who was invited by HSLDA to one of these conferences and why they were chosen. I would like to know what the agenda is if they are speaking for “homeschoolers” in general. I would like to have someone explain to me how all of this works.
One of the people who spoke to me recently had invited a family member to attend a convention because she was considering homeschooling her children. Within the first 10 minutes, one of the more radical speakers had totally alienated this woman, turning her off because she got the impression that to homeschool you had to be like this speaker. Again, all the nonessentials of the faith were elevated above the real ones and look what happened. The person who called me wanted to put together his own convention to talk about things like homeschooling, family discipleship, etc. free from the whacky spin that is put on it by the HSLDA handpicked “leaders.” Any suggestions?
I found Raymond Moore’s White Paper when I was first coming out of all the junk a few years ago, first discovering that Vision Forum wasn’t pure and pristine, etc… It was really shocking to read, because, you know, these people are supposedly godlike, right?
I thought it was REALLY telling how, on page 13? of the link Corrie shared above, the judge pulled the guy aside and warned him that “these guys are bad guys.” Well said. At some point, the trusting sheep are going to rise up and pull the carpet out from under these false shepherds. And that will be a good day.
Just stopping in to say Hello! So glad to see some familiar names over at Facebook, too 🙂
Now on to bigger things — I read an article on MSNBC, I think, that talked about the “survival revival” going on in some areas. The primary reason cited for the stockpiling and so forth was economic. I don’t recall seeing any political reasons, but they may exist behind the scenes. Some people are afraid to say what they really think about Obama because they do not want to be unfairly labeled as racist. It’s a major issue here in Ohio.
(FTR, I’m independent and probably voting Libertarian)
“Oh my word. That is so muddled and messed up. So basically feminism=having autonomous thoughts (bad, in the Botkin view) and biblical womanhood= non autonomous, male dependent thoughts?”
“Autonomy” is a patriarchal buzzword with MAJOR negative connotations. It is up there with and usually synonymous with “rebellion”, “feminism”, “Jezebel”, “disobedient”, “unsubmissive”, “dishonoring”, you know the list, and that it could go on and on.
Yes, any perceived inclination towards a desire for autonomy (which is a very HEALTHY thing to desire) or thought that varies from the patriarchal paradigm is lumped in with the aforementioned words.
Interesting that you should bring this up now… It is my understanding that the Pearls of No Greater Joy are starting to speak out about the dangers of extreme patriarchy. I don’t recall where I saw this but thought it would be worth mentioning.
“Albeit I have thus (talking with my God in the anguish of my heart) somewhat digressed, yet I have not utterly forgotten my former proposition: to wit, that it is a thing repugnant to the order of nature that any woman be exalted to rule over men. For God has denied unto her the office of a head. And in the treating of this part, I remember that I have made the nobility both of England and Scotland inferior to brute beasts, for they do to women that which no male amongst the common sort of beasts can be proved to do to their female: that is, they reverence them, and quake at their presence; they obey their commandments, and that against God. Wherefore I judge them not only subjects to women, but slaves of Satan, and servants of iniquity.
If any man thinks these my words sharp or vehement, let him consider that the offence is more heinous than can be expressed by words. For where all things are expressly concluded against the glory and honour of God, and where the blood of the saints of God is commanded to be shed, whom shall we judge, God or the devil, to be president of that council? Plain it is, that God rules not by his love, mercy, nor grace in the assembly of the ungodly; then it rests that the devil, the prince of this world, does reign over such tyrants. Whose servants, I pray you, shall they be judged such as obey and execute their tyranny? God, for his great mercies’ sake, illuminate the eyes of men, that they may perceive into what miserable bondage they are brought by the monstiferous empire of women!”
Here is a quote from John Knox in the “First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women”.
We can apply this to Sarah Palin. Does anyone remember the documentary that was produced, Monstrous Regiment of Women”, by the Gunn Bros where Jennie Chancey and Stacy McDonald and others appeared?
Since Knox’s words are used as proof positive that women should not rule (combine this with his hate speech against women in this “Blast”), then would it be consistent to vote for Palin AND appear in this documentary?
Sorry, I couldn’t get the link to work. But if you go to the NGJ website, the article I was referring to is linked on the front page of the current issue. It’s the sequel to the article “Cloistered Homeschool Syndrome” that was published during the summer.
One of the readers here posted a link to the NGJ article when it was first released, and the WWF site posted an article about it with some good discussion following. It might be an interesting read for those interested in the topic.
After that, I think you will have to wait for it to be released on DVD.
Since this is a Michael Farris film, which is obvious by how many times his name is in the credits, the promotion of Patrick Henry College, and the fact that he has a role in this movie, I would encourage you all to watch it. We have just been discussing his incredible influence in shaping the future of homeschooling. How patriocentric is he? I would like to know the answer to that. But one thing that really bothers me in this film (spoiler coming) is that when the mother confesses to her husband that she had had an abortion as a teenager, the response made me cringe. Both the dad and the son treat her coolly and miss the opportunity to minister to her. Also, the message is sent that college is fine for girls as long as she is still good in the kitchen and in the end, the mom’s repentance for her rebellious attitude toward her husband is manifested in her cooking for her husband. Of course, none of these things are the main message of the film, only the patriocentric issues that jumped off the page at me. I am still trying to figure Farris out. Anyone?
OH! I know the guy who plays Caleb. He and his family go to hofcc and we’ve personally interacted with their family many, many times (he and my son used to play guitar together). I didn’t remember that he was auditioning for that part until I saw that trailer.
I have a lot more I could say about this, and wonder about his discernment.
It seems that there are many more connection of my former FIC’s exclusive and troubling influence (read my earlier comments on what they believe, who their leader is) on PHC. That may let you know just a little of what Farris believes in, too.
“But one thing that really bothers me in this film (spoiler coming) is that when the mother confesses to her husband that she had had an abortion as a teenager, the response made me cringe. Both the dad and the son treat her coolly and miss the opportunity to minister to her. Also, the message is sent that college is fine for girls as long as she is still good in the kitchen and in the end, the mom’s repentance for her rebellious attitude toward her husband is manifested in her cooking for her husband. Of course, none of these things are the main message of the film, only the patriocentric issues that jumped off the page at me. I am still trying to figure Farris out. Anyone?”
Did you see the movie? Do you have it?
What you described to me about that scene is very disturbing.
I didn’t get the trailer and what the film is about from the trailer.
I watched the film on that site today, and what Karen mentioned about the subtle message of “message is sent that college is fine for girls as long as she is still good in the kitchen and in the end, the mom’s repentance for her rebellious attitude toward her husband is manifested in her cooking for her husband.” I agree with that assessment Karen gave. I want to say more, but don’t want to spoil it for others who haven’t seen it yet.
The way the scenes are shot and crafted, you get the distinct impression we are to feel bad for the husband because his wife doesn’t do the culturally normative things for him, because she has a career that is also demanding. Never mind that the couple have 1 child (one who is attending college at PHC) and the husband also has a career.
It’s implied that her real role is being neglected and that the husband is not getting as much limelight as the wife. I found some of the scenes to be emotionally pulling the audience to feel that she was in the wrong just for that fact, and not necessarily because of her particular views she’s dealing with.
Also, the young female college student is always in a subordinate role, not necessarily venturing on a career path, but instead reminiscing about her mother’s cooking. It’s subtle, but maybe that’s just my own issues coming out 😉
Norm Wakefield also has a great series of articles regarding the extrabiblical standards that are placed on young people in this paradigm. They are called The Curse of the Standard Bearers and can be found here on his newsletter archive site.
Here is another aspect of this patriocentric madness that I have had shared with me TWICE in the last couple of weeks by two young women who have experienced this abuse. One of them described it as “financial abuse” where fathers demand that their daughters turn over any earnings they may make, such as through baby sitting or other part time jobs. This leaves the girls without their own money, which could be used to leave home or to attend college at some point in the future. Also, these young women described for me the manipulative tactics their dads used to convince them that either they couldn’t live on their own or to spend money on things for the family. I have been thinking about how each of our children have always had part time (or full time) jobs and how they used their money. It was an important part of moving from dependence on parents to independence and autonomy, not to mention the value of hard work and making wise decisions about purchases etc. I am truly appalled by this aspect of patriocentricity.
Keebler, I am looking for that information. You know, it is really difficult to find names that go along with these organizations. And confusing, too. Here is one example. I live in central Illinois where there is a HUGE support structure for homeschooling. But their group is not listed on the HSLDA site list of homeschooling support groups. Yet, HSLDA is almost always represented at the local convention.
Also, I have been trying to find information online about the recent national homeschooling leadership conferences that were held the last couple of months and were sponsored by HSLDA. There is nothing available to the average Joe who homeschools and would like to know what this year’s agenda is that is being handed down to state leadership. If these people are speaking on my behalf, I think I have a right to know about those meetings, especially since none of these people were elected by me to do so. Why is this info all hush hush and hoosh hoosh?
The acting, save for Caleb, is really overdone. I can’t believe how miserable the working woman lawyer is. The girlfriend/schoolmate just made a comment to working mom lawyer who is neglecting her hubby (sin! sin!) about how home cooked meals make her remember the past and bring her closer to family….
I’ve had great opportunities, not anything like the one portrayed in this film, and my husband was so excited for me that he was happy to sacrifice. It was if he said, “What can I do to help you realize this?” with joy and support rather than the “You mean you’re going to neglect me again?” response of the husband. Just 180 degrees different from my husband.
Again, I just cant get over how miserable they are portraying the women in this film. I wonder if that’s how they view women? Any little bit of self direction, and they’re seen as irritating? They really have portrayed the women as disagreeable.
And what’s with that man getting that girl to take a bite of his dessert? I thought that was a little weird from personal boundary perspective.
Did anyone find the father’s telling his son — complaining — about his relationship with his wife completely inappropriate? He makes really passive-aggressive comments about his wife to his son. Does this kind of thing go on in real life in people’s homes? Shouldn’t that father model only respect for his wife to their children?
Yes, and keep in mind, the woman’s son is a college-age student. The husband is put off instead of helping her? Two grown men and they grumble that they have to order pizza. NOW who’s portraying men as weak?
I thought the “take a bite” pressure was icky, too.
SPOILER ALERT: The phone call at the end made me think of the topic James and Stacy McDonalds had on their sites referred to in this thread.
Cindy, that was the female lawyer (mom to Caleb) who was pressure from her boss to sample the dessert. The subtleness of it is that the young college intern (Caleb’s Moot Court partner/girlfriend) made that dessert from scratch, emphasizing the real gifting of the home-cooked meals.
That point of servanthood on the part of women was emphasized often in the scenes especially with the young female student (can’t remember her name). The scenes where the wife is “neglecting” the home-cooked meals was not incidental, in my opinion. It felt as if they really wanted to come out and say that the women was not only sinning in her world views on life (an inward struggle based on her background), but that she shouldn’t have even been in such a career in the first place. Funny, since her one and only child was old enough to be in college. But that would make PHC and the makers of this movie look too extreme.
I had to laugh because the p wives are discussing the same movie and the conclusion one of them came to is that having an abortion and marital problems is the logical result of a woman working outside the home and not knowing how to bake a pie. I guess Kevin Swanson was right. Wait a minute, do the PHC students listen to Kevin, too. Geeesh!
The p wives must not have paid attention to the movie very well because the wife wasn’t even a wife when she had the abortion. Her parents made her get the abortion.
Talk about not listening and jumping to illogical conclusions.
I’ve been married for years and my husband hates pies. I used to try to bake him some in our first 2 years of marriage, not realizing that he dislikes cooked fruit. So, I really gave up my pursuit of perfecting any pie recipes. That must make me a white-washed feminist, I guess. I sure am thankful I’m not rushing out to get an abortion, because I had my tubes tied for medical reasons. Otherwise, I would have continued to put my babies’ and my own health at risk. But in some of the patriarchal circles I’ve heard that I would have been killing off any future children, and that’s sin. Oh, well. I guess I’ll go into Life crippled or maimed. 🙂
These Justice League Patriarchs (think of them in spandex tights; it takes the edge off of their rhetoric) 😉 need to remember this passage when they cast aspersions on those who exist outside of their prescripted “roles” according to their standards:
“Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men [are], extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” — Luke 18:10-14
I have to remind myself, also, to remember how great a salvation He’s given to me, and not become wise in my own conceits.
I guess the fact that I like to make pies and I am good at making pies makes me NOT a feminist. 😛
I am watching the movie right now and I am at the part where she is telling her husband that her parents forced her to get an abortion…….
Wow! Brrr….cold response by her husband. Where is the compassion? He has to go think about this and then he leaves while she is sitting there crying after confessing such a deeply gut-wretching secret? What is there to think about? Tell her about Christ and His forgiveness offered to those who repent. Give her a hug and tell her that he loves her.
Sheesh……The pro-aborts will love that part and they will just use it as more canon fodder for their case against fundies who have no heart and who don’t really care about women.
The mother represents a LOT of young girls who have been coerced and/or forced/threatened to get abortions by parents and clinic workers and boyfriends. I am talking about YOUNG girls, not adult women who use abortion as birth control or get an abortion because they can’t be bothered with a child at this time in their lives.
“Did anyone find the father’s telling his son — complaining — about his relationship with his wife completely inappropriate? He makes really passive-aggressive comments about his wife to his son. Does this kind of thing go on in real life in people’s homes? Shouldn’t that father model only respect for his wife to their children?”
I totally saw this dynamic between father and son and it was completely inappropriate, imho. You make an excellent point. The constant barbs by the father to the son about his mother really is not good.
“I’ve had great opportunities, not anything like the one portrayed in this film, and my husband was so excited for me that he was happy to sacrifice. It was if he said, “What can I do to help you realize this?” with joy and support rather than the “You mean you’re going to neglect me again?” response of the husband. Just 180 degrees different from my husband.”
Exactly. I just don’t get it. They have one child who is an adult. Why is the issue of food and who cooks dinner a major theme in this movie? When a married couple gets to that point in their lives, who cares who cooks? My step-father, a real manly man, makes a LOT of the meals because he likes to cook and he likes to take care of my mother. No one would ever accuse him of being a wimp or a girly man, if they wanted to live. 😉 And, yet, he cooks and doesn’t get all whiny about it, either.
He still hasn’t said anything to his wife about her confession of her parents forcing her to get an abortion……But, she is asking him to have dinner. “Would you like me to cook?” he asks. She tells him “no, I will cook”.
Why is that his first concern? She is upset. Why would he care. How about a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich? His wife is hurting and upset and he is concerned about food and who is going to be cooking it? Just seems very weird to me. I can’t relate. A bowl of cereal at a time like this would do just fine in order to minister to someone who was hurting.
And, while we are at it…..where does the story of Mary and Martha fit in this story?
He tells her he isn’t hungry. She tells him she will go turn it off. He tells her that he already did. Now they are kissing.
No talk about her abortion? Odd. I thought that this is what this movie was all about? But, on second thought, it seems to be about food and who cooks that food.
I wonder if they are aware that people were passing their children through the fires of Molech and having marriage problems well before women started working “outside of the home”?
So, should we be making sure that our future prospective daughters in law can bake pies before we give our sons permission to ask them to marry? Is it important if they make their own crust from scratch or take a short-cut and buy the ready-made pie crusts?
I find the part when the mom is talking to Rachel about abortion and she proclaims that not every woman wants to abort her baby…what if her parents make her abort the baby to be interesting especially in light of what she confesses to her husband later on in the movie.
I am a bit disappointed that they didn’t talk more about abortion and the effects it has on women and show more compassion to the post-abortive woman. The only way we are going to get abortion to die out is to reach a person’s heart and there is no better person to reach than a woman who has had an abortion. She can become an ally like no other person can and she can help many women come to the place of healing through Christ and she can also reach women who are considering abortion by sharing her story and how it affected her life.
I am watching this movie like I read books….start at the beginning, skip to the end and then go to the middle!
I am at the batting cage scene between the father and son. The father is in good shape. 😉
Caleb just tells his girlfriend “You are going to wind up just like my mom.” in a very derisive tone. ” What did (Mike) Farris say?” she asks. “Same as always…Do the right thing, who cares if you lose.”
The girlfriend is scary aggressive, grabs his chin so he will look at her and they are arguing about moot court and making his argument there. She tells him that she will see him this evening because his dad asked her to bake another apple pie. Caleb tells her that he didn’t know about it.
Caleb asks her to marry him over the kitchen counter while she is baking in her lovely apron (I love aprons). She tells him that she has been preparing her whole life for marriage. She asks him if he knows what it takes to be a good husband.
Can’t find the part where her boss wants her to take a bit of the pie…..
Okay, I would really like to like this movie, but I keep having to pause it and go do something else because the bad acting and the attitude everyone cops is annoying the snot out of me! The bad acting I’m willing to overlook; if that were me I’d want some grace because I’m sure I wouldn’t be first rate either! But the constant harping on stereotypes of the career woman who of course neglects her family, or the great Christian girl wife material because she’s smart and can cook are just grating on me.
Okay, rant over. …For now. I’m only 20 minutes into it!
Momof4, Here is the exact quote that was made in the context of discussing the movie and whether is is appropriate for younger children:
“I thought it was a great movie to share with some of our family because
even though they did not say that women should be home (touchy subject
for some of them) it shows what happens when they are not.”
Corrie, i was so troubled by the scene when the mom talks about her abortion. It is never resolved in the movie unless cooking a meal for her husband resolves it. Honestly, having done lots of post-abortion counseling through the years, I felt like the dad’s response was typical of someone who had his own abortion story in his past and his anger toward his wife was really misdirected anger toward a woman who aborted his child. That would have made more sense. But if he is the guy in the story we are supposed to like, that really made me not like him at all. And that is when I didn’t like Caleb either.
Alisa, you made such a good point. The ideal wife is supposed to be pretty AND smart. (Don’t you think it is unrealistic that Rachel is the one who argued in year before and got first place so now she takes second place to Caleb in this debate? In real life when would that happen?) So it is OK for a girl to go to college but marriage and domesticity are supposed to be her end goal? Is this the message they hand out at Patrick Henry? Why does Farris even allow girls to go there if they are really supposed to be there looking for a husband? Is this how he gets guys to come to his school? There are just so many messages that are coming through that I don’t really get it. Where is the consistency? And, once again, where is the Scriptural basis for this stuff?
Another note…the latest issue of NGJ has letters from girls who were raised in patriocentric homes and there is quite the PW discussion about how offended they are. Repeatedly these women claim that patriocentricity is the norm. NO ONE IS CHALLENGING THEM. Momof4, here is your chance.
I don’t know much about Michael Farris other than he has 10 kids and they are all homeschooled. Is he in the patriarchy camp or is he just a conservative Christian?
Farris was on the Colbert Report (on Comedy Central) last week and was actually pretty funny. They were discussing Patrick Henry College and how it originally started as a college for homeschoolers. He seemed to take Stephen Colbert’s bantering pretty well.
I was really troubled by the scene wherein the laywer/mother/harlot whose feet stray from home tells her husband about the abortion that her parents compelled her to have. I wanted to talk to my husband about it before I made any kind of comment.
My husband reminded me of something that we discussed a few years ago that was not clearly evident to me until after we were married a few years. My parents have said some pretty demeaning things to me in the past, and it wasn’t until after my husband and I were married for a few years he expressed his anger over some things that were said to me as far back as his first dinner with my parents when we first started dating that angered him. Without getting into the details of it all, my parents have habitually said some hurtful and demeaning things to me which eventually caused my husband to rise up to them in my defense (after figuring out his own role as husband and where he stood with my parents, etc.). They were just words — criticisms of me that my husband believed were entirely unfair that deeply offended him — and not anything that involved forcing me to do something as drastic as having an abortion.
So when discussing this with him, he asked me why I would even question what his hypothetical response to me would be if I told him such a thing like this lawyer wife tells her husband in the film. He said he could only interpret something like this as physical violence against me while in a particularly vulnerable state — a form of abuse far more severe than the verbal criticism/abuse he’d literally witnessed against me as an adult. He said that his response would be anger at my parents who (hypothetically) forced me to choose an option of ethical and moral and physical extreme. Like he’d championed me when they verbally reprimanded me unfairly, he said that his immediate response would likely be one of deep sorrow for me over being so sorely abused, and one of protectiveness — to take up for his weaker vessel for whom he is responsible to defend me against those who harmed me. He was offended that anyone would suggest any other kind of response from a husband in his role as his wife’s protector and comforter. And I have the witness of his previous response to a much lesser offense inflicted by my parents to hold up as a standard for how I could expect him to respond to this hypothetical situation.
There are a couple of things that occur to me that the film might suggest. If that woman passed herself off to her husband as sexually pure when they married, that might be a big issue to overcome, but that would be a mitigating issue and separate from the divorce. If the lawyer/mother had portrayed herself to her husband as a virgin when they married and husband was learning of it all for the first time at that moment, then he’s being faced with a triple whammy: that his wife was promiscuous, that she had an abortion, and that his inlaws had violated her. But I don’t believe that any of those potential mitigating factors were brought up in the film. I could imagine that if the husband thought that his wife was pure and she was not that this would be a separate issue that he would have to struggle with. But they did not give any of that kind of detail in the story that I noted. (I was trying to clean the frige as I watched, so I may have missed some things in the story line).
The other thing that occurs to me is whether the makers of the film are trying to marginalize the concept that some parents actually do insist that their pregnant teen daughters have abortions. I know this to be true, even of some Christians, and those are the ones that I know of. What of the ones I don’t know, as this is not the type of thing one makes public? Is that a message that they’re trying to convey? That women might be using the Flip Wilson excuse of “My parents made me do it” to mitigate their own guilt and fault? I don’t think it’s the standard rule, but I know that it occurs, even among Christian parents and their pregnant teens. (But that doesn’t make abortion itself any less wrong, though it does greatly reduce the woman’s culpability because of unfair coercion.) I think that they could have also played up the point that a young woman could have used the emancipated minor status to refuse an abortion, even if her parents compelled her to do so, though that would be an issue of “bounded choice.” (An option that seems like an option, but in realistic terms is not choice at all because the person choosing has no viable resources to support them after making the choice of dissent.)
I think they really blew it with that whole point, unless it was meant to add an additional factor of vilification to that character who they’d already painted as the greatest antagonist in the film. I think it was only her marriage to her patriarch that saves her in the end. There was no talk of Jesus forgiving any sin or anything like that == that I saw unless I missed it.
I watched the entire movie last night. I agree, the emphasis on the home cooking was strange. The scene where the boss forced the mom to take a bite of the homemade pastry he was eating (after he had already taken a bite – yuck) was just downright creepy. Seems they were implying that since the girlfriend had a healthy interest in the domestic arts, she was more of a “real” woman than the boy’s mother.
Did anyone think about the fact that it was probably because of the mom’s successful career that she was able to just hand her son a check to pay for all of his tuition? To a PRIVATE college! Not many families can do that. The son seemed quite willing to take the tuition check from her, both times. Yet he made the nasty remark to his girlfriend at one point saying, “You’re going to be just like my mother.” Yes, the parents in the movie had some marriage problems, but all marriages are made of two imperfect (sinful) people and even if the woman stays home full time and has supper on the table every night, the marriage is going to have problems to work through.
Peaches: The scene where the boss forced the mom to take a bite of the homemade pastry he was eating (after he had already taken a bite – yuck) was just downright creepy.
Alright, as a nurse, this really makes me sick. You have many, many T-Cells in your mouth (the lymphocyte that the AIDS virus attacks) and in the “tail end” of your GI tract than you do most anywhere else in your body. They hang out there. I’ve had people at church get offended when they’ve asked me for a sip out of my soda can. When I explain to them just how much blood I’ve been exposed to over the years as a nurse (surgical gloves have pores in them that are 15 times larger than the AIDS virus and other viruses like hepatitis), and the fact that you can never know all there is to know about a person’s sexual history even when you know them well (like all the patients I’ve cared for pulling femoral arterial sheaths which involves much blood), they definitely don’t want to drink out of my soda can.
So in some sense, you are more at risk of contracting the AIDS virus via a kiss and gingivitis than you do via standard sexual intercourse. Advice: don’t share food with people and avoid oral contact with as many people as is humanly possible. Taking a clean fork and breaking off a piece of the opposite end of a piece of pie is fine, but biting into someone else’s serving of something that they have just bitten into directly is risky behavior.
So I have that out of my system now, but this really bothered me, because if I had been that woman in the film, no way, no how would I have taken a bite of that guy’s dessert –out of concern for his health and concern for my health — just like I don’t let people drink out of my soda cans. Husbands and small kids that you bore are different. But it is risky behavior to do what they did in that film from a perspective of infectious disease.
All that makes my response to that more intense, because once you are of age, no one should have any say in what goes into your body but you.
Peaches wrote: Did anyone think about the fact that it was probably because of the mom’s successful career that she was able to just hand her son a check to pay for all of his tuition? To a PRIVATE college!
I did stagger at that and considered rewinding both times when they showed an amount written on the check to see how much it was. My parents scrimped to put me in private Christian school, way back when — a whole $86/month which makes me really old. I financed my college via a home equity loan that my parents took out so that I would not get slammed with a high interest rate in financing things directly myself. It was hard for them and a really big deal. They never required me to pay them back for the interest that they would have paid on the loan (above the actual tuition cost), and it never occurred to me to offer to pay them back for it until years after my husband and I bought our own home.
I figured that since they’d vilified that woman so much that it was all part of the selling of one’s soul for money message that they wanted to convey. Notice that Dad didn’t write the checks? What other message was that supposed to convey? It was a MIXED and confusing message.
But my chin fell open at both points when mom nonchalantly hands sonny a check for a whole two years of school at once.
Off topic here, but I was sending info to another person re patriocentricity and linked to the VF tenets. They look a little different to me and I was wondering if someone could verify this. Specifically the phrase about the “grand sweep of revelation” now says “Biblical patriarchy is just one theme in the Bible’s grand sweep of revelation, but it is a scriptural doctrine, and faithfulness to Christ requires that it be believed, taught, and lived.”
Maybe I just forgot that was the way it read, but it seems that some editing might have taken place with their editorial comments. Can anyone confirm this?
Don’t know if anyone is interested in the widely hyped new venture of VF, Behemoth dot com, which is the place to download “trustworthy” audio and video content. I don’t want to give them any money (or encourage weak believers to listen to the content), but each day they have a couple of free downloads. Haven’t tried it yet (maybe some will not want to register with the site), but thought it would be a way to critique some of the teachings without giving anything to the cause.
If anyone’s interested, there are plenty of high quality sites that offer things like Behemoth offers at better prices and they offer free downloads as well. Learn Out Loud is one such site. The difference between them varies greatly. Good sites have people like Derek Jacoby reading literature and lower quality sites have things read by Jane Q Doe and Joe Q Public. So if you are interested in this sort of thing, there are other sites out there that offer the same service at better prices.
Hi there. I sadi awhile back that I wouldn’t be commenting here anymore, but I’m dropping by long enough to pass on some information which I recieved from my daughter this afternoon.
Apparently, milk chocolate coming out of China may be tainted with melamine. My daughter Bethforwarded this email to me:
“Don’t buy or allow your kids to eat the little chocolate coins that are so popular among young children. They are not safe to eat this Halloween. They are made in China and contain the Melamine that childrenʼs deaths were related to recently!!!!!!!
With Halloween coming soon, pass this on to your family and friends.
Sherwood’s Milk Chocolate Pirate’s Gold Coins from China contain melamine. It is true, Read the full story at the following link from Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/coins.asp
…how in the world can the postmodern mind grasp the beauty and purity of faithfulness before marriage?
Against the postmodern mind stands the authoritative Word of God.
“Postmodernism” has become a four-letter word in the same vein as “feminism”, although I think it’s even more nebulous. It makes for a really good (or bad, really) accusation because it’s hard to argue against something that is meaningless.
I’ve been reading John Stackhouse’s Humble Apologetics, which has made me think of postmodernism in a new light.
We need to avoid thinking of modernism as the Godly ideal and postmodernism as something to fear and warn people about. We should strive to understand both so that we are better able to minister to people. Both mindsets have their strengths and weaknesses.
For example, the modernist mindset does believe there is “truth”, yet it is over-confident in human ability to find the right answers, especially with science. Moderns are also skeptical about anything supernatural or unprovable by science.
In that light, we can see that postmodernism, despite its own problems, may have some positives. The postmodern mind is more willing to accept the possibility of the supernatural (i.e. God), is more “tolerant” toward those who dare to think differently, more willing to think that they may not be “right” (so they may be more willing to listen to our humbly-presented point of view), etc.
Stackhouse says it much better, of course, but it’s a bit of relief to me to not have to fear and try to prevent this evil new philosophy. All human systems of thought are flawed. Rather than fear it, we can prepare ourselves for it.
#154 and #156, Cindy K, I hesitated to post this because I didn’t want it to be misconstrued as support for VF or their teachings, as I am totally on the opposite side of that fence. I just thought for those of us who are firmly opposed to patriocentricity but still are curious about what is being passed off as “trustworthy” by them, it could be an avenue to listen to it directly and NOT give them a red cent.
I repeat: NOT, NOT, NOT for anyone leaning to follow into patriocentricity! I haven’t even decided if I am going to be able to listen to the c#$* myself, or if, like with Kevin Swanson, I can only take so much.
There are many better, more edifying, more trustworthy, more biblical websites out there, and those are where I get more doctrinally sound teachings to listen to.
I assumed that those who watch the VF blog and are on his mailing list have already heard about the site, but if someone at TW feels this is better not posted here, you are welcome to take my earlier post (154) down.
Kathy wrote I hesitated to post this because I didn’t want it to be misconstrued as support for VF or their teachings, as I am totally on the opposite side of that fence.
I didn’t think that you were supporting or promoting them at all. You prefaced that well –it might be an opportunity to get a sneak peak into their teachings without having to actually cough up any money. I looked at the site, and it looks nice, but it put me in mind of what my husband and I learned about these same sorts of download sites. Some are very good (I like learn out loud and my husband has some other favorites).
I figured that if anyone went there and saw something they liked and might consider buying, not having any experience with audio book download sites, its worth looking other places first. Many of the things that site charges for can be obtained for free or purchased for much less on sites of very high quality. (Like you, I really don’t want to see them make any money off this new venture. So for the unsuspecting, I thought I’d mention that there are cheaper alternatives, and some of what they charge for can be obtained for free elsewhere.)
I’d be curious to know if anyone has used the new VF site to see what they thought and how it compared to other, similar sites. It’s actually a very clever thing to do, as they have to keep reinventing themselves now that economic times are tougher.
But Kathy, it never crossed my mind that you were pro-VF! 😉
” I was particularly incensed by the way not kissing until the wedding day makes a marriage truly Christian and holy. I guess kissing is the only sin God cares about, and the only one that matters going into a marriage.”
OK, this kind of stuff puts me on my soapbox. The patriarchs do not corner the market on this kind of thinking. This over-obsession with their conceived notion of purity is bizarre. Even when I was growing up (and I’m 44 now) the church emphasized that virginity is the key ingredient in marriage. My own parents even taught us that anyone who has sex outside of marriage is a whore and if a woman commits this particular sin, no other man will ever want her. I am not exaggerating. Perhaps some of you grew up with this, too.
As I became older, I’ve found that there are many couples who have fallen into this sin before marriage, but have repented and gone on to have strong marriages. I’m not at all meaning to imply that virginity isn’t something everyone should strive for. That is clearly God’s plan. Sex is meant for a married man and woman. But, some churches want to ignore the fact that when people do have sex outside of marriage, there is still forgiveness. Making a mistake in this area does not mean you have no worth as a human being, wife, husband, etc.
There are two particular Christian couples I am very close to who were both virgins when they married, but after several years they ended up divorced. In both cases, the women made statements like, “Well we always thought as long as the man and woman were both virgins, that’s the most important thing. We thought because of that, we would always be able to work things out.” I think that is the kind of thinking that is going on in these patriarch circles. You know, save the first kiss until the wedding day and life will be grand…………………. Oh please.
Young people need to know that just “saving yourself for marriage” is NOT the only thing that will keep your marriage together. Marriages and relationships are much more complicated than just what goes on in the bedroom.
I remember awhile back, Michael Pearl wrote an article in their magazine about this. He compared people who had sex before marriage to candy bars. His analogy was that if you have premarital sex, you are like a half eaten candy bar on the store shelf. And who in their right mind would buy an opened, used candy bar? I cringe………………..
Corrie wrote: This is a woman of 23 years old and you want to claim she is Stacy’s “young daughter”? I was an adult at this age, living on my own supporting my son with my own income.
At this age, I was a charge nurse of a critical care unit, responded to cardiac arrests in the hospital where I worked, and I taught formal critical care programs to nurses. By then, I’d been on several medical missions trips alone and without a patriarch or another soul that I knew (with the Assemblies of God), including service in a country during their elections with communist radicals out in the streets. (Their government gave us a military escort while our team was there.) Oh yeah, and I also married that year. I’d been well able to make homemade pie dough and whatever kind of pie you could imagine since highschool and could make whatever my mother could make. I don’t think I would have liked to have been considered a “young girl” at this point.
But my mother and father were also NOT plastering the details about my soon to be husband and me all over the internet, either. We had a tiny wedding and would have been happy to elope (but my HUSBAND wanted the wedding for his family and friends). I was perfectly content with keeping it all private.
Wow! I had forgotten about the candy bar analogy. Good thing that Christ doesn’t agree with him about that. He makes ALL things new.
Thank God I am not relegated to the half-eaten candy bar status because of Christ or I would still be sitting on that shelf where people are taking bits out of me.
Jesus seemed to be especially drawn to half-eaten candy bars and He used them to show His grace and His redemption. Michael Pearl seems to think that people would be crazy to want to have anything to do with such a person. Again, good thing these men are not Christ.
Oh yeah. I forgot to mention that my mother worked a full-time job, yet I learned all the kinds of things that Martha Stewart now teaches on TV and goofy things that are featured in magazines that seem to have been written for people that must have been raised by wolves. So I don’t know how I managed to have been raised in a home that sounds like it accomplished what home discipleship accomplishes, learned to cook, always had cooked meals and clean laundry…. all while my mother worked full-time from the time I went off to kindergarden. Hmmm. How did that happen?
You were happy to keep it private because you weren’t using everyday life experiences to make money nor were you trying to sell books or ministry materials.
I think we all agree that 23 year old women are not fittingly described as a “young daughter”.
Actually, I would say that the year I turned 23 was my best year. That was my “Golden Birthday” and I became a believer in Christ that year and so did my mother a few months after me. I could easily go back to that year because it was filled with such amazing, life-changing events.
I was an adult and I also had to own up to my own decisions, too.
Well, I would say that ‘Young man” is different than “young son.” And I think “young daughter” is different than “young woman.” We cannot compare “young man” to “young daughter.” Now, had you said “young woman” then I don’t think we would have thought a thing of it. But “young daughter” implies someone not a woman.
Karen told you that this young man stated that this young woman called off her betrothal to him on his blog.
How can you claim that you haven’t seen any verification of it and then accuse us of being gossips and saying that you are appalled with our gossip?
At the age of 42, anyone who is 23 is a “young man” or a “young woman”. They are young. But, when you say:
“Frankly, I find it appalling to see the speculation swirling. If you all have a problem with Stacy, fine. But, to drag her young daughter and her relationship into it is very unbecoming.””
It gives a totally different idea of “young”. No one is dragging Stacy’s “young daughter” into this at all. There has been no speculation, either and this has been verified as far as I am concerned.
You choose not to believe the FACTS and instead call us gossips and tell us that you find our “gossip” “appalling”.
When you say “young daughter” you belie the fact that this young woman is an ADULT.
I have a “young daughter” and she is 5. I also have another “young daughter” and she is 9. I have 4 teenage daughters and my oldest daughter is 18. I would NOT refer to her as my “young daughter”. She is a young woman, an adult.
Big difference between the way that I used the word “young” and the way you did. You used it as a weapon to hurl at us which does not give an accurate picture of the truth. I used it as a middle-age woman referring to someone who is 20 years YOUNGER than myself. Just look it up in the dictionary. The way you used it connotes someone who hasn’t been around for very long. The way I used it connotes someone who is younger than myself. You wanted us to believe that her daughter is young and therefore it is unfair to talk about this when she is really an adult, grown woman. She is NOT a child and that is the way your wording made it appear.
Again, I don’t expect you, based on our past discussions, to actually understand any of this. You have your mind made up.
You falsely claim that you haven’t seen any verification when we have given you the verification? Very clever, I suppose.
There is no one more postmodern than the patriocentrists — hence the advertising and buzz terms and phrases like white washed feminist and multi-generational faithfulness.
If our world is postmodern, then we’d better be able to relate for the purposes of evangelism and such. Andrew Sandlin addresses some of these same kinds of things in his “We Must Create A New Kind of Christian” statement. Harold O.J. Brown has written on this subject as well. There are aspects of postmodern thought that very much typify me in some ways and of those in my general age group, and those things enhance my faith in a unique way in some respects. Like any cloud, there are silver linings to be had about any perspective. And I believe that God will use those things uniquely for such a time as this. (Though the relative morality is uniquely problematic, and I prefer modernism to postmodernism in this respect.)
“Karen told you that this young man stated that this young woman called off her betrothal to him on his blog.”
She said that *after* I said I hadn’t seen verification. She said, “Corrie, according to the young man who was betrothed to Tiffany McDonald, she broke it off. Maybe this explains the removal of James’ article on how binding betrothal is. Has anyone read anything about this anywhere? If it is so “permanent” then what gives?”
She didn’t say where until later. BTW, it’s been stated that it’s on his blog. No link provided so I attempted to look. I did not find what is claimed here. Could be I’m blind but I have not found what you all are saying.
So, we are dragging Stacy through the mud and you would have us believe that you are not here to defend Stacy?
Stacy drug herself through the mud by making this a spectacle and by broadcasting her authoritative teachings on binding betrothal. Now a young man is being drug through the mud based on her own teachings because they will cause people to think that he was a bad boy and their daughter had to break off a BINDING betrothal because some moral deficiency was found in him. You want her to be able to make all of this public but any discussion is off limits? Weird. I wonder if you practice that consistently? We are not to test the teachings, then? We are not to make sure that our teachers are not hypocrites?
I am trying to clean up this muddy mess. You would have us sit in the filthy mud and make mud pies and pretend that everything is clean and right and fine.
Corrie said, “Really, the whole film revolved around this them: “Woman, cook me some food.” The message, loud and clear, was that a true woman cooks and working moms are angry shrews who don’t cook for their husbands. The whole pie thing is just strange. It was symbolic of something, I just don’t know what yet.”
This food obsession reminds me of something I read:
A few years ago, an author named Susan Maushart wrote a book called “Wifework”. I stumbled on it by accident in the public library one day and checked it out. Mind you, she’s a feminist, so I certainly don’t adhere to her way of thinking, but sometimes I think it’s interesting to read things from the other side.
In her book, one of the things she wrote about was how obsessed married men are with meals. I had to laugh because it was certainly true in my case. When my husband was single, he had no trouble making meals and feeding himself, but once we were married he suddenly became helpless in that area. At the time he was working on an advanced degree. I had finished my degree and was working full-time, but he had this expectation that I would be able to have a home cooked meal on the table just like a woman who stays at home full time. Needless to say, we had to have a discussion about the reality of our situation and how we would have to share the domestic responsibilities during that time in our marriage. He finished his degree years ago and I can now stay home full time, so I have no objection to making home cooked meals on a regular basis, but I think for every couple there’s going to be a different dynamic.
I have had to recover from several years of reading the Pearl’s materials on marriage and child rearing. I had tried to adhere to many of the things they said would make a “heavenly” marriage, only to find my marriage in not such great shape. Yes, most of my endeavors included lots of food and lots of sex. It was not until my husband and I went to a good Christian marriage counselor that we realized these “one size fits all books” do not pertain to us. And yes, with some direction from our male counselor, my husband realized HE (gasp) was part of the problem. Imagine!! (ha, ha)
You know, I am not out teaching that I have figured out the panacea for raising children. I’m not even instructing people about how to make good pie dough with my grandmother’s recipe. (Oh, and do I have a wonderful pumpkin pie recipe that has been passed down through generations. But my husband hates pumpkin pie. I had to switch to sweet potato of which he will eat only one slice per year. I have to eat the rest of the pie myself.) 😉
But there are many out there who broadcast to the rest of the Body of Christ that they have discovered the “Biblical” panacea for perfect outcomes for raising children. But then if we ask why Carmon Friedrich’s son is missing in action or why the eldest McDonald child is missing in action or why Phillip Lancaster’s daughter is missing in action, we are gossips. It sounds as though that for those who push these teachings (the few who are old enough to have kids that they raised through the whole process), their effectiveness is not all that different from other Christians who did not follow the prescribed order of living. That’s very significant.
Robin Phillips writes about his findings in his critique of courtship, pointing out many pitfalls and problems in the Lindvall system from which Stacy and James seem to borrow heavily. I guess his work is all gossip, too. I guess he dragged all of those people who were very willing to talk about their awful experiences through the mud. I know someone who was shunned by her family for refusing to follow their view of courtship and had to leave the family home. It’s pretty sad, actually. But I guess that would be gossip, even though their family did not plaster it all on a blog for the world to see.
If I pastored a church, published magazines, spoke at homeschooling conferences and wrote books that were discussed on national radio shows about how to grow great tomatoes, and I put pictures of my tomatoes all over the internet about my latest crop of seedlings as exemplars, then I have put myself up on a public pedestal. Keep in mind that I make money and draw my income from the marketing of my plans for growing great tomatoes, just like Organic Gardening magazine does.
Now if that crop of seedlings bites the dust and people who bought my book about how to raise great seedlings and great tomatoes had some questions, would that not follow suit? Or if I said that I was fully committed to this plan and method for seedlings — one that I claimed to be defined by the Word of God, would that not give the discerning person cause to question what I have done and why I failed? Would it be gossip to ask questions about the process? Was my soil contaminated with tomato-killing nematodes? Did I put the seedlings out in the direct sun before hardening them? Was there a late frost? Or was I sold a bill of goods about the secrets to raising fool-proof tomatoes using God’s method? As someone interested in growing great tomatoes, I think I’d like to know and that it’s natural to question the process.
But when they use their kids’ private lives as if they are vegetables, then it’s vile gossip on my part?
“You didn’t ask for the link until AFTER YOU CLAIMED THAT YOU HAD NO VERIFICATION IN #159. YOU DIDN’T STATE YOU WENT LOOKING FOR THIS CLAIM LONG AFTER YOU MADE THE ACCUSATION THAT THERE IS NO VERIFICATION.”
I didn’t have verification and I shouldn’t have to go looking for it. When a claim is made, verification should be forthcoming.
BTW, I know you said you were done but, if you wouldn’t mind, just for my own curiosity, would you point me to the post between #143 and #159 where it is mentioned that Jared’s blog is the source of the information. I can’t see it.
At 23, I had been married three years and had two children, and was finishing up my BA degree. I was also working in retail. And yes, I can cook a mean pie. But my husband doesn’t like them.
My husband is an amazing guy, and as he said in quite a huff after we watched the vid : “Why in the world must it portray us men as so helpless? I can fix my own dinner, thank you very much, if it means you are following your dreams!” Notwithstanding the bad acting, the snobby attitudes, and the bad production. Sheesh.
I must agree with Claire on this subject- I feel uncomfortable discussing their betrothal precisely because it is a private matter. I can only imagine how I would have felt if the whole web world knew every intimate detail. It has bothered me since the beginning. It was too much information for me- I see nothing wrong with saying, oh Jane and John were betrothed today, or Jane and John were engaged today, or Jane and John were married today with a few pictures, etc. But to go on and on about how this is the holy, biblical, blahdeblah way and NOTHING can mess it up and check out the first kiss in all it’s pixelated glory?!?
And the first kiss? I would think that for people who have never ever had any physical contact, this would be a very sacred, private moment. I, for one, would not want it plastered all over the internet! I am married and I would not feel comfortable posting a picture of my husband and I kissing.
There is a very fine line bloggers must walk (let alone those who are teachers/preachers/parachurch ministries) between the public and the private.
I love the Boundaries books and they helped me so much. I still struggle with setting proper boundaries but this book really helped me to get over the guilt and such that I falsely carried for so long.
You are exactly correct. It is mind boggling. The whole fantasy fairy-tale aspect is disturbing and it has disturbed me from the beginning. Especially because I have children of the same age.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said “immature”. The sad thing is that Jane Austen seemed to get it and these people think that what she was portraying was good when she was showcasing what was wrong with society at that particular time. The women were immature, pleasure-seekers, friovolous and concerned about trite and shallow things. It was one amusement after another…fun, fun, fun. The men were seen as a means to the end. The Austen characters that shattered the social myths of that day were today’s version of the white-washed feminist.
I wonder why they don’t try to emulate the peasants of that time?
I was thinking that same thing about Jared and the fact that he’s escaped the madness. They did him the biggest favor that they possibly could by setting him free. It makes me think of that old adage about what is worse than staying in a bad marriage that has lasted 5 years? Five years and one day is worse. So a failed betrothal is a whole lot better than a failed wedding or a failed marriage by comparison. Though one should not enter into a betrothal carelessly, it is semi-binding only and not as advanced as other phases in the process. Better to “nip things in the bud,” so to speak.
I wonder why they don’t try to emulate the peasants of that time?
Because it’s much more fun to re-enact a scene from Pride and Prejudice (with the early advent of indoor plumbing) than it is a scene from Jabberwocky (with chamber pots, if one even owned a chamber pot).
You ask about whether a binding betrothal is just plain ol’ engaged. What if it turns out to be just like plain old serious dating with a desire to develop a relationship conducive to a long term commitment of marriage. That would make this all a difference of semantics only.
It was Mr. Collins who was such a geek, and Lizzie who refused him; Mr. Bingley was just kind of goofy, and he and Jane were in love.
Another observation on courtship from classic British lit:
“The fact is unalterable, that a fellow-mortal with whose nature you are acquainted solely through the brief entrances and exits of a few imaginative weeks called courtship, may, when seen in the continuity of married companionship, be disclosed as something better or worse than what you have preconceived, but will certainly not appear altogether the same.” George Eliot, Middlemarch, 1871.
So I guess we could call in a truth universally acknowledged that courtship, engagement, serious dating, whatever you want to call it, encourages rosy and ultimately unrealistic expectations. There is a reason why Austen’s stories end with the heroine engaged or newly wed and not five or ten or even one year into her marriage. And most of the long-married couples in her books are faintly ridiculous, reduced to putting up with each other’s eccentricities.
23 isn’t very long ago for me (although I was married and thousands of miles from friends and family at younger than that!) but I will say this: I am all for young women being held responsible if they behave badly.
But, BUT, let’s not forget how hard it must be to take responsibility for one’s actions when one is raised in the patriocentric paradigm? A young woman who should be trained to recognise God’s will for her life, and responsible for her own self, is instead told she under her father’s authority and must do everything her parents tell her until she gets married (at which point her husband takes over telling her everything). Is it any wonder young women behave irresponsibly? We can’t even tell how freely they make their decisions (to enter into courtship, to become betrothed, to publicise that fact, to break off a betrothal) because they haven’t been raised to be responsible for this stuff. They don’t realise that they are going to be standing before God accounting for all this – NOT Daddy, but THEM.
I might not be expressing myself very well. I really don’t want to comment on the actual people involved because I don’t know them and I do truly want to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I guess my point is, this type of situation is EXACTLY what the Vision Forum method of raising daughters leads to. Heartbreak and embarrassment and young adults who aren’t able to make sensible mature decisions.
I feel very badly for them, and so angry at the foolish, attention-hungry people who create these situations. God love them.
“I guess my point is, this type of situation is EXACTLY what the Vision Forum method of raising daughters leads to. Heartbreak and embarrassment and young adults who aren’t able to make sensible mature decisions.”
Yes and when these daughters do feel led to lead to from under their fathers authority and attend college they are considered rebellious and out of Gods will. What is so sad is that this even applies to those who still remain true to their faith in Christ, who are maturing and growing as Christians and who are involved in mission work for the Lord. These parents don’t seem to realize that God is leading these woman in the way He wants them to go, instead they label them as worldly and rebellious. How hurtful this is to the daughters who are truley committed to Christ, following His will for them yet considered worldly by their parents.
Hey, the gospel of pie baking film on God Tube has been extended for two more days of free viewing.
It is really sad, because there are aspects of the film that were well done, but there were just so many other things about it all that made no sense.
I keep trying to make sense of different aspects of it. How is it that the mother lawyer was presenting at the Moot Court against her son? That makes no sense.
Corrie pointed out some weirdness to me where the girlfriend takes the young protagonist by the chin and moves his face. What was that? Do they think that all women are wild aggressors. (You don’t invade people’s personal face like that. It’s either too intimate or it’s threatening to touch someone’s face.) Then there is the mystery of why the girl is at the same house as the boy when she gets the call from her dad to hear that she’s been approved for marriage. Did she live there? Was she hanging out there and had free run of the house? That was confusing. And what about the precedent that the wife paid the bills. That bothers me, too.
And when I linked over to GodTube, the first voice you hear on the clip is that of the mother laywer, with a grating, irritating voice. Is that how they really perceive all women?
Just to make everyone aware…comments from Donna Carlaw/Webfoot have been deleted from the most recent threads. (Other commenters may have been deleted if the comments no longer made sense out of context. Others were left because there were clear points made that did not need the context of the coversation to make sense.)
It was stated back in June that Donna was not welcome here after she repeatedly tried to reveal private information and/or real names about other commenters, in an attempt to slander.
Again, as we have stated repeatedly, we welcome dissenting comments so long as they are done so respectfully . Name calling, hateful speech, and personal attacks will not be tolerated.
“Yes and when these daughters do feel led to lead to from under their fathers authority and attend college they are considered rebellious and out of Gods will. What is so sad is that this even applies to those who still remain true to their faith in Christ, who are maturing and growing as Christians and who are involved in mission work for the Lord. These parents don’t seem to realize that God is leading these woman in the way He wants them to go, instead they label them as worldly and rebellious. How hurtful this is to the daughters who are truley committed to Christ, following His will for them yet considered worldly by their parents.”
“I keep trying to make sense of different aspects of it. How is it that the mother lawyer was presenting at the Moot Court against her son? That makes no sense.”
I thought that was what it was too, after seeing one of the “must see” clips, but after watching the movie I realized that what it was supposed to be was the mother was presenting her case at the Supreme Court on the same day as Caleb was arguing his moot court case, really just as a vehicle to show the arguments side my side.
I’ve been thinking about this movie and PHC after looking them up the other night, and if the Farris’ are deserving of the “patriarchal” label, and I’ve decided on this:
Considering that Farris’ second daughter spent 2 years doing mission work in Russia (I think it was) before she got married, and that PHC gladly accepts girls for more than “Home Management” courses, indeed girls who plan on running for office in the future, I cannot see how it is justifiable to lump him in with the Botkin’s and Phillips. He obviously esteems women’s minds and sees them as something to be cultivated.
That being said, I think it would be fair to say that he is complementarian. And being human and therefore a sinner, I’m sure there are stories out there that are not flattering to him, and some have said they’ve heard or read.
So, with the majority of PHC students probably falling in the GNAP flavored complementarianism, I’m not surprised to see a theme of cooking being the obvious choice for the medium to display that the working mom is not investing in her family. I think it was a natural choice for them, and it suited their purpose just right. But, after thinking it over, I want to give them the benefit of the doubt that they weren’t trying to make some big gender message with the storylines of the mom working and not cooking, and the girl good at cooking. I think it was quite possible a complementarian message, but certainly not patriachal (even still, regardless of their “position”, I don’t think it was an unBiblical message, considering that the Proverbs 31 woman was an active woman of the world, yet still played a role in caring for her family’s daily care). But it’s also possible that they randomly chose the cooking to show that the mother wasn’t attentive to her husband’s needs or love language, and I didn’t find the character of Rachel at all unrealistic; I think there are a lot of girls out there who like law and politics and also love to bake. And, considering that the husband would cook spoke volumes to me. As the wife told him, “that was very kind of him”. Sacrificial love in action. I think it may have just been one of the obvious. known things that made the husband feel loved (his love language) and his wife was not active in it.
As for the reaction to the mother’s confession, perhaps it’s because I had read other reviews here and was expecting something else, but I wasn’t really at all surprised at the husbands’ response. Honestly, I thought it was kind of natural, given that they already were at an emotionally distant place. I did, however, expect Caleb to go give her a hug; it just seemed natural, so that was kind of disappointing.
And I made it through the entire movie, and didn’t remember hearing the father say anything that was inappropriate to the son, but then, I’ve been around of enough inappropriate, unhealthy talk in my life that I may just be accustomed to it!
Alisa, I had drawn the same conclusions about Michael Farris as you have until last summer when his wife gave such glowing reviews (her’s is included in the printed book credits) of Passionate Housewives Desperate for God. Once again, I had a major disconnect, knowing that the Farris girls have gone to college and that PHC does allowed girls to attend. However, I would guess that they HAD to allow women there in order to become accredited or taken seriously and also legally if they intend to be accredited as a law school at some point in history. I’m not ready to give them a pass on this issue quite yet.
Having mulled over that movie for the past few days, I have come to the conclusion that the PHC students have probably never talked with a real live woman who has had an abortion. I saw no compassion whatsoever toward the one in their film. This project is being promoted as one to show your congressman and frankly I would be embarrassed to do so. It could only add to the nuttiness factor many of them think pro-lifers have.
“Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” by John Piper and Wayne Grudem was promoted at our church today. Since I haven’t read it but remember that many on here had major reservations about it, can anybody here who has read it point out the areas of concern?
My pastor is very open to hearing concerns or correction (he said so), but I want to go to him with more than “I’ve heard negative things about this book”. I’ve been trying to stay out of messes that come with this subject and just keep the main thing the main thing, but when it’s endorsed from the pulpit and I know the pastor would be as concerned about the twisted applications that can come from it as I am, but I need to be able to show him bad hermeneutics or a faulty paradigm.
You are wise to keep the main thing the main thing…because the book that is being promoted at your church does not. It makes a tertiary doctrine the main thing. It leads women AWAY from Christ and looking to their husbands as their ‘christ’. Jesus Christ is our only High Priest.
“Where did I say that someone forced him to wear tights and that they spent a “ton” of money?”
“This is nothing new. And you are falling for it. For Pete’s sake, they made him dress up in tights in some Jane Austin fantasy role-play in order to ask their daughter to marry him. That is way more than most men would do!”
Thanks, Lin. I followed the link and just the reviews and comment review contained enough strife to start my stomach turning.
Since I don’t have time and energy to do a bunch of research into this, I might just email him and state that I’ve encountered concerns regarding the book and just share the paradigm shift I’ve chosen to take (with wonderful peace as a result!) of “submitting unto one another”, focusing on the “one another’s”, and treating others as you want to be treated as a general rule with everybody, leaving gender behind. It’s so incredibly liberating. This is just such a healthier approach than seeing everything through the gender roles… not to mention the fallacies that can follow such as the Eternal Subordination of the Son. (BTW, this is actually NOT an issue at my church, it just so happens we’re in 1 Timothy, so of course we encountered it.)
“Are you serious? You say I am harping on one issue because I bring up the example of you knowing firsthand information that you deceptively kept from everyone on this blog? And then you compare it to the tights comment?”
Corrie, I do not have firsthand information. Stacy did not tell me the kids were adopted. I thought I’d read it somewhere. I don’t know where and I don’t even know if I read it at all. It was something *I thought* I remembered. So, yes, you’re harping.
Lin is exactly right. This massive book turns a smallish topic into the most important issue – one they say is crucial to the gospel.
I read the book a number of years ago and remember how very convincing it is. It’s dangerous because it does such an excellent job of making all other views look utterly ridiculous.
They are sure on every passage; no passage is difficult for them. A more balanced approach would be to admit difficulties and be speculative in areas. Surely there isn’t such controversy over this issue if the Bible really is that straightforward!
At the very least, it’s good to remember that the people who wrote this book and many who promote it believe (and insist) that anyone who disagrees with their paradigm is a heretic [see the T4G statement of faith and blog, for example]. We ought to be skeptical of anyone who says they alone have the perfect interpretation of the Bible (especially of passages that are admittedly controversial).
Let’s stand for the truth, yes, but humbly. And let’s be merciful toward those who disagree.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
There was a book written specifically to discuss the errors in the CBMW’s, “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.”
It’s called, “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy.” Ed. by Ronald Pierce, Gordan Fee, and Rebecca Merril Gruithius.
It’s VERY good and I can’t recommend it enough, except to warn you that it’s meaty and thick (anyone wanting a little light read isn’t going to be happy). It is very readable, though, and fascinating to anyone interested in the subject of manhood and womanhood and the Bible. Mine is underlined here, there, and everywhere, with copious notes in the side-margins… 🙂
I read the book a number of years ago and remember how very convincing it is. It’s dangerous because it does such an excellent job of making all other views look utterly ridiculous.
They are sure on every passage; no passage is difficult for them. A more balanced approach would be to admit difficulties and be speculative in areas. Surely there isn’t such controversy over this issue if the Bible really is that straightforward!
Exactly. (It reminds me of the Pearls childrearing manuals in that respect)! Their book speaks authoritatively, and topples over all arguments against it…only, often times the “arguments” it topples ARE NOT actual egalitarian arguments but are rather shoddy versions of egal-sounding arguments. To anyone who doesn’t know what the ACTUAL egal arguments are, though, they are going to think that the CBMW book is amazing and is really truly “Biblical”… Gar…
The CBMW was one of the “staple” reads of my formerly patriarchal stance…my copy is battered and worn and very familiar to me. Sadly, I never paused to question whether or not the CBMW “version” was a version—-I thought it was straight-forward truth. *shakes head* Ugh. It makes me frustrated just to think about it.
Did anyone see the TLC program on “Purity Balls” last night? I was glad they showed it, because it really showed the movement for what it is. Everything is about the girls remaining pure, not a thing was said about the boys. One of the fathers referred to himself as the “high priest” of his home/family, another used the word patriarchy (and said it’s a good thing), and they talked about being their daughters’ “covering” – all those concepts that sound so biblical but really aren’t. At the ball, they use soundtracks to great films, and I immediately thought of Cindy K and how she would point out how emotionally manipulative that is. They also showed a young woman who fell short of the standard and whose relationship with her parents has been damaged ever since. I was glad they showed that side of it, too.
I have to chuckle! A friend of mine, George Kudolo used to have a website about spiritual abuse (after getting out of heavy involvement of a fairly large cultic church near Lackland in San Antonio). He once had an article up on his site (that I can no longer find) that ranted and raved about the theme from “Titanic” and how people thought it was awe inspiring. He went on about how the words didn’t really make sense and how he could not figure out why anyone really liked that decadent and unrealistic movie at all. (It wasn’t perverse enough on its own so they threw in a painting of whores by Picasso that was not on the Titanic…) But they get all emotionally moved by that song. (But the Titanic film is another huge and disappointing subject…)
I looked to see if we could view the TLC show, and I could not find it, but they are going to rebroadcast it. I don’t have cable, so if anyone finds out how to watch it online, I’d love to find out about it.
Nov 12, 10:00 pm
Nov 13, 1:00 am
A unique look into Purity Balls, where fathers and daughters subscribe to the single fundamental notion of chastity, with the fathers pledging to protect their young daughters’ purity, and the daughters pledging to remain virgins until they marry.
I recorded the Purity Balls show on TLC. I will try and make you a copy of it, Cindy. I fell asleep half-way through it so I will have to watch it again. So far, they were highlighting the ceremonial aspects and how many of these girls are going to this ball year after year. They followed a couple of these girls and showed their new dresses for the upcoming ball. I fell asleep around the time that they were interviewing a young woman who went through all of this but didn’t remain pure.
I have opinions about this whole Purity Ball thing. I can’t think of any adjectives to describe what I think about them that won’t offend those who love these things.
I found it interesting that one of the girls who married and didn’t kiss her husband until their wedding stated that she had remained pure but her husband had dated many other girls before her.
If they are not putting the same pressure on these young men to be pure, then what good is it? I mean, they could give their pure wives clamydia (sp?) (undetected in males) and it could ravage her reproductive organs and render her infertile before she even knows she has the venereal disease.
I just do not understand the lopsided attitude of purity among certain people. Is it a “boys will be boys” kind of thing?
“You did work on building a relationship, but one wherein we were not given any reasonable disclosure and one with an inequitable balance of power through knowledge. That’s the epitome of deceit. Reasonable people (such as the “reasonable man” defense and perspective used in a court of law) believe that leaving out crucial information is very deceptive, perhaps even more deceptive than outright lies. You may have not been directly asked about the very specifics of how you know the McDonalds, so you didn’t offer the details, so that’s not deceptive? That might work with some of the people some of the time, but that doesn’t pass as acceptable with me nor with the people who I think are like me on this forum.”
Thank you for putting into words what I was incapable of saying.
The game-playing and the deceptive and carefully chosen words is so very clear to me. She knew what we were asking when we said “other sources” but then said “Good grief!” as if we were nuts.
My radar was not off. I had guessed that she could be possibly the one that I thought she was by writing style and by other information she gave.
Cindy knows that I have a reliable radar system because of something we both went through some time ago.
I find her attitude towards me from the beginning to make perfect sense once I figured out who she was.
“Since I don’t have time and energy to do a bunch of research into this, I might just email him and state that I’ve encountered concerns regarding the book and just share the paradigm shift I’ve chosen to take (with wonderful peace as a result!) of “submitting unto one another”, focusing on the “one another’s”, and treating others as you want to be treated as a general rule with everybody, leaving gender behind. It’s so incredibly liberating. This is just such a healthier approach than seeing everything through the gender roles… not to mention the fallacies that can follow such as the Eternal Subordination of the Son. (BTW, this is actually NOT an issue at my church, it just so happens we’re in 1 Timothy, so of course we encountered it.)”
Alisa, what a refreshing comment! I could not agree MORE! The whole ‘gender’ approach to everything takes us away from
They try to communicate that if we DON”T have THEIR gender approach to everything then we are condoning homosexuality and other vile things. This brings fear and it works.
One verse that is completely ignored by them is Eph 5:21. This verse does NOT exempt husbands or any men. :o)
You mean young men don’t go to purity balls? I guess I never thought about it before. The young men aren’t likewise encouraged to the same degree and in the same way as young women?
Ah, wait a minute. Hold the phone. I guess I realized that girls would be more interested in this sort of thing, but something about all this just now clicked for me.
(Corrie, you mentioned chlamydia. Perhaps that’s why this all has a new significance for me. I just saw a TV show last week that said that HPV — venereal warts — is now confirmed to be linked to a dramatic rise in throat cancer in both genders, though it is dramatically increased in women. If there is a confirmed venereal infection, the incidence of throat cancer sky rockets. Here is another disease that is carried by men who go largely asymptomatic while women bear a higher incidence of serious and life threatening problems. But young men are not stressed to remain pure to the degree that young women are, yet they transmit these diseases, usually not finding out that they are infected until their spouses or partners have infertility or abnormal pap smears.)
I guess with that on my mind (and knowing two people who died with throat cancer over the past two years, one male and one female and having worked in an ICU with a plastics surgeon who used to recreate throats for people out of small intestine), I guess that’s why this has taken on new meaning for me. We aren’t stressing for young men to remain pure to the degree that we do so for young women.
Why did I not pick up on that element of all this before?
Stacy put out a plea for donation on her PW list for you during the time you were in business with the McDonalds. I was on it at the time and I remember getting it via the PW list.
The information on your blog confirmed to me that you were who I thought you were. I am not sure what you mean by saying that I lifted info off of your blog.
“You know, Stacy did not use TPW to do something nice for me.”
What was it then if it wasn’t a nice gesture to you?
I also want to make known: The information that you have “discovered” about me (that I was *not* hiding) was lifted from a post you found on my blog. That post was written *on the anniversary of my daughter’s death,* Corrie. It was written to testify as to what God has done in our lives in spite of unspeakable tragedy.”
It only confirmed it to me. I remembered the whole thing clearly, told it to Karen and your blog THEN confirmed it to me that I was remembering it clearly.
It is your identity and your BIAS and your deceptiveness that we are talking about.
I understand that it was a tragedy as I have had a stillborn. I know how I am grateful to the people who helped me out during that dark time and took care of my children while I was very close to death in the hospital. But, I am not talking about that tragedy.
I am talking about the fact that you are very close to the McDonalds and you were deceptive of that fact. Please do not make this into something it is not in order to drum up emotion. I am sure we all feel very bad that you had to go through that, esp. those of us who have lost children.
“I guess anything goes, doesn’t it? I would have hoped that some things were off limits and exploiting a post made for a deceased child might be one of them.”
Huh? No one is exploiting you. You are very biased towards the McDonalds and your behavior on this list shows it. The sketchy details I gave is not to exploit you but to show that you were exploiting us and playing us for a fool.
You can ask Karen and she will tell you that I gave her the details of your relationship to Stacy BEFORE I read your blog. Your blog only confirmed that I remember correctly.
If you would have been honest with us and told us that you were good friends with the McDonalds, had been a moderator of the PW list, had been business partners/investors of the McDonald’s short venture into publishing Homeschool Today and that she had used the PW list to raise money for you during a time of tragedy, we would all know where you are coming from.
Now you turn it around and make it look like we are the bad guys for exposing your very real connections?
No WONDER you are so defensive of the PW list. It makes perfect sense and to deny that you are defensive is not being honest with yourself or others.
Yes, your mistake for thinking you can fool people and deceive them when we are trying to discuss things in truth.
” From what you presented over many weeks and the manner in which you presented it, I could only assume that you were a person who had innocently found your way into participation on that Yahoo group without any other knowledge of who the McDonalds were and how they operated. In so doing, you were very deceptive, and I cannot fathom how you could possibly now claim otherwise.”
I did not know the McDonalds before I joined PWs. Nor did I know anything about them. I don’t know that there was anything to know about them all those years ago. I had never heard of them before I joined PWs. I met Stacy on that list. I was not at all deceptive.
You said you would have treated me differently if you knew my relationship with the McDonalds. That really is it. No one who knows them would be given the time of day here because this is all about tearing them down. That’s sad to me considering this is a Christian website but I have enough experience to know that that is not going to change.
I have had very, very little contact with the McDonalds over the course of the last few years so I had no idea of most of the things you were talking about here regarding them. It was all news to me so I tried to figure out if any of it was true; if things had changed drastically since I’d been in communication with them.
My conscience is clear here. I was not deceptive. I was staying anonymous to protect myself and my family from the digging that is done. Desire for anonymity is not the same as deceptive. Didn’t work. Some went looking for what they could on me and used something I’d written in honor of my deceased daughter against me. You talked about love….that’s not loving.
I also wonder, if I had come here and said my real name and given a list of my firends, would I have been shown, “We Christians are called to love, hope and believe all good things about a person unless we are given other cause.” I’m thinking no.
The Purity Balls certainly have a high “ick” factor in my opinion. I can’t remember where I saw clips of one of those balls awhile back – might have been YouTube, but it was downright creepy.
Yes – I agree 100% with those of you who have pointed out how any teaching about boys’ purity is MIA. It definitely seems they are putting the pressure squarely on the shoulders of the girls. If the boys are to be future leaders of the home and heads of household, the responsibility should be more focused on THEM. What better way to start leading than by protecting your beloved’s honor?
“What I am upset with is the deception about the NATURE and LEVEL of CONNECTION of you relationship with Stacy.”
I did not deceive, Cindy. I’m sorry you see it that way. I respect your view of the situation but I did not deceive.
“When you discuss matters with someone who holds to a different view, you do not conceal your motives if you respect them. You disclose them in respect, otherwise you’re playing the dangerous game of the end justifying the means. You did that here. Some people don’t have a problem with that. I do.”
I’ve stated my motives here before. I can’t help that others think they know my motives better than I do.
“For the record, I’d like to point out that a comment directed at me appears to talk about someone’s deceased daughter, a matter I don’t know about and never mentioned.”
That comment was directed at Corrie and it’s my deceased daughter. Her “ah ha!” came from a post I made on my blog on the anniversary of my daughter’s death. It doesn’t have anything to do with anything else.
I don’t know if you actually want me to answer any of your questions since you’ve already invested so much time.
That is an interesting parable about the man who goes to his master and asks forgiveness for a huge monetary debt of denari that is so high he could never begin to pay it. It is used to illustrate how undone we are when we realize that there is no possible way that we can ever come up with anything that can atone for our sin. Not only are our sins forgiven, but the Lord God Himself poured out His Precious Blood in order to make it happen. He loves us much, but the man who owes much, can’t even begin to pay hid debt, and then is forgiven has a natural great love for the one who helped him when he was helpless.
James and Stacy McDonald solicited people to give to help with this medical debt, and good people affiliated with all of their organization gave money. Whether the donations came through a plea on the PW list or through some other channel that James and Stacy had at their disposal in order to raise funds matters little. As Corrie states, it’s the connection between the paying of debt (something very virtuous and not anything remotely like ill-gotten gains at all) and the McDonalds that was the point she meant to illustrate, just like when Jesus said “He that is forgiven much loves much.” We love those who labor with us and wash our feet.
So the point is not the money or how the money was raised, but again, the issue that this illustrates that someone who had their insurmountable bills partly paid by an agent (the McDonalds homeschooling magazine and related businesses) have a strong bond to the McDonalds that transcends merely being a subscriber to the magazine. When my husband was in a car accident and over the course of that process of surgeries when they tried to save his eye, two different people helped me through things, though what they did was insignificant. When my husband was rolling into the OR, as I sat at the payphone in the hospital sorting through his blood-drenched belongings that they gave to me in a brown paper bag, I called my girlfriend at about 12 AM. It just so happened that she was up with one of her children who was sick, and she listened to me speak the Word of God for my husband’s protection, and she gave me more verses to hang on to and prayed with me. I needed a touchstone that night, and I will be eternally grateful for the 30 minutes she spent with me on the phone so late at night. And once, when I needed a 60 mile ride into town to pick up my new vehicle (because my husband had totalled the car), my neighbors took me to church with them and took me out to lunch before they dropped me off where I’d parked my 20 year old truck so that I could drive it home. That lunch they bought me seemed like about the nicest thing anyone on the planet has ever done for me because of how depleted I was at the time.
So it need not be money that binds us to one another. It can just be the kindness of helping one meet a need.
And I have to laugh because of quibbling over whether there was actually a plea that went out over the PW list reminds me of a goofy line from a movie. The teacher asks a numb-brained kid in his history class who Joan of Arc was. He answers and says “Noah’s Wife?” And his friend’s brain cells kick in and asks not who Joan of Arc was but then wants to know who Noah’s wife was. “Who WAS Noah’s Wife?” asks the other kid, still clueless that the issue concerned Joan of Arc.
I feel like this litigious quibbling over finding a post on the Patriarchs Wives to prove Corrie either right or wrong is ridiculous when on a post from last week, the Mom of 4 nameless blog says clearly that James and Stacy did fundraising to help pay for these medical bills. (You love the agent and medium that helps you when you are desperately needy.) So who cares about Noah’s wife (whether money was raised through a plea through TW or the money itself) when the primary issue is Joan of Arc (a strong duty to the McDonalds).
“I feel like this litigious quibbling over finding a post on the Patriarchs Wives to prove Corrie either right or wrong is ridiculous when on a post from last week, the Mom of 4 nameless blog says clearly that James and Stacy did fundraising to help pay for these medical bills.”
No, Cindy! Oh my! No! I’m looking to try and see if I remembered things wrong. If I said it didn’t come through TPW and it did, I want to correct that. I’ve been combing to see if there is something I didn’t remember.
Yes, they raised money for us–approximately $5thousand dollars (give or take a few hundred) of our $1 million dollar bill.
BTW, I want to make clear, since you asked me before…I am not a moderator of TPW. I was one 4 years ago. I was, in fact, no mail on that list until very recently (Karen and Corrie’s sources on TPW should be able to verify that) for somewhere between 18-24 months.
I can’t comment on the Guenthers because I have no knowledge whatsoever about them.
Here is another Joan of Arc versus Noah’s wife thing again. I don’t mean that as an insult but the fact that you’re missing the point.
No one expects you to know about the Guenthers. What I would think that a self-delcared “co-owner” of the magazine that the Guenthers wanted to buy would know that their magazine was tens of thousands of dollars in debt to the people who printed and “finished” the magazine. Now, if you were an investor and just someone who James solicited money from with no real power to govern the magazine, you might not know about it. Though, with the ability that the McDonalds have to spin things, it would not surprise me if they were able to keep things hidden from a full partner as well.
When I was Director of Research and Development for a seminary in the early and mid-nineties, back when desktop publishing just started to become attainable, I had to investigate how to get the works of the seminary published and whether it was feasible and advantageous for us to do so. Though there are a lot of books and publishers out there, if you keep your printing domestic, there are not really all that many actual companies that do the printing by comparison. And these printers (and their brokers and sales agents, some of whom I attended church with in Maryland and many who are not Christians) look out for one another by indicating to one another which companies are bad risks (those who order printing jobs and then don’t pay them or don’t pay them in a timely fashion). This is particularly true of the smaller printers. It actually breaks my heart because there are many non-Christian business people who will have nothing to do with Christianity because of the bad business debt incurred by Christians.
I would like to know whether the printers that the Guenthers mention ever received payment for the debt that he mentions online (that McDonald says that he intended to pay), either before or after the sale of the homeschooling magazine. From all I can ascertain, the McDonalds skipped town on the debt when they sold the magazine. Did the printer who dumped (forcing homeschooling today to get a new printer) them ever get the large sum of money that was owed to them? If Homeschooling Today Magazine was belly up financially and could not pay its bills, why was it sold at all? Why did the company not declare bankruptcy? Lots of questions. Too many. Did the McDonalds actually pull the wool over the eyes of their homeschooling magazine investors, too? I don’t think that’s gossip, I think that’s good sense and Christian responsibility, particularly if you were a co-owner or an investor of a company that didn’t pay their bills.
It’s stuff like this that had one printer demand 75% payment upon order (up front) of a large printing job for the seminary, because so many Christians are known for not paying. It’s truly sad. When I see those alpha Jesus ichthus fish on people’s cars to symbolize Christianity, I often think that they should probably remove them. There are far too many people out there who have been burned by the many Christians out there who do not pay their bills, but then use their Christianity as an excuse and plea for non-Christians to cancel their business debt.
Here again is a Noah’s wife comment when the issue is Joan of Arc:
BTW, I want to make clear, since you asked me before…I am not a moderator of TPW. I was one 4 years ago.
Was Stacy McDonald not running TPW when you were a moderator THEN? You were a moderator which means at some point you HAD A CLOSER CONNECTION to Patriarchs Wives than the average Josephine who receives the list, whether that was now or 4 years ago. That’s the whole point, not when you were a moderator unless Stacy McDonald had no connection to the PW list when you participated in that. Since she founded the list from the mailing list she stole from Alice, then I think your point is completely moot.
I feel like I’m the history in a scene from Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (where the Joan of Arc/Noah’s wife joke came from but it is really not a joke. I heard some girl say that she thought the Holocaust was a Jewish holiday.)
Do you understand that we don’t care about the fine details, only about the nature of the connections and the relationship that you shared with the McDonalds which makes you a biased party in favor of them, whether they were past or present? And I think that given the reasons why, it is perfectly reasonable that you would think so well of the McDonalds because they were good to you. That’s the point, not the price of tea in China when you were a moderator 4 years ago. The point is that you were not an innocent bystander but someone who was an insider with the McDonalds’ business (a “co-owner” per your own statement), but you presented yourself HERE as someone who did not really know the McDonalds anymore than most people on the street.
I guess that I don’t really understand why you want to look through posts that are several years old to see whether money was raised using the PW list.
If you admit that the McDonalds helped raise money to graciously help you pay this outrageous debt associated with a terrible tragedy that is apparently still so very presently painful, why is it important at all to go back through these old archives and posts? To find post # 78456 that proves that Corrie is a liar? I don’t get it. If it’s now established by your own admission that you have a bond with the McDonalds that casts them favorably with you and that you were not just a passive participant on the PW list, I don’t understand, unless you’ve got some motive to find something that makes Corrie out to be a liar. Why? I really just do not understand this. And if this is only a matter of sorting out your memories regarding this really tragic time in your life, why are you commenting about it here in a forum which you do not trust and don’t want to reveal your identity?
The connection between you and the McDonalds is now well-known here in this forum. Why hunt through mountains of four year old blog posts versus trusting Corrie at her word based on her memory of her participation in PW at that time? You say above here that you found two notes from Corrie saying that she was praying for you and grieving with you (as she can completely relate to your loss as she also had one that was quite similar). Are you trying to prove that Corrie went to your blog and pulled info off there (quite easy to find, BTW, for someone so concerned about privacy) rather than remembering it from the PW list? You can come here and post it so you can rub that in Corrie’s face. She didn’t. She remembered that information because she cared about you and your grief. When the matter concerns Joan of Arc, and she’s not Noah’s wife, who cares about who Noah’s wife really was?
Again, we now all know who you are and the details about how you are connected to and why you would have a duty of trust and love with the McDonalds. What’s your objective here now? As a show of vindication against Corrie for the sin of realizing that she’s been had by the McDonalds like the long list of others they’ve defrauded over the years? How about vindication for people that the McDonalds stole from, either by stealing the mailing list from Alice or by stealing from the printer that was never paid?
Oh, and thank you to Lin and Molly and the others who responded to my questions about “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”. I appreciate it very much. Ugh… I just got the ickies typing the just the title of it… Lord, help us return our focus to You.
Yes, it seems things were handled terribly. But I’m not sure I disagree with HSLDA that they are under any legal or moral obligation to supply the Guenther’s with additional funds.
Am I alone in my thoughts?”
It could be that you don’t realize how this stuff is usually done in certain circles. Asking for a ‘contract’ would be akin to saying you do not trust your brothers and sisters in Christ. You also would not get one. But, lesson learned…even Christians need to get written contracts because you may be dealing with ‘CINO’s’ who view their appellation as Christian as entre into a market segment to make money on. (Christian in Name Only)
If you have followed the Allosaur debacle with VF, you would understand how they operate a bit better. These are not nice people. I would not exchange recipes with them.
The Guenthers are not the first people to be ruined by aligning with these types.
I’m not sure what thread to put this on, but I’ll put it here because its active.
First of all, thank you for this site, it is really a blessing. You ladies have challenged me to reevaluate my stance on God’s word and also have saved me from patriarchy. I can’t express just how grateful I am for your Titus 2 leadership (I’m 17 and have read every wonderful thread).
Here is my question, I have been looking at various patriocentric blogs and have noticed that some seem to allow for a drop off in education after the 8th grade. They cite the Amish as inspiration. But even the Amish allow it, it is simply not encouraged, and besides they need to study the more advanced elements of farming for their lifestyle. I have listened to Thatmom’s podcasts (which are great!) regarding education for daughters. However, the people on these previously mentioned blogs seem to think that jobs can only require apprenticeships/internships for sons as well.
Are they really that ignorant?
Do they really hold the education of one’s God-given mind in so little regard?
Do the leaders devalue education so that the followers will be more easily led?
Is our only purpose (men included) to breed babies to expand the control of the powerful few?
If these rules were followed, there would be no Christian lawyers, doctors, professors, philosophers, teachers, geneticists, politicians or scientists, and that would be a dangerous world. It seems to run contrary to the idea of a Christian dominion.
Thank you for your time
Thank you for posting here after being such a thorough reader of TW–your words are so encouraging! I’m sure more of the regular posters will also respond after the election becomes less distracting, but as the aunt of a lovely 17-year-old niece who is caught up in patriocentricity and the mother of a lovely non-patrio daughter who is in veterinary school, I must say you have more wisdom and logic than many patrio adults. The sphere of God’s influence in the world becomes smaller, indeed, if education is discouraged and the careers you have named are off limits to young women and men. I’m glad your eyes are opened, and pray for many others to become like you.
Remember, wasn’t it Doug who said that we were pragmatists in some article he wrote? Obviously, it was pragmatic in his mind, to have more than one household representative vote for his particular candidate (one that is “Scripturally qualified”).
I agree that this courtship/betrothal thing is a LOT of pressure. That is why I would never put my child’s life out in the public eye like this because stuff happens. The dog and pony shows are just atrocious to me and maybe that is because I am a private person and I don’t like exhibiting my children and putting their lives on display.
I know how much guts it takes to break off an engagement/betrothal/wedding….I did it AFTER I had the invitations and my dress and everything but it was the right thing to do.
But, in order to be truly brave, they need to admit that they were WRONG in their teachings and in the way they looked down at others who merely “engage” by calling them “post-moderns” and people who break off an engagement for merely “falling out of love”.
p.s. Just so you know that I am not unfamiliar with such things in my children’s lives, recently my son broke off an engagement and I am proud of him for his great wisdom and courage. I still love the girl he was engaged to and I keep in contact with her from time to time and they are still on friendly terms but this was for the best. I loved both of them through this hard time and I tried to support them in the best way I knew how.
Now, it’s bad enough that they’ve made this big deal about their women staying within the sphere of home business, leaving the civil sphere to men only. They’ve broadcasted and promoted this in many ways. So Beall votes — the tradition for the two of them to go together to vote? And then Doug puts that on his blog?????
What is the message we’re supposed to take away from that other than in the matter of voting, Doug Phillips proves himself to be the commensurate hypocrite? What of the women who follow him who stayed home from the polls because of what he’s preached and what his followers like Jennie Chancey have preached? How would you feel today if you stayed home from the polls yesterday (really wanting to cast your vote), but you followed in faith what this “great and godly man” taught you to do?
I wonder if it even occurred to Phillips that he’d violated his own code? Maybe the code doesn’t apply to his own family, and the idea that his actions (and broadcasting of them) prove him to be a hypocrite based upon his own, contrived teachings never even crossed his mind?
The Brian Abshire article that taught that women should not vote that used to appear on the Vision Forum Ministries website appears there no longer. Unless they moved it, it appears to be gone, gone, gone. I could not turn up an active link on google and the search engine on the site itself does not turn up an active link.
I guess they don’t teach that anymore, so it’s okay that Beall voted. I hope someone called Jennie Chancey to let her know to delete all of her articles, too.
I took a peek over at James McDonald’s Family Reformation blog on wordpress. Today’s blog starts off with a statement about going to vote with his wife and daughters. Someone commented about letting women vote. He answers that they allow women to vote in political elections, but within the church, voting is done by head of household. Hmmm.
This is awhile back, but I wanted to respond to a comment someone made on Jane Austen.
The sad thing is that Jane Austen seemed to get it and these people think that what she was portraying was good when she was showcasing what was wrong with society at that particular time.
This is exactly right. Charlotte Lucas does what women are “supposed” to do: she marries a man she does not particularly like and can never respect because marriage is her only option. And yet, Austen is very clear in her discomfort with this. Notice that when Elizabeth visits her after her marriage, she and Mr. Collins spend their days apart, with Charlotte encouraging him to spend as much time in his garden as possible. Marriage for the sake of marriage is clearly presented as an unhappy choice and one Elizabeth cannot quite respect Charlotte for making. (At the same time, I feel a great deal of sympathy for Charlotte: she’s 27 with younger sisters and dwindling choices.)
“I took a peek over at James McDonald’s Family Reformation blog on wordpress. Today’s blog starts off with a statement about going to vote with his wife and daughters. Someone commented about letting women vote. He answers that they allow women to vote in political elections, but within the church, voting is done by head of household. Hmmm.”
It seems that they just make up the rules as they go along and people just drink it up like grape Kool-aid.
How is it that one minute they are saying that it is sin and blasphemy for a woman to work outside her home and lead men in the secular sphere and the next minute they are promoting the vote for a female Vice President with children still in the home?
Then we have Phillips who has Abshire’s dogmatic article about how the Bible forbids women to vote because it is taking authority over a man (and everyone says “Whaaaattt???”) and the next minute, the day after the election, he is telling us that his wife voted and who she voted for and Abshire’s article is gone?
They have created their own religion with its own man-made tradition as dogma for its followers and the rules can change as fast as they change their underwear. Kate Perry has a song called “Hot n Cold” and it reminds me so much of the fickle teachings in the patriocentrist movements.
And, really, do we need to have some official announcement who they are voting for and that they went and voted? I guess they think we need to know this information as if we are waiting for crumbs to fall from their tables? I have to wonder if they think that it is important and that they are so very important that everyone wants to know this stuff? So they make an “offical announcement” (It’s official. Wilson is voting for McCain and so am I.) as if we were waiting with anticipation and their leadership for such decisions?
Are they not just like everyone else? How many millions of people voted yesterday? How many millions of people put on their socks and then their shoes? Went to the bathroom? Ate dinner? I sure hope that we don’t start getting reports on all the other aspects of their everyday lives.
I would rather hear a lot less talk and see a lot more action. I would rather know that they are actually obeying their own teachings by less word and more deed. I would rather see them drop the rhetoric (post-modern, white-washed feminist), especially when they are no different in practice than those they look down upon.
I read what Doug Phillips had to say about his wife’s voting and I still maintain that your vote is private and no one really knows how someone else voted! :0 Doug states that he and Beall have been voting together for 2 decades. So what was with that Abshire article? And what about Jenny’s articles? What is it we are all missing about this?
Also, here is an interesting quote from a woman who embraces the patriocentric teachings:
“Since Mr. Phillips’ father is Howard Phillips who served President Nixon and
founded the Constitution Party, Mr. Phillips knows much more than the
average citizen about the political world. I think I’ve learned more about
government from him than I ever did in my high school government class!”
I think the one continuously frustrating thing about Phillips and Vision Forum is the hypocrisy. I’d have no problem with buying toys and things from Vision Forum IF there wasn’t all this “this is the only Biblical way to live and if you don’t, you’re in sin” hogwash being sold in books and media form. It would be one thing, if they would actually hold to their teachings that they are making so much money off of. (I still wouldn’t by from them.) If they had just stuck to offering cool toys and things, they wouldn’t be in such hot water with so many people!
But they put out this ‘higher standard’ that the Christian community is ‘supposed’ to live by, and then get angry and shifty when they are held to that very same high standard? Give me a break. If it’s supposedly the best way to live and be a Christian and what not, then it should be easy to answer to it.
Yet, angry as I am, I must extend mercy and grace. There’s no way Doug Phillips could live up to those rules, anymore than I could. Partially because they are man-made, and partially because only God is perfect. We humans are not. We’ll never achieve perfection without God’s help! What a horrible burden it must be.
I’d like to offer some hope here. Today my husband spoke with a man of influence in a local congregation who has been patriarchal in his teachings or leanings. The man brought up the whole Deborah/Judges thing with the patriocentric spin we’ve heard from certain teachers and my husband challenged his thinking, telling him his views on Judges/Deborah were wrong. He was polite but firm. (Yay, honey!) This man has been a friend to him and he seemed to receive the challenge to study it further.
The man also commented that Vision Forum is “nuts”. This was a family that followed it at one time to one degree or another.
So, the word is getting out about those aberrant teachings.
I am glad that people are starting to realize it. You know, I spent my patriarchal years bemoaning how my husband acted (he is slow to speak, very patient. You might mistake it for non-action if you aren’t aware of who he is. But once he makes a decision, he’s quite firm.) I felt like he was ‘abdicating his role’ as father, whatever, because of all the trype I was absorbing from VF and blogs and things. Now that I am out (and James never fell in, I might add) I feel so blessed by James- his personality, his leadership style. It wouldn’t fit into the VF paradigm, that’s for sure. But his patient consideration of things perfectly balances my impulsiveness. But I couldn’t see and appreciate my husband’s leadership skills during the patriarchal years BECAUSE of the junk coming from Vision Forum and its’ friends.
You just described what our situation has been like (husbands with quiet and deep, contemplative personalities) that balance us out in our growth together in our relationships. I’d much rather look at marriage from a “grow together and let’s see each other’s giftings” point of view, than one where there is a constant internal, list check-off system, (“okay, am I in my right “role”?; have I stepped over my husband’s prescribed authority over me?, etc.).
BTDT, was miserably searching for who I was. Then came Ephesians 1, and I discovered that I was chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. It doesn’t say that I was chosen through my husband’s authority (fact was, I was priveledged to share the Hope of the Gospel of Grace with him).
Then, came the “birds” to try to snatch up the Good Seed planted in me. I started following the “teachings of men” (men, women; the emphasis was that they were interpreting the Scriptures based on their man-centered world view) and *I* got into patriarchal teachings. Got far enough into it that I was straining gnats, swallowing camels, and wondering if my long prairie dress was long enough. I was confused and some teachers tried to silence me. You’d think that was the end, but when God opened my eyes to that hypocrisy of those teachers, I went right into another “patriarchy-lite” set of teachings. It was still man-centered and started to literally ruin my health. Did the whole confrontation thing, but some teachers are set in their ways.
Now, if anyone tries to feed me anything other than the pasture of God’s Word, I’m armed and ready. I guess, you could call me “Lambo” (Rambo; picture a peaceful sheep, fully armed with the Sword of the Spirit).
Has anybody seen this article? I’m sure this is probably old news, but I was looking into it because I was told that Oprah had been talking about it (a photographer for her magazine went to one, but that’s all I found out so far).
Fathers in tuxedos and daughters in formal gowns sit down for a three-course dinner. A girls’ ballet troupe performs in front of a large cross. Then the fathers recite a covenant committing themselves to the protection of their daughters’ purity and involvement in their lives:
I, (daughter’s name)’s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the areas of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and my family as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come.
The girls lay white roses at the foot of the cross.
“And then it opens up to the dance,” said Khrystian Wilson, 19. “And we dance until midnight.””
I’m all for relationship, that part is great,but someone please show me where the Bible says the father is the High Priest in the home!!!
I can’t tell you how arrogant I find this announcement to be as a homeschooler and long-time one at that. Who placed these men in leadership over Christian homeschooling and gave them the authority to cast the vision and set the agenda for all of us? I know for a fact that the “vast majority” of homeschooling families are not ptriocentric and that there are hundreds who refuse to attend these sorts of conventions because of the agenda. Any thoughts?
Just for fun, I that those of you who have never met Corrie, I have had two people describe her to me after meeting her this past weekend….my mom says she looks like a pastor’s wife. My youngest son says she reminds him of Dolly Parton, whom he loves! So there you have it….oh, and Cindy showed up with a streak of purple hair….it has been a fun weekend!
Here is what it says on the first page of the Leadership Summit (how presumptuous…whose leaders are they? who do they speak for?):
“The 2009 Men’s Leadership Summit
Defining a Vision for the Christian Home Education Movement
~ March 5-7, 2009 ~
The home education movement has reached a critical juncture . . . With the explosion of school choices and increased government intrusion in homeschooling, the time has come to define a vision, and in the words of George Washington “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God.” Otherwise, we will see the heart of what we have worked for fade away.
In March of 2009, Christian Home Educators of Colorado will host homeschool leaders from around the country at a national gathering in Indianapolis. The Purpose? To lay out a vision for home education in the 21st Century. In the same format of the 2006 Men’s Leadership Summit in Oklahoma City, this Summit will allow a time of vision-casting from nationally-respected speakers as well as a weekend full of fellowship between like-minded homeschool fathers in leadership from across the country.
Join speakers including Voddie Baucham, Dr. Brian Ray, Douglas Phillips, Kevin Swanson, and others in a vision-packed weekend on March 5-7 in Indianapolis.”
“Another objective for the leadership summit will be the development of a Christian Education Manifesto statement. After 1000 years of a secular, Greek education model first taking the university, then later capturing K-12 childhood education, home educators are recovering the biblical discipleship paradigm. The 2009 Summit will include discussion on this Manifesto.”
Another Manifesto? Really, do we need another manifesto?
Can we not just get back to the Bible for all that we need for life and godliness?
Are people reading their Bibles? Are these leaders reading their Bibles and, by that, I mean reading their WHOLE Bible, not just the parts that appeal to their fleshly ambitions and that they use out of context to bolster their paradigms?
I believe that if people are reading their Bibles and walking in the Spirit we have no need for presumptuous men to think that we, as homeschoolers, need them to speak for us or lead us.
“We are inviting homeschool fathers in leadership from anywhere in America and beyond to join us for this Summit, coming March 5-7, 2009. Whether you are a state board member, support group leader, pastor, or a visionary father that wants to cast a vision for the future generations of his own family, you are invited to join us this spring in Indianapolis, as together we cast a vision for the next generation.”
Visionary fathers casting visions? That sounds scary and weird. If they want to cast a vision for their own family and if they can get away with that, fine, but I want them to keep their vision casting out of my home.
Too often, the vision casters I know pull their visions out of their backside and I am tired of being held hostage by such types.
Reason with me from Scripture and I am all ears but I can smell bull from a mile away.
Is this the sort of “visionary man” that Debbie Pearl speaks of? No thank you. I will pass on that. These sorts of men from Pearl’s are disqualified from leading because their lives and families are usually a mess and they are irresponsible and not providing for their own and their actions produce a very unstable family environment.
I also do not want these people casting a vision for me nor do I want them casting a vision for other homeschoolers.
I have all the “vision” I need in the Word of God. I do not need their culturally-based vision to impose itself upon the leading of God’s Spirit in my life.
I also don’t need to have hyperbolics (ie., women who work sell their flesh cheaply in one night stands to male coworkers and women who go to college have will most like have abortions) raising a standard to which the honest and wise can restore.
Why do Christians lack credibility with the World? Well, when we behave like caricatures from Saturday Night Live, they have due cause to think we are blowhards who have nothing of substance to say.
As soon as I can see that they are men of integrity (ie., teaching that the Bible states that women should not vote and then proclaiming that it is a tradition for a certain one of these visionaries to go vote with his wife every year for the past twenty years), I might actually bend my ear to what they have to say. I might listen to what they have to say if they admit that they were wrong about their former beliefs and public teachings and apologize to those “feminist Christian sisters” who they denigrated and then go on to accurately reflect what God’s word really has to say about the issue of women voting. (HINT: NOTHING!)
So far, they are not people I trust (because of dishonesty) to handle the word of God in an accurate way and therefore I do not believe they are equipped or qualified to be my leader or to speak for homeschoolers en masse.
And where is the voice of the ones who ACTUALLY DO MOST OF THE WORK WHEN IT COMES TO HOMESCHOOLING? The women are also leaders in these homes and their voice is NECESSARY to such a summit. How can they speak for the other half of Christianity when they haven’t walked even a foot in their shoes? Women are a VITAL part of homeschooling and to not include their insight and wisdom in such an endeavor speaks VOLUMES about their attitude towards women.
“Dr. Brian D. Ray is a homeschooling father of 8 children and the founder and president of the National Home Education Research Institute – a 501(c)3 non-profit research organization for homeschooling. He is a leading international expert with regard to home education research. Dr. Ray executes and publishes research, speaks to the public, testifies before legislators, and serves as an expert witness in courts. ”
He is an international expert on home education? Expert witness in courts? For homeschoolers?
“We are inviting homeschool fathers in leadership from anywhere in America and beyond to join us for this Summit, coming March 5-7, 2009. Whether you are a state board member, support group leader, pastor, or a visionary father that wants to cast a vision for the future generations of his own family, you are invited to join us this spring in Indianapolis, as together we cast a vision for the next generation.”
Is that like casting a spell? or casting a net? or like a big rally for some kind of multi-level marketing? Even the way they write bugs me.
It really bugs me that only men and their sons are invited to this leadership seminar for homeschooling. Who does 99.9% of the teaching in the home? Who runs the homeschool coops and support groups? Maybe in their ideal world the men do all those things, but in our real world, the Dads are really busy making a living to support us! This is just aggravating!
Catching upon posts after traversing the prairies…
I just read “Who is Dr. Ray” above.
Well, a reporter asked me to give him an overview of homeschoolers and possibly qualify how many people are affected by these patriarchal types. First, you have to qualify how reasonable to extreme to nutty each of the patriarchal types really are, so you have to look at it all like a continuum.
But I wanted to get some numbers that were meaningful. When I wrote to Ray’s organization, the response said to buy his book. I wasn’t all that impressed. Why would you not be so excited about homeschooling that you would not be able to give two simple, specific answers to two simple, specific questions?
Alright, back up the thread to read the rest of what I missed.
Susan T wrote: Is that like casting a spell? or casting a net? or like a big rally for some kind of multi-level marketing? Even the way they write bugs me.
When I attended the unnamed apologetics conference at an unnamed Southern Baptist seminary in March, I enjoyed the young seminary students that attended the sessions. I was amazed at how these “loaded language” phrases permeated the vernacular of the students. Before Wendy and Doug Duncan’s session (www.dallascult.com) started, Wendy chatted with some of the students. She asked a few of them what they were planning to do in ministry, as she was once a seminary student herself and had her own dreams that she discusses in her book. Almost all of the seminary students said “I haven’t casted a vision yet…” in one way or another. “Casting vision” was used frequently, and I even overheard two students refer to this while having a private, casual conversation. (My ears perked up and I cringed at the term, I think because it does sound like “casting a spell.”)
I understand, as Psalmist has explained here, that it refers to seeking what God intends and has some connection to casting lots, but I am deeply troubled by the language used. We no longer cast lots because we have no need — we have the Holy Spirit’s guidance and His indwelling with His law written on our hearts to which we add obedience to the Word of God. We should have no need to cast anything. All we have to do is silence our own internal blabberings and visions in our heads to hear the still, small Voice that is always speaking to us in our hearts and minds. That is seeking God, and that comes through His Word and His Spirit’s leaning on our hearts as we walk through our circumstances.
I’m so glad that I got to meet you, BTW. I was so encouraged by talking with you. It’s so nice to connect with other Christians that see through some of this crazy window dressing that surrounds what passes for Christianity today. The Kingdom of God is not eating or drinking or even homeschooling, but is all about righteousness, joy and peace in the Holy Spirit. I was blessed to meet another person who posts here that understands that there’s not just one acceptable way to experience God’s righteousness, peace and joy.
Cindy K wrote:
“I understand, as Psalmist has explained here, that it refers to seeking what God intends and has some connection to casting lots, but I am deeply troubled by the language used. We no longer cast lots because we have no need — we have the Holy Spirit’s guidance and His indwelling with His law written on our hearts to which we add obedience to the Word of God. We should have no need to cast anything. ***All we have to do is silence our own internal blabberings and visions in our heads to hear the still, small Voice that is always speaking to us in our hearts and minds.*** That is seeking God, and that comes through His Word and His Spirit’s leaning on our hearts as we walk through our circumstances.
We don’t need to cast lots. We need discernment.”
Exactly! and ***All we have to do is silence our own internal blabberings and visions in our heads to hear the still, small Voice that is always speaking to us in our hearts and minds.*** (emphasis mine)
When I think of that conference you mention, or the “leadeship summit”, I’m picturing the adults on the animated “Charlie Brown & Snoopy” shows… their voices always came across as a muffled wah, wa, wah, wa. I’m not interested in what these so-called experts and self appointed leaders have to say… I want to hear from God alone… and this world is too noisy already.
P. S. Cindy, It was great to meet you in person. What an encouraging day!
I read the coolest verse today. Sometimes my approach to the Word is too business-like or too philosophical. I’m trying to heal some old emotions and correct some wrong ideas that I have about them, and sometimes the Message Bible (that I do not use for doctrine) can help me get out of that rut. Many times what it does is give me cause to dig into a particular Scripture to find out what it says and why the Message Bible would have stated the verse in such a way. I found a cool one this morning and could think of nothing other than patriocentricity:
Matthew 7:13 “Don’t look for shortcuts to God. The market is flooded with surefire, easygoing formulas for a successful life that can be practiced in your spare time. Don’t fall for that stuff, even though crowds of people do. The way to life—to God!—is vigorous and requires total attention.
In coming out of all of the legalism and lies, I swear I almost felt “allergic” to the Bible. I mean, it was the book that had been used to support all those lies, you know? I felt terrible for my strong aversion to it, but there was a time period there where, for the sake of HEALING my wounds, I had to stay away from it (so that I could come to a place where I could read it WITHOUT those legalistic glasses on).
The Message Bible was a gift of God to me during that time period. I ate it, I drank it…and I felt my love for God grow and grow—and the healing power of His love spread.
I actually just downloaded TMB’s New Testament via Audible (it’s on sale right now for half off) with my credit and was listening to it last night while cleaning the kitchen… POWERFUL powerful powerful… Delicious.
(And Eugene Peterson…ever looked into that guy? Wholly smokes, if anyone has ever seemed like the Real Deal, it would be him. What a beautiful example of *real* Christian manhood)!
I refer to the Message Bible in my studies and it has helped me get a richer understanding of some passages.
I really like Eugene Peterson and I have several of his books. I think one is “Take and Eat” or something like that. It is very good.
I understand about the detoxing period. There was a time, I could read nothing but the Psalms and Ecclesiastes and the Gospels and Romans because I needed to stay away from the passages that had been butchered.
“Did you notice the event will be at the Indianapolis Training Center of IBLP?”
Whoa — I didn’t see that before!
Also, Dr. Ray has been in attendance at hofcc in Portland before. That church is homeschool central around here and I’ve talked about their Vision Forum/IBLP/Harris teachings before. Incidentally, the leadership has also used the term “casting vision” for the church congregations in the area. Very male-centered, father as “prophet, priest, king”, blarb comes out of the main focus there. Of course, with the caste system they have going there, the only REAL men are the ones who have their own successful home-based businesses and/or who support lock-step the one visionary leadership’s teachings on such things. Keep your ears and eyes open on Oregon’s own flavor of wacky “homeschool holiness” (my friend’s term).
I usually lurk here (and love every minute – you guys are great) because I’m a secular feminist (like the woman above – hi Laura!) fascinated by patriarchal culture.
Anyhow – for those who are wondering about Michael Farris, I wanted to chime in and recommend a fantastic book called GOD’S HARVARD by Hannah Rosin. She’s a (secular, nominally Jewish) reporter who spent years “embedded” at Patrick Henry, logging endless hours with students, faculty, and Farris himself and if you’re at all interested in him or his school it’s a must-read.
I recall some wondering way up thread about the experience of women at PH – and it *is* confusing and something that the book spends a lot of time struggling to understand. How do they reconcile the belief that women must stay home and submit with their classes and networking and competing for internships and etc? “Cognitive dissonance” is the best conclusion she was able to come up with.
Maura, I have read that book and you are correct that the author does come to many of the same conclusions as those of use who have lived in the center of these teachings.
My biggest complaint about the patriocentric movement is the hypocrisy, if you can call it that. To someone like me who is a Christian who actually believes that Jesus called us to walk the walk not just talk the talk and to practice the one anothers of Scripture, I cannot understand the two-tiered culture they are embracing, for that is the only conclusion that makes any sense whatsoever. The rules only apply to “us” and not to “them.”
Last week I watched the newer and shorter version of Pride and Prejudice and had one of those light bulb moments. The patriocentrists imagine themselves to be Mr. Darcy, men of noble birth and proper breeding, waiting for the crowd to part and acknowledge their existence. Those of us of inferior birth are to bow and scrape and wait for the crumbs from his table. Perhaps there will be a few lucky who will be recipients of Mr. Darcy’s good favor, in spite of both his pride and prejudice.
Perhaps this is what some of the patriocentric young women at home are waiting for, a Mr. Darcy intern from Vision Forum who will shine his favor upon them. They love to live this drama so maybe that explains this.
This is the only way I know how to explain things like women can’t vote but Bealle Phillips can, women can’t work outside the home but Jennie Chancey can, betrothal is binding for everyone by patriocentric children, etc. etc. etc. The rest of us just couldn’t sleep at night if we tried to pull this stuff off.
Here is something interesting about this conference…
“The goal of the 2009 Leadership summit is to define a vision for the future of the Christian home education movement. Together, we must lay down a rock-solid, biblically-based vision for home education that will withstand the attacks of our current generation and preserve this precious vision for future generations. To accomplish this goal, we are assembling the key national leaders, authors, researchers, speakers and advocates who have framed the homeschool vision over the past generation (1979-2009).”
This just begs all sorts of questions:
1. Who are these leaders?
2. What or who made them leaders?
3. What homeschool vision did they frame and upon what authority did they do so?
4. What constitutes the “precious vision” they have? And who were the ones with that vision?
It is interesting because I came across an article on Doug’s blog from several years ago where he states that “home education began to emerge as a national movement” in 1983, which would have been the first year of Bill Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute. But this totally discounts Raymond and Dorothy Moore who actually began encouraging home education in the 1960’s and 70’s and they were my first introduction to homeschooling via Dobson in the 1970’s. Why would those sponsoring this movement do this?
I then pulled a book off my shelf I hadn’t read for 2 decades. In his book Home School Burn-out, which was published in 1988, interestingly enough, Raymond Moore talks about “burn-out traps” those things that could end up being the death of home schooling or at least cause serious problems for the movement. Here is what he said 20 years ago:
“One of our most dangerous of burnout traps is bigotry, that stubborn and complete intolerance of any cred, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own. While some of us sweated for years to develop legislative unity among all creeds and wrote laws that protected parents’ rights, other writers and speakers touted home schooling as an organic Christian movement and set out to divide home teachers in a self-serving effort that ruined effective coalitions. These inexperienced and misguided writers and speakers—none of whom helped in legislatures and courts—have preached their divisive gospel to earnest, but naive Christians. Although a conciliation effort put the divisiveness substantially to rest, there remain serious groups who view anyone other than their religious or philosophical persuasion as an untouchable. There is neither love nor Christianity in such bigotry, which must be forever buried in the interest of understanding and unity if home schooling is to reach its highest and least stressful potential.”
We have had an interesting few years in our homeschool group. There was a group of – I suppose you could call them legalists- who came into leadership and pushed all sorts of rules into the organization, clamping down on the previously easygoing relationships we had amongst our members. It was all done in the interest of the members – to protect us from characters who might use subterfuge to gain access to our children, to keep people under control who might not be Christians in the same vein as we or might not even be Christians but just interested in homeschooling and the activities we have available. The divisiveness that Moore talked about was evident in our group. We lost many members who wanted no part of that silliness, but many of us stayed simply because we wanted to support homeschooling for the sake of the newer people. This year, we are having a rebuilding time. Many of the instigators have moved on and formed their own group of like-minded homeschoolers, and we are again gaining members as the new leadership is emphasizing our role as a SUPPORT group with no authority. The new tone is one of forming close relationships among members with whom you see eye-to-eye, and friendly ones with those that you don’t necessarily. But the legalists certainly gave many a bad taste about homeschooling in our area.
The quote you mentioned from the book Raymond Moore wrote, “Home School Burn-Out”, is talking about the mess that started in the Northwest with Harris (who Moore hired as an assistant before Harris’ successful seminar career), then, according to Moore’s testimony in his White Paper, Harris took business away from him in an underhanded manner. He and many of the other “leaders”, like Farris and Sue Welch, and Brian Ray were the self-proclaimed “Four Pillars” of homeschooling in the early 80’s, after Dr. Raymond Moore and his wife had already established some inroads into legislation. You can read more here:
I love Dr. Raymond Moore.
I think I have almost all of his books, etc. His points were really driven home a couple years ago, when I became friends with a pagan homeschool mom who was NOTICABLY made to feel “unwelcome” in our homeschool group. The other moms literally said they were so glad when she stopped coming, that she was just so scary, that they could “jsut tell” that there was something evil about her.
I got to know her pretty well, and she was a bright passionate unschooling homeschool mom. And pagan. I really liked her a lot!
And I thought, good grief, what kind of Christians are we, if we see someone who doesn’t know Jesus and our first AND second thoughts are only, “Ew. Make her leave.” Wasn’t our group for HOMESCHOOLERS? Didn’t she need support and friends as well?
But thanks to the idea that homeschooling is a *Christian* thing, AND becuase our definition of Christian was akin to the VF ideal of keeping one’s precious white tea skirts away from the dirty unsaved rif-raf, that woman tried a few times and then didn’t bother to come back. It didn’t take a brain surgeon to tell that she wasn’t wanted.
The women all felt perfectly righteous about their behavior (pagan? Oh, my, shocking!), and expressed relief and gladness that the pagan homeschool mom was gone. We were LAZY, in other words: keep me around people I’m comfortable with and don’t make me stretch outside of my comfort zone.
It really upset me, but I kept it mostly to myself, particularly because I was the only one who seemed to feel this way.
I’m sure everyone will be delighted to know that Vision Forum has just announced there is another area of life in which one can either be Biblical, or unBiblical.
It’s long been thought that Christians are free to have their own opinions about this area, and that it will look very different for everyone. Fortunately, Vision Forum has produced a book we can buy (no, not the Bible! Don’t be silly!) that will tell us how crucial it is we behave in one particular way in this regard.
I’m talking, of course, about the critical and central issue of baby names. Did you know you’ve been sinning all along by picking names you LIKED for your children? No, no, no. You need to be BIBLICAL. The MEANING is what matters. Like the Puritans, who were totally right about everything. They gave their children great names like ‘Wrestling’.
Virtue names, just so you know, are where it’s at. Never mind that many of them are so obscure it’s difficult to tell if the child is a boy or a girl (funny how that doesn’t bother uber-patriarchalists, that their sons are being mistaken for girls!).
We followed the link and my teenagers want to know if this is a joke…
“The Coming of Mahershalalhashbaz
Self-Conscious Baby Names”.
One of my daughters says that the name Honor used to be a girl’s name in some old books she’s read and Justice sounds like a girls name as well. Sorry Doug… you may have more “daughters” than you think.
So, are the people who named Doug (Howard — his dad and his mom, what’s-her-name) and Beall, were they not as “biblical” in the naming of their children? According to Doug’s latest wisdom in that article? Arghh! When will he stop telling people how to live their lives? Sometimes patriocentric is just not as good of a description for these guys.
We will be given a new name, if we join Jesus in Heaven someday:
Rev. 2:17, Rev. 3:12, Rev. 14:1.
Jesus’ Name is above all names, so no matter what you name your child, it will never compare to Jesus’.
What I want to know is when Doug will be publishing a cook book, an investment book, a medical advice book, etc., since he seems to be branching into every area of biblical life advice and expertise.
I know that the concept of “Justice” is most often personified in the form of a woman. Go into any State courthouse and you will see women being personified as honor and justice and wisdom, among many other terms.
I would like to know when one of these guys is going to name is son Nabal? Surely there must be a fool somewhere among them?
And what about the name Jacob? That means “deceiver”.
I cannot get over the fact that Doug Phillips has written a Phillips Family Catechism, and requires the children to learn off why their parents named them what they did. Just bizarre.
It ties in a bit with what people are saying on the courtship thread – the desire to control your children totally. “The family catechism is a series of questions and answers that remind our children about the priorities of the family, important facts to remember about our family history, and biblical worldview commitments that we embrace.”
The bit that really gets me though is that I actually quite like virtue names (mainstream ones, like Grace or Hope or Faith) and I am a bit of a name nerd. I love talking baby names and hearing the reasons why such-and-such a name was chosen. If this had been a blog post saying, ‘hey, we gave the Phillips kids some unusual names, here’s why!’ I would actually have found it quite interesting. But you can’t get that with Vision Forum. Doug Phillips has to write a book and try to sell you it and insist that his way, rather than being simply an amusing diversion, is Godliness In Action. You’ve been sinning all along by giving children names you just ‘like’. Apparently, meaning is the most important thing despite there being nothing in the Bible suggesting anything like that.
(It’s interesting – I don’t want to single anyone out because kids have no control over what they’re named and they have to live with it! – but many VF bloggers seem to have named their children names they just liked the sound/look of. No virtue names in many of the favourite families – with some very notable exceptions. Just interesting…)
I promised myself I was only going to enjoy this blog by reading, however this is just getting wild. Yesterday, farting monks, Hell-pods, wicked proletarian blue-jeans and now baby-naming and chocolate covered raisins.
Shall I toss the Tupperware and replace it with clay pots? Oops…my frock just got caught on this unholy polypropelene chair.
“And what about the name Jacob? That means “deceiver”.”
Yes, -but God-… two of my favorite words elsewhere in Scripture… but God used him inspite of himself and his imperfect family heritage of deception and changed his name to Israel. How many times in Scripture does God use imperfect people? Every time, with the exception of Jesus. I feel sorry for legalists who haven’t figured that out yet.
P.S. Guess what my son’s name is? Yes … I picked it before I was married because I used to babysit a little boy named Jacob, who would cry for me when I went home.
OK, I know this may land me in some serious trouble, but I’m not going to resist (I can, but I choose not to.) 🙂
With all the obsession with “purity balls” among some of the patris, I’m rather surprised that more patri daughters aren’t named Virginia. That’s a girl’s highest possible virtue, isn’t it? I haven’t seen too many Chastitys or Puritys among the online brag books, either. Don’t the patris want their daughters embodying THOSE virtues?
“One way we remind them about their names is through the use of a family catechism. The family catechism is a series of questions and answers that remind our children about the priorities of the family, important facts to remember about our family history, and biblical worldview commitments that we embrace. The Phillips family catechism is in a state of constant development, but the present Question #33 reads:
Question: What is the significance of the name “Liberty”?
Answer: First, it is a reminder that where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Second, it is a testimony to the liberty of Christ in the lives of your parents at the time of Liberty’s birth. Third, it is an acknowledgement of our family’s gratitude for the providence of God in America.
I have written this question and answer for her, because I want her to love her name and to know that her Mommy and Daddy love her name. By memorizing the answer to our family catechism question, Liberty will always have a concise explanation of the reasons why her parents gave her such a special name. More importantly, she will know that her name was so rich in meaning and so precious to her parents that they required her to know that meaning, and they spoke of it with joy in their hearts every week of her life.”
It sounds like he has mentioned it before – perhaps in some of his books for fathers?
Haha, I am tickled by the coincidence that I peek back in here when all the name talk is happening– I just posted on my LJ how names really do matter to me, particularly when I think about adopting a child who already comes with his/her name.
I also mentioned that one of my favourite names for a little girl is actually a virtue name– Temperance. I think it’s a simply beautiful name and I love its meaning, but I’m not sure I could actually do that to my child! Public school is still a definite possibility for my future little ‘uns and so I really do want to make sure I give my children names that give them at least a CHANCE at normalcy!
Honestly, I look at the names some of my ancestors had and I can’t even believe it. Freelove is the one I cite most often, but there were lots of other odd ones there. I do undersand the desire to have a name “mean” something, and I certainly would rather my children not have a name that means something horrible, but I think that much more important than how I -well- label my children is what I would work to help them children BECOME.
Honor, Justice, and Providence are nouns, not names.
Doug Phillips does not have the authority to author a “family” catechism or any catechism for that matter. Why rewrite what has already been so aptly done in the past? Vision Forum claims to uphold the Westminster standards (or at least the London Baptist Confession of 1689), so why mess with that? As a confessional believer, I find that practice to be deeply offensive.
For all pomp and circumstance Phillips gives to authority, time and time and time again, he proves that he neither honors nor recognizes those whom God has ordained to be HIS authority. Once again, he is simply blowing smoke.
It is true that names mean something. Each of our children has a reason for being named what they were named, and most were named after a very special relative. The one exception was our Peter – my husband claims I named him after Lord Peter Wimsey of the the Dorothy Sayers’ novels/mysteries. We did give him a meaningful middle name, though. We also have repeated to the children who they were named after, why they were named after them, and in most cases, have a picture of that person for them.
We also had a tradition of the pre birth name. Rather than having people question our possible names, we just called the child Willie Clifford. Believe it or not, Willie was my grandmother, and Clifford was my great aunt – though she went by Coody. And my uncle was W.C. (that was his full name). We could then tell everyone that the child had a unisex name and that it honored several members of our family. And the best part was that everyone was so happy that we didn’t call the child Willie Clifford that they didn’t worry about the real name.
I love cool names and I love “noun” names… In fact, I really wanted to name our last son “True,” but my husband wouldn’t hear of it, so I didn’t. In fact, that was probably the one big draw to remain Quiverfull…getting to name more kids! HA!
Mine are Judah, Anna, Emmanuel, Israel, and Jireh. My best friend has some “noun” names thrown into her large brood: a Trinity, a Justice, and a Haven, for example. If I had it to do over again, I’d ditch the Bible names and go for “nouns.” I think they rock! (I was loving the Temperance name up there)…. 🙂
Btw, don’t worry about naming your kids weird things…the kids in my children’s school have so many weird names…your child will fit right in, I promise.
Also, Doug adding a catechism question for each of his children on their names doesn’t both me one bit. I think every family should have the right to do what they want when it comes to catechising their kids, if they want to catechise them at all, that is. As far as I know, the Westmister is a human attempt to glorify God. No one said it was God-breathed and untouchable itself, did they? (I hope not, because I sure don’t like some parts of it).
Geesh, I can’t believe I’m sticking up for Vision Forum. Somebody hurry up already and pinch me…
This whole thing about meaning for names reminds me of some Oral Roberts Univ. graduates who were my co-workers. They truly believed that naming their children was a crucial decision because the name they gave the child would determine their character as adults. I find it interesting that DP has so much in common (at least in this) with people who seem (to me) to be so different from him theologically.
We always have a hard time picking names, so “agreed upon” tends to be the criteria here. While I don’t want my child to have a name with a terrible meaning, I think that how we raise the children is a much bigger influence.
emr, Freelove is just the tip of the iceburg. I spent a few months this summer digging into my genealogy. Names that cropped up include Freelove, Deliverance, Mehitabel and Stukeley, as well as several names I really do like– William, James, Thomas, Jonathan, Catherine, Lucy, Eleanor (Nora) and Temperance.
keebler– HAH you gave me the biggest giggle, because I’ve often thought I wouldn’t mind naming one of my sons Bredon, after both Lord Peter and his own son! Plus I do really like the name . . . and it would pair well with Temperance, I think . . .
Molly, I do love all your children’s names, but I especially like the name Judah. It’s so strong; it really resonates.
Haha naw, I would just go with Bredon (though for some reason, whenever I read his full name I don’t hear it in my head as ‘death’ but rather as ‘day-ath’. I cannot be certain where I came by this convention, unless maybe it was the Avengers episode Castle De’Ath . . .)
#373 – Technically, all names ARE nouns, specifically, pronouns.
And about meaning:
…one of the most precious inheritances a parent can leave for his children is a good name. p. 118
the parents themselves see little meaning in the names. Perhaps they did name them based on nothing more than a whim. The real message here is meaninglessness, and the children of our modern world are sinking in a sea of it. p. 125-126
These two quotes highlight something I’ve seen so much of lately: attaching significant meaning to every single act. It’s also called being intentional.
There is certainly some good to be had by thinking through the reasons why you do what you do.
The problem is that this mindset inevitably creates an us-them divide. You begin to decide by someone’s actions how intentional (i.e. holy) they are.
This discussion has prompted me to jump in with my favorite unfortunate name. The former governor of Texas, Jim Hogg, named his daughter Ima. She was actually an incredibly accomplished woman (as her wikipedia entry indicates) but she never married and carried that unfortunate name for over 90 years. When I was a kid my friends swore she had a sister named Ura . . .
Hmmm…So Doug Phillips’ middle name is Winston, after Winston Churchill. We all know of the British prime minister’s leadership during WWII, but on the other hand Mr. Churchill was known for heavy drinking, chain-smoking, and womanizing.
And while Douglas MacArthur was a brilliant military leader, but he was also considered “insubordinate” by the President and other US military leaders.
Without prying too much into the Phillips family’s personal life, I find the name of daughter Liberty ironic, as it appears she will not enjoy much “liberty” under her father’s draconian patriocentric (and hypocritcal) ideas.
Fantastic! I got a message (thank you!) that Doug Phillips was probably born in 1965. I wondered because Jon Stewart was born in 1962 – and they both went to the College of William and Mary and I so love the idea that they were there at the same time. Maybe they were in a class together!
Ladies, may I ask for prayer? You may have heard of the wildfires in California. Well, one of the big ones is burning a few miles from my home. We are NOT in any danger, but its still pretty scary. We’re surrounded by fire, it seems. There are four within ten miles of me. Hundreds of homes have been destroyed in all the fires around. Please pray for those people who have lost their homes.
So, here is an interesting quote I came across recently. Remember, as you read this, how much the patriocentrists LOVE Dabney.
“[T]he preaching of women and the demand of all masculine political rights are so synchronous, and are so often seen in the same persons, that their affinity cannot be disguised. They are two parts of one common impulse… According to that doctrine, every human being is naturally independent, owes no duties to civil or ecclesiastical society save those freely conceded in the ’social contract’; is the natural equal of every other human except as he or she has forfeited liberty by crime… If these propositions were true, then, indeed, their application to women would be indisputable. And it would be hard for the radical politician to explain why it was right to apply them in favor of ignorant negroes and deny their application to intelligent ladies… Hence false principles once firmly fixed are very apt to bring after them their appropriate corollaries in the course of time, however distasteful to the promulgators of the parent errors. [Think of how Equality becomes progressively more degenerate.] To the radical mind, possessed with these false politics, the perpetual demand of these obvious corollaries by pertinacious women must apply a stress which is like the ‘continual dripping that weareth away a stone’… [The fathers of 1776] meant to teach that in one very important respect all are naturally equal. This is the equality which Job recognized (ch. 31:15) as existing between him and his slave; the equality of a common origin, a common humanity and immortality. It is the equality of the golden rule. By this right, that human being whom the laws endow with the smallest franchises in society has the same kind of moral right to have that small franchise respected by his fellows, as the man who justly possesses the largest franchise. It is the equality, embodied in the great maxim of the British Constitution, ‘that before the law all are equal’ … The woman is not designed by God, nor entitled to all the franchises in society to which the male is entitled… And as she has no right to assume the masculine franchises, so she will find in the attempt to do so only ruin to her own character and to society. For instance, the very traits of emotion and character which make woman man’s cherished and invaluable ‘helpmeet,’ the traits which she must have in order to fulfil the purpose of her being, would ensure her unfitness to meet the peculiar temptations of publicity and power. The attempt would debauch all these lovelier traits, while it would leave her still, as the rival of man, ‘the weaker vessel.’ She would lose all and gain nothing. One consequence of this revolution would be so certain and so terrible, that it cannot be passed over. It must result in the abolition of all permanent marriage ties. Indeed, the bolder advocates do not scruple to avow it… This common movement for ‘women’s rights,’ and women’s preaching, must be regarded, then, as simply infidel.” ~ Robert Lewis Dabney, The Public Preaching of Women
“One consequence of this revolution would be so certain and so terrible, that it cannot be passed over. It must result in the abolition of all permanent marriage ties.”
Reminds me of, “Dogs and cats living together … Mass hysteria!”
My illogical, and highly emotional brain noticed he didn’t quote any actual scriptures when he said this, “The woman is not designed by God, nor entitled to all the franchises in society to which the male is entitled…”
“My illogical, and highly emotional brain noticed he didn’t quote any actual scriptures when he said this, “The woman is not designed by God, nor entitled to all the franchises in society to which the male is entitled…””
Interesting, isn’t it? Not a one Scripture to prove this statement.
I have a feeling that some people will not be so happy when they find out that they will be ruling and reigning alongside women for the rest of eternity.
The problem is that some people do not yet understand that God’s kingdom is not like man’s kingdom. God’s kingdom is upside down where those who serve and those who are the least are the greatest and vice versa. It is the one who serves and not the one who sits at the table who is the greatest.
Where do we see “entitlement” given to certain people in Scripture?
I am praying and I will continue to pray for all those effected and who are in danger. A good friend of mine just told me at Church this morning (she was talking to her brother when I found her in one of the classrooms) that her brother and sister-in-law just lost their home in this fire. I believe her sil is just weeks away from giving birth, too.
Cally, that’s got to be a terribly frightening situation. I’ve been praying for those affected in general, and I’m now praying specifically for your friend’s brother and sister-in-law.
And could I ask for everyone’s prayer for another family? Liam Iwig-O’Byrne, pastor of the First Free Methodist Church of Fort Worth, Texas, died in a car crash late last week. His wife, Cara, is left with their 7-year-old and 10-month-old sons. Liam was only 41. Please pray for the family and for their church. Thanks!
Okay, I can’t resist. I don’t know how popular Terry Pratchett is in the US. (If you don’t know him, he’s a hilarious English writer whose stories are set in an alternative universe a lot like our own, but with more witches. If you like British comedy, check him out!)
All this talk of virtue names has reminded me of one of his great jokes from ‘Lords and Ladies’:
The Carter parents were a quiet and respectable Lancre family who got into a bit of a mix-up when it came to naming their children. First, they had four daughters, who were christened Hope, Chastity, Prudence and Charity, because naming girls after virtues is an ancient and unremarkable tradition. Then their first son was born and out of some misplaced idea about how the naming business was done he was called Anger Carter, followed later by Jealousy Carter, Bestiality Carter, and Covetousness Carter. Life being what it is, Hope turned out to be a depressive, Chastity was enjoying a life of negotiable affection in Ankh-Morpork, Prudence had thirteen children, and Charity expected to get a dollar’s change out of seventy-five pence—whereas the boys had grown into amiable, well-tempered men, and Bestiality Carter was, for example, very kind to animals.
Suddenly ‘Wrestling’ and ‘Freelove’ don’t look so bad!
OK, a load of stuff here I would love to relax and talk about, but I am too busy. I do have this to say …
Cindy you have purple hair?!?!
OK. Just had to say that. 🙂
The last month, things have been really hard for me. Really, really hard … maybe as bad as what Molly went through .. which I do not know what it was so I can’t say for sure … probably not because it was just me, not other people too. But it was/is really bad. And school has been so hard and I have been so tired.
I had kind of let all the patriarchy stuff slide in the background as much as I could, though I still have to go to a patriocentric church. I didn’t hear much about it among the normal Christians I did get to see, and I wondered if I had imagined things or perhaps got overdramatic or worried too much, ect, had too much free time to spend here.
But then yesterday I got a chance to look at a few things on the net. I checked some of the main patriocentric sites and found some new stuff – and everything, all my memories, my convictions, my concerns all came back. This stuff is still going strong and it is at least as bad as I believed it was. And then I came here, and found all this stuff you were talking about, all these points you were making like you usually making. And I had wondered lately, if ya’ll maybe didn’t have too much time on your hands, ect, as I wondered if I did myself. But when I came back here and saw the stuff you were critizing … wow. I just felt convicted all over of how important it is to stop this junk. (And hey, I by no means agree with everything that has gone on here – how could I, when there are so many of us?) But … wow. I am just so glad that you all care so much for the Church.
It has encouraged me, in my stressed, heartbroken life. It really does matter that I keep going on, keep growing up. So many girls are not allowed to grow up. 😦 I need to fight, for myself and them, be a shining light.
Cindy encouraged (and stung) me some time ago, spurring me on to keep discovering who I was in Christ, not letting any grief or shame cripple me. I feel like I am learning more and more what she meant – learning to take joy in myself as the wonderful human God made me to be, even if the whole world hates me. And there is this joy to being the me that God made that can’t be taken away even at the darkest, saddest times.
I would still appreciate your prayers (prayed for God to keep you safe, Cally, btw) for me, if you remembered or had a moment. School and life are still very hard.
I went and got all my long hair cut off last week or so and had it permed because I needed something different. My husband and I saw a waitress with a chunk of purple hair about a month ago, and while I was getting the perm, I asked about doing something silly like this. (Hubby thought I would look cool like the waitress.) I asked about covering up my growing number of white hairs with something that would look purple, and the hairdresser suggested a hair extension on a little comb clip. For $8, I now own a streak of human hair which is on my dresser at the moment.
It’s a lot of fun, and I can shed it if and when I want.
Aw, Cindy, that does sound pretty. I am not a colour-in-my-hair type of gal, permanent OR removable, but a friend of mine is very fond of experimenting, and right now she has bleached-blonde bangs on a head of dark hair. She pulls it off marvellously; manages to look somehow very 40s and vintage.
That same friend, btw, Claire, is mad about Terry Pratchett; she practically stuffed The Hogfather down my throat, and she was right, I did enjoy it. We watched the Christmas special together (how can you not love a world where Death rides a horse called Binky? Really!) and she rejoiced when I acquired a pile of audiobooks read by Tony Robinson–which I chiefly enjoy because hey, it’s Baldrick!–and always mourns there are not more books that feature Susan.
I do actually love Pratchett’s writing, but for some reason I always fell a bit short of being drawn in by the stories themselves … I think it’s because on the whole, with only a very few exceptions, I am not a huge fan of fantasy. But he truly is a fantastic writer– as evidenced by those dear Carter children 😉
Cally, Psalmist and Beatrice, I will definitely be praying.
Lol, Cindy, I am glad you are enjoying a new hairstyle and being a little wild. 🙂
Thanks, Andrea. 🙂 I suspect a lot more people than I realize are praying for me. Things have been getting better and school has been easier. I tentatively (holds breath) hope things will continue to be good. But even if they don’t, guess what?
I have something that no father, no lifestyle choice, no clothing choice, no educational scheme, no you name it can take away from me.
I’m sorry–I couldn’t resist posting this from the Botkins. Guess they are looking for some funds to get that trip to England funded. It’s somewhat affordable–$39 for an individual, $95 for a family.
Details at www crossroads09 dot com
(WARNING: Hyperbole alert!!)
Two Remarkable Days with America’s Visionary Family
Don’t miss this opportunity in Columbus, Georgia – February 6th and 7th, 2009.
This two-day event will give Christians a vision to turn tumultuous times into opportunities for advancing the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.
The economy is failing. The Obama Administration will attempt to move the nation irreversibly into international socialism. The Church has lost its moral compass, and has surrendered its influence on society and culture. However, the Christian family can stand, grow, prosper, and lead during such historic times of social instability. But is the Christian family in America strong enough to rise to the challenge of the next four years? How about the darker challenges that lie beyond? What will become of the family, the church and the civil government in the 21st century?
For two enlighting (sic)and life-changing days, Geoffrey Botkin will be joined in Columbus by his remarkable family to talk about the timeless issues of family faithfulness, family strength and family leadership. Attendees will have the opportunity to ask hard questions of every one in the family on issues ranging from discipleship to relationships to politics and the economy. With his wife Victoria and seven children, Geoffrey Botkin will provide non-compromising answers to the most serious questions facing the American family.
* How fathers can become more visionary, decisive and loving
* Courtship, dating and marriage for serious families
* The secrets of family togetherness
* Where families can find purpose and conviction
* What to do if you can’t find a Biblical church
* America’s weaknesses, enemies and opportunities
* Understanding “patriarchy”
* What the well-educated son and daughter must know about today’s world
* How God will judge America in the coming months, and why
* Why children do not need to fear the coming hardships of 2010
* Why the Botkin Family has hope for the future
About the Botkin Family:
The Botkin family have been called “America’s most visionary family.” They are presently in the United States speaking about issues related to family discipleship and cultural reformation. Their pursuits and lifestyle have attracted attention of families who want to know how to live, survive and prosper spiritually in a nation that will become increasingly anti-family and anti-Christian in the next several years.
Geoffrey and Victoria Botkin have five sons and two daughters, all of whom have been home educated and trained to be leaders in today’s culture wars. The family’s adventures have captured the imagination of Americans who want to know more about the blessings of counter-cultural living, entrepreneurial adventure and multigenerational discipleship. All seven children (ages 13-27) will be in Columbus, Georgia February 6th and 7th to answer questions about home education, cultural leadership and the 21st century, and to speak in very candid terms about the importance of the family.
Geoffrey is an author, business leader, and humanitarian who currently heads an executive solutions firm. He has been an articulate advocate of home education since 1981, when he produced America’s first national television special on the subject, and is considered an expert on education issues faced by western nations. He has lectured on philosophy and history at Hillsdale College, on politics at the Heritage Foundation, on music and art at the San Antonio Christian Film Academy, where he serves on the faculty. His fascinating career includes ten years as a high-level political consultant in Washington.
Isaac, 27, is an experienced cinematographer, writer, and regular speaker at the Independent Christian Film Festival and is the author of “Outside Hollywood” a ground-breaking book for beginning film makers. David, 25, is a military historian and IT specialist.
Sisters Anna Sofia ( 23) and Elizabeth (21) are the authors of “So Much More”, a best-selling book for daughters and producers of the film “The Return of the Daughters” which has stimulated healthy debate in the church on numerous issues including femininity, feminism, marriage, courtship, higher education, and the father-daughter relationship.
Ben,19, is a professional film composer who has scored documentaries, short films and advertisements and has also lectured on sound design at the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival.
Luke (15) and Noah (13) are students, web designers and have been regular guests on a syndicated radio show to discuss boys’ literature.
As one of the barren “cursed” women, patriarchal garbage annoys me. As a woman raised by a loving non Christian father, it baffles me. As a wife of a Christian man who hates it when I don’t make a decision for myself (I tried being “submissive” and we both were miserable) patriarchy is absurd. See I recall something about the man leaving his father and mother and becoming one flesh with his wife (Matthew 19:5) and nothing about staying in submission to her father. As a person formerly involved in a cult, the stories are too familiar and scare the daylights out of me. And lastly, as a conservative Reformed believer who has been influenced to read and study and know her faith (I am fond of reading Michael Horton’s works) I am disgusted by patriarchy.
Thank you ladies for these interesting thoughts and for several days of reading some pretty useful information. 🙂 Hope to be able to contribute more.
Gail, I’m glad to be “outside the camp” with you, and glad to meet you!
Kathy, that PR memo was interesting.
I’d like to know, who among us here elected Geoffrey Botkin to be a leader of ours? Show of hands?
That’s what I figured.
Botkin is now calling himself a humanitarian. That’s interesting (I so want to say something funny here.)
I also want to say something here about my less-than-perfect non-christian dad here:
My dad is not rich, nor college-educated, he didn’t own his own business, and all while I was growing up he took the Lord’s name in vain and cussed like a sailor (because he was; he was a cook in the Coast Guard). But he married my mom who was a divorced woman in the 1960’s with 4 children from her previous marriage, most of them teens. He and my mom went on to have 3 more children (me and my 2 younger sisters) on a cook’s salary. In his career he fed officers who were too good for him, and some who treated him like his equal. After he retired from the military, he worked in a scrap metal yard, and with a tow-truck company after he broke his back in an accident. He would give you the shirt off his back in a pinch and had lots of street smarts. He also had the quickest wit and knew what it meant to be treated with respect. He worked multiple jobs to pay the bills, even while a military serviceman. He isn’t perfect and has dealt with a lot of regret and heartache in his life. He and my mom will be celebrating their anniversary this Thanksgiving. I thank God for this man who took on an “already” family and a tiny home on 1 cook’s salary to raise a family, in a house he’s never owned, without any fanfare.
I don’t think men like Botkin or any of these other self-righteous men in public/national/homeschool leadership would give him the time of day. And they would have missed the Great Commission with him.
I love my dad. I don’t understand these patriarchal marketeers. Just needed to chime that in.
Gail, as I’m 42, I think I can join you in the barren club, but I’m claiming that I’m not cursed. We’ve barely survived the past 10 years, living with some serious chronic illnesses which are not only debilitating, the suck up money like mad. If we could manage adoption at this point, we honestly would not have the funds.
But I prefer not to think of myself as cursed but blessed and that, as Isaiah 54 says, the fruit of my life will be greater than that of the woman who bore children.
We can sing together any time, along with many other really wise and honorable women who post here. We can be the blessed and barren chorus.
Be it unto me according to Thy Word, of Lord. He speaks, and the earth melts, so how is it that I’ve resisted Him?
Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.
Hmmm, I just noticed they accidentally left off the paragraph with high praise for Victoria Botkin, Geoffrey’s helpmeet and the mother of these 7 children. I wonder if they will notice this omission of her bio.
Cindy and Kathleen, nice to meet you both!
Cindy I like the idea of being a member of the Blessed and barren chorus. And a long term chronic money sucking illness is exactly what God has used to draw me closer to Him.
Kathleen you said it better than I could have. I love my dad and don’t understand these “public homeschooling advocates” either. I was very against homeschooling in any way shape or form thanks to some patriarchal homeschooling families we saw. I know some great HS families but the weirdos stand out and become “the public homeschool representatives”. That would include the Duggars. And that is unfortunate.
Now that I’m teaching full time again in public school, I see what mainstream America sees as homeschoolers. And it ain’t pretty, people. While the average American doesn’t see the Duggars or Doug-ites as the homeschool model, they do think homeschoolers are crazy, weird, and perhaps “off” in more ways than one.
I actually hide the fact I homeschooled for 3 years from most of my colleagues not because I am ashamed, but because I get tired of answering questions about socialization.
unfortunately you mention “homeschool” and people think Andrea Yates more than Duggar.
Beatrice said: “It has encouraged me, in my stressed, heartbroken life. It really does matter that I keep going on, keep growing up. So many girls are not allowed to grow up. I need to fight, for myself and them, be a shining light.”
I’ve not been on here in some time, dear Beatrice, so I missed this. But yes, yes, yes, you are growing–in some powerful ways. I can see it already, even from here.
God has great plans for you, I have little doubt. Keep strong, young friend. Keep at it. Those in your sphere and in your future need you to, more than they realize.
“The Church has lost its moral compass, and has surrendered its influence on society and culture.”
What kind of blanket generalization is this? It seems dangerous to me to suggest that the church (undefined) is no longer relevant, so we need to look to this one small group of people to lead and inspire us. I see no references to how families and individuals can/should become more Christlike, more obedient to God’s word or more passionate about sharing Christ with a lost world. “America’s most visionary family” — anybody else see red flags (and big egos) here?
“Two Remarkable Days with America’s Visionary Family”
“For two enlighting (sic)and life-changing days, Geoffrey Botkin will be joined in Columbus by his remarkable family”
“The Botkin family have been called “America’s most visionary family.”
Good grief. The word “hubris” comes to mind when I read how these people describe themselves. I wonder how in the world they picked the little town of Columbus, Georgia to host this conference. Kathy – what is the trip to England you mentioned?
Last June, Doug Phillips put in a plug for people to donate to the Botkins so they could “bring a Gospel message of family discipleship to Europe”. It was also advertised on the Visionary Daughters site on June 3. At the time they wanted to go in summer 2008 and needed 19,400 British pounds “for a significant missionary journey that will illustrate the valuable lessons of biblical daughterhood, family discipleship, multigenerational faithfulness and visionary parenting.” Now, according to the link where you can donate, they hope to go in April 2009.
Can you tell us more about the potential journey to the UK?
For the better part of the last decade, the Botkin family has been rebuilding scriptural foundations in New Zealand, part of the British Commonwealth. Families in the UK have been benefiting from book, CD and DVD messages and have urged the Botkin family to come speak to embattled families and churches in England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland.
When will the journey take place?
Tentatively in April 2009, funding permitting.
The weakened US dollar makes such a journey demanding. There is currently enough in the budget for one stop in the north. The Botkin family would like to make the most of a transatlantic trip and be able to speak in at least twelve of the areas from which requests are originating. Here are sample quotes from subjects of the Queen: (many quotes follow, like this)
“There is tremendous need to shepherd and train these families in the right way. The process of discipleship of church leaders and heads of households will take generations to see men stand in the gates and lead in parliament for England’s revival.” — Father of six
“The Christian household here does not seem to know this biblically founded message of the daughters at home. It is on our heart to see this encouraging and eye-opening message to be brought to many here.” — Andreas
I think we discussed this a little bit, maybe on the 6th part of prairie muffins thread, starting around June 3, 2008.
If you want to read more about it, I will give the links. It is wearing on me to read through this stuff… 😛 “Hubris” is one of the words that come to mind.
I went to Titus 1 yesterday to see qualifications of elders, and also thought these verses were good to be examined in light of all the “marketing” going on. (Sorry, I haven’t learned how to do italics yet here…)
5For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.
7For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain,
8but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled,
9holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
10For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, (i.e. legalists)
11who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain.
Did anyone else notice that the same exact photo of the statue of John Calvin was on Voddie’s blog on Nov. 12 and on the featured audio book from Vision Forum on Doug’s blog on Nov. 19? That is a very strange coincidence and the statue is very creepy (and I am a Calvinist…)!
I wonder if the Botkins will answer ALL the hard questions people want to ask them at their event, or if they will be prescreened.
As for my comment 420, it’s still stuck in moderation.
Probably it will be out soon, but to answer your question, Peaches, the Botkins’ trip to the British Isles was supposed to happen last summer, now postponed until next April, to the tune of 19,400 pounds. It is to “Bring a Gospel Message of Family Discipleship to Europe,” according to Doug’s blog of June 2, 2008. It will be “a significant missionary journey that will illustrate the valuable lessons of biblical daughterhood, family discipleship, multigenerational faithfulness and visionary parenting.” So that is the big object of the Botkins’ fundraiser in Columbus, I imagine. I wrote a little more and have my “troublesome” links on post #420.
Sorry for interrupting the current train of thought 🙂 but I have comment 421 awaiting moderation.
I was just inquiring about HSLDA and Richard Guenther, as discussed on Kate’s Chosen blog, wondering if anybody can shed some light on that situation. Specifically, does anyone have any reason to doubt Richard Guenther’s allegations against HSLDA? Or do you think it’s all true?
Debbie, thank you SO MUCH. I can’t tell you how that helps me. *smiling, feels helped up* Oh, if you knew …
I guess it just goes to show – we often must not realize just how much our lives do mean to God and to each other.
About the Botkin conference, I especially noticed the topic that was “What to do if you can’t find a Biblical church.”
We all know what “Biblical” means here, I think.
It’s sad, don’t you think, that people who ignore the many churches near their doorstep, (flawed, faulty, wandering, but also vibrant, alive, true, faithful places) may read that and maybe go to the conference? Places of love, places where God is, passed over more and more because they don’t push this and that?
kes- I just read that on the visionary daughters site. Yeah, it looks like a little damage control going on. I was especially struck by this statement,
“It’s easy to blame chronic childishness on an over-cautious parent, an over-protected upbringing, a controlling mother, etc. However, nothing will keep an adult from acting like an adult, except his own childishness.”
I don’t know how they can say it’s not the fault of the parent when these overly sheltered kids don’t know how to act or function as adults. Yes, it IS the fault of the parent. When you never allow your children to live their life outside the homeschooling/patriarchy bubble, it’s no surprise that they are stunted.
I guess it’s also 100% the fault of the children, upon approaching adulthood, when they flip out, attempt suicide, run away from home. But such occurrences and the clustering of these occurances in “Biblically patriarchal” families are not significant and are not related to the homeschooling/patriarchy bubble. Even when groups of mothers who follow the patriarch’s path of family reformation get together to commiserate about the very similar experiences of their daughters, it is failure in the integrity of the child. It is never the parent, and if it is, the parent dropped the ball and failed to follow the right plan. The paradigm is never drawn into question.
Thou shalt not question the sacred science. The demand for purity requires that one submit oneself to the sacred science with pure faith, because it is faith that pleases God. And if you cannot comply, there is no dispensing of meaningful existence. It does not exist outside the group.
Hey, if anyone has any questions for Voddie Baucham about his beliefs or the FIC, I understand from his email that he wants to talk. Not debate but to clarify what he believes so that I no longer need to speculate about what he believes, based upon things like his affiliation with Vision Forum and his appearance on the “Return of the Daughters” video.
If you have questions, please link to my blog and click on the button on the sidebar.
I noticed that article too. I just don’t see what the point is of staying in privileged and enclosed circles. Sure, the Botkins have met all kinds of people in different places – but still, the general circles they speak to/are involved with are the tightly enclosed circles we have discussed before. I don’t think one should have to fight to gain spiritual maturity in such a climate. I think we should be going out everywhere, to the undesirables as well as desirables. Like Jesus. And living a lifestyle acessible to everyone. Like Paul.
I just read Michael Pearl’s articles about cloistering your children and patriarchy, and just WOW. I won’t bother with the links here but the articles are pretty easy to find.
The Pearls describe very nicely how many well-intended homeschooling parents cloiser their children from the world, and when you combine cloistering with the latest fad of patriarchy, you get some pretty heart-breaking personal stories.
After the Pearls wrote Part 1 last summer, they got some incredible responses. Make sure you read those letters in Part 2. We’re only seeing the early fruits of partriarchy, and they look rotten so far. The harvest isn’t pretty.
How ironic that Debi’s “Helpmeet” book served as sort of a preamble to the gospel of patriarchy. Obviously the Pearls are disturbed–as they should be–that their submissions teachings evolved into the wackiness of patriarchy. I wonder if this causes them to re-think some of their earlier ideas?
And I wonder what the self-proclaimed leadership of patriarchy is doing with all those boxes of Debi Pearl’s book– now that she’s going to the darkside? Bonfire anyone?
I went and read the second installment of the Pearls on this subject. It was quite easy to find on their website.
I’m not a bit surprised to find that they received all sorts of mail from people adversely affected by patriarchy, as I see far more of this type of thing than I do evidence of good fruit of the Spirit. It seems to echo the other discussions of similar problems currently being discussed in other venues within patriarchy, noting the severe problems (both psychological and behavioral) that some of these moms in patriarchy note themselves.
Though they may have their own version of “antinomianism,” the intolerance of the belief system divides families and does not unite them in any way. Uniformity is not unity. I don’t know why that is so difficult for people to understand sometimes, save to say that I had to be crushed by similar beliefs myself before I would doubt them because my misplaced faith and my idealism were so very strong.
There is such a delicious irony in what Michael Pearl has written. His tactics of enforcement compare so well to patriarchy, but he just stops short of some of the ideas of patriarchy. I don’t think that he suffers from the concerns of exclusivity that so many Calvinists suffer because he does not see salvation as a limited commodity (there are great blessings in that perspective which I think one can hold and also be a Calvinist since no man knows who is elect and who is not). I think that the patriarchy movement has too many concerns about keeping the group of the redeemed small, like salvation is a limited commodity about which they need to be concerned.
But is is hopeful to me. The Word does not return void in anyone. It will accomplish that which God sends it to do, and that is true of Gothard, the Pearls and all of those associated with all the other forms of patriarchy/patriocentricity. I know that God is not doing things the way I would have them, but that’s a blessing. I don’t have to understand, and I can rest in the promise that God will bring us all into knowledge of the truth.
I did look to see if Vision Forum sells Debi Pearl’s book. And I wonder how many Vision Forum affiliates and customers have a copy of the book on their bookshelves? I guess this latest subject of Cloistered Homeschool Syndrome as addressed by “No Greater Joy” now classifies them as internet assassins, too. And it makes you wonder how many Dougites actually follow the principles that the Pearls promote, doesn’t it?
Good for the Pearls. Maybe they will question their own practices as time wears on, as you state. I know that’s how I got out of submission teachings as well, and I still work to correct my thinking on some of these matters. I married my husband with the idea that he was the priest of our home, though I now realize that this is not found in Scripture. The gentle Holy Spirit will do His work in due time in all of us.
I wonder if the Botkin’s latest post means to address the Pearl articles. They readily admit at the beginning of the post that they have been watching the homeschooling movement “grow up.” And though the Anna Sophia who wrote the article has done that, isn’t this a statement usually used by those who are old enough to have watched someone grow up? She’s not yet grown up herself, and it’s the first generation of homeschoolers that have actually watched her grow up, provided that they knew anything about her.
It’s really quite sad, because most of what she has to say are statements with which I totally agree, though I don’t think they are only endemic to homeschoolers. I use the same rationales when I speak about my pot-smoking, ex-con cousin who was abused by a step-father and lived through his mother’s two divorces. He is certainly nothing like any kind of product of homeschooling, yet Anna Sophia’s description of the Childish Homeschooler Syndrome applies well to him in nearly every respect she describes. I think that as the “True Woman” conference and as the quotes here posted by Corrie from John Knox several weeks ago attest, the sins they describe are not the sins of women but the sins that come from the deceitful and not-yet-sanctified hearts of mankind. The same can be said of the Botkins’ description of these childish homeschoolers. It sounds like typical, human behavior and the works of our sinful flesh. The product has just been placed in a new wrapping and given a new name.
The title is curious though, is it not?
That said, the Botkin article is pretty good, and really anyone who resists God’s Word can benefit from it. And these issues may be common to homeschoolers, but that is not because they are homeschooled but because they are human.
Good thoughts about the strength of God’s word, Cindy K. May the power of those words shine even among man’s (and Botkins’) perversion.
I also think you are onto something huge about the patrios’ desire to keep the numbers of the saved down so they might have a better chance at snagging one of those elect spots. Because we have that all figured out exactly, right?
We sure saw some of that exclusivity during the whole Y2K frenzy. The leadership thought they’d be the only ones standing after midnight struck and could take over the world with their stash of food and arms. A new theocracy–with them at the helm. That didn’t quite pan out, of course, so they moved onto kingdom building through patriarchy.
The patrio’s focus on the elect also explains their lack of concern for the mission field. They see a lock on election by making babies, overtaking the world through covenental promises.
The patrios think they have a unique take on how to live for Christ and that the world needs to follow their marching orders. Their focus is not Jesus, but their need to take power and control over the rest of us. Because of course, they’re the only ones who’ve ever, ever really gotten it right.
Some people, mostly manipulators or people with control issues see power or money as a limited commodity. It means if someone gets power (or love or approval or attention), that somehow, they have less. It’s a characteristic that many people with some choice personality disorders have. It really is a state of mind that is pretty pitiful, living life benchmarking yourself, constantly worried about what everyone else has or doesn’t have.
It’s a pretty Machiavellian way of thinking, and we follow Jesus not Machiavelli’s concepts (which I think would constitute following our own desires and a code of selfishness). And this may not be true of the followers of this movement, just those who hold the power.
It’s sad to consider that any of this has anything to do with Christianity and evangelism.
Limited atonement makes the formula balance out, but that knowledge is not given to us mere mortals, so why is this some cause to think more highly than ourselves than we ought to think when the Word tells us the opposite? Though this can be used as a cause for prejudice, and this is not Christian either. We’re to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and not to hide from our own flesh that we might be like a fountain and an ever-flowing stream. Why would we even want to know who will be elect in the final summation of things and who will not? We ought to have plenty of beams in our own eyes…
I don’t know. It just seems like it’s the only good explanation behind why any Christian would not rejoice to see a sinner repent or why they would rejoice to see anyone turned away from the joy of the Lord and eternal rest. Even then, it boils down to either power or fear.
Karen mentioned how certain homeschooling “leaders” (self-appointed) have drawn these lines to divide Christian homeschoolers. It’s so sad. But there too, it is all focused on exclusivity.
This is going back to a topic discussed earlier on this thread. What if all those wives and children over 18 had voted? Would the election have turned out differently? It seems to defeat the point of having a lot of kids and hinder taking dominion over the country if only the father can vote. They speak of the wife simply doubling the vote, but if she votes for who her husband says to vote for ( who Doug Philips says) then wouldn’t that be a good thing?
You would think so, right, Nicole? That would make sense if the patrios themselves made sense. But to them, “pragmatism” and “relevancy” are dirty words.
They also want the inside track on voting for their own obscure candidate (once they’ve received the directive on-Vision-Forum high, that is). Makes them more exclusive and important, don’tcha know?
It also allows them free reign to carp about whoever wins. “We didn’t vote for him!”
Funny how they especially love slamming right-wing officials while virtually ignoring the lefties. I don’t quite have that figured out, but I’m guessing they’ll be frustrated to lose their Republican whipping boys soon. It’ll be interesting to follow their political talk in the coming months and years.
This is a bit off-topic on this general thread of patriocentric related topics, but I just discovered something pretty interesting.
Ever notice that Vision Forum makes blog revisions?
Well, a year or so ago, I copied the content from Vision Forum Ministries “Biblical Confession Uniting Church and Family” which used to read this way:
ARTICLE VI — Church is a Family of Families
We affirm that our Heavenly Father designed His church to be a spiritual “family of families” where members know one another intimately, the shepherds understand the sheep effectively, and the various body parts function interactively (1 Tim. 3:15).
I just wanted to point out that their statement that the church as a “spiritual ‘family of families'” has been altered to read “family of families and singles.”
From the new version: ARTICLE VI — Church is a Family of Families
We affirm that our Heavenly Father designed His church to be a spiritual household — a “family of families and singles”where members know one another intimately, the shepherds understand the sheep effectively, and the various body parts function interactively (1 Tim. 3:15).
It makes me wonder when they altered this statement that one must sign and agree upon to become an NCFIC participating family or church. Curious, isn’t it? I wonder if this change has something to do with my pointing out that the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and those associated with this reject their teaching?
Or did they decide to make the change when they deleted the Abshire article and allowed Beall to vote, stating that she’s been voting for as long as she and Doug have been married?
On one of the preceding “patriocentricity” threads, we started on the subject of the husband/father as prophet, priest and king of the home. If you are interested in this topic and particularly if you find it confusing, you will be interested in this:
“It makes me wonder when they altered this statement that one must sign and agree upon to become an NCFIC participating family or church. Curious, isn’t it? I wonder if this change has something to do with my pointing out that the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and those associated with this reject their teaching?”
It is called marketing 101. Doing what you need to do to increase your market niche. You simply pointed out the limitations of their ‘product’.
I haven’t been here in forever, and have hardly been online (it’s a long story). But I was so struck by something yesterday (reading the bible to my children, egads!) that struck me so hard that I had to come find you all. I don’t know if I’ll be able to get back on again soon or not but here’s what I’ve been thinking about:
VF/Patriocentricity and the whole multi-generational faithfulness “vision” quest that they are always talking about. “If the father does this, that, and the other, then his whole family will follow God and a righteous seed will begin.” (I do believe fathers can leave a godly legacy, I am not contesting that.) Yet there is this “family” calling, that everyone is supposed to be engaged with what the father is doing, etc. (and dare I say it,) this sort of ‘family salvation’ i.e. if the father is good enough, then his whole family will be saved kind of thinking…
This sort of flies in the face of most of the Old Testament. First, I was thinking of the High Priest, Eli. Godly man, of the line of Aaron, hand picked by God. Wicked children. Samuel, Godly man, picked by God to take Eli’s place. Wicked Children. Saul. David. Job. Job especially- he made offerings to God just in case there were things his children were doing that he did not know about! Not ‘godly seed’ by any stretch of the imagination. I said this to James and he starting ticking off on his fingers a long list of fathers in the Bible whose children were lost or wicked or what have you. When you think about it, the fathers were amazing men, hand picked by God, following God’s call, doing exactly what God had called them to do, and I am sure that if God saw fit to mention them in the Bible, we can trust His description of them. It kind of blows the whole ‘multi generational faithfulness’ thing out of the water, doesn’t it? I mean, Enoch walked with God, and so God took him, but God didn’t see fit to take his children, either…
Maybe this isn’t all that mind blowing at all, and the rest of you are sort of looking at me askance…but for some reason, this has just struck me so hard. It just seems like such freedom to me: yes, I need to be responsible for my children, and I need to teach them God’s ways, but even the great men of the bible struggled with wayward children, and they were very godly men! It’s just given me so much to think about.
“Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right. He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. … He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign Lord. Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things (though the father has done none of them): He eats at the mountain shrines. He defiles his neighbor’s wife. … Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head. But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things. He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. … He keeps my laws and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. … The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of his father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked man will be charged against him.”
Mrs. Joy, your words brought this immediately to mind. God deals with us as individuals and looks at our hearts as individuals. Not because families are not important — we know that they are, and they are a priority to God. But saving faith in God is a one-on-one relationship.
Don’t forget that the first family had a murder. Cain murdered his brother, Abel.
The great patriarchs were a mess.
So if we are to follow in the footsteps of the great patriarchs, there is much sin there, and much lousy outcome. We’re still fighting a war fueled by the conflict between two ancient brothers.
BTW, is there any way that you could put up a time index for this blog to be able to see what discussions took place when? Someone wrote to me to ask if I could get at posts from March ’08, but I can’t find any posts beyond Visionary Daughters thread 6. This would be late in March and into April.
Often times, I can go back and find a date when something was discussed, but then if it’s been some time since it was discussed, I don’t remember the thread name all the time. This will help. I know some thread went active at the end of March last year, but I don’t remember what the thread was called. I can always poke around and back through the previous or following months to figure it out.
“It kind of blows the whole ‘multi generational faithfulness’ thing out of the water, doesn’t it? I mean, Enoch walked with God, and so God took him, but God didn’t see fit to take his children, either…”
And then there’s this. In Isaiah 54 there is a prophecy, which begins, “Isa 54:1 Sing, O barren, thou [that] didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou [that] didst not travail with child: for more [are] the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.”
It is repeated in the New Testament, in Galatians:
(Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.)
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, [thou] barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.”
This is the difference between the flesh and the spirit, the New Covenant and the Old, between Adam and Jesus.
The first Great Commission,given to Adam and Eve, says,
“Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
The Second Great Commission, given by Christ to his followers, and to us, the Chrich, His Bride, is as follows:
“Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.”
The Kingdom of Heaven is populated through the Spirit, not through the flesh, and I believe that it is no accident that the most notably patriarchal religions and societies are those who believe in the God of Moses and Abraham, but in one way or another deny or misunderstand the nature of His Son and of salvation by grace — Islam, ultra-orthodox Judaism, conservative Anabaptist sects, and Mormonism, et al.
These groups either deny Christ altogether, or misunderstand salvation by grace, and all are, to one extent or another, still attempting to function under a religion based on Law.
There are more scriptures that contradict the multi-generational traditions that are being taught by the patriocentrists.
The ones about how Jesus came to set father against son and mother against daughter and so on. Family is important but there is nothing in the NT that says we populate heaven by the “will of man” or by man’s flesh. Or that our families will all be “faithful” if we stick with a certain paradigm.
49“I have come to bring fire on earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and what stress I am under until it is completed!
51 “Do you think that I came to bring peace on earth? Not at all, I tell you, but rather division! 52 From now on, five people in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided father against son, son against father, mother against daughter, daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
So much for the false teaching of “multi-generational faithfulness”. Jesus doesn’t seem to be too multi-generational in His own words or that concerned about the “patriarch” building his own kingdom.
It is amazing to me what scriptures the patrios harp on and what they totally ignore. If they took all of scripture into account they wouldn’t be teaching the things they do.
Great post. Also, just look at the first 5 kings named in Isaiah and you will see no multi-generational faithfulness.
God has made some vessels for destruction and others for righteousness. He is the potter. Romans 9 is where this is found.
“Isaiah also calls out concerning Israel,
“Although the descendants of Israel
are as numerous as the grains of sand on the seashore,
only a few will be saved.”
Interesting, especially if we are to believe in the multi-generational paradigm. Is God unfaithful to the patrios multi-generational plan? Nope. It just doesn’t seem to be something that is consistent with His revealed will and therefore it is not biblical teaching.
Congratulations on all your hard work! I would be proud to use you as an example for my own daughters. You are following YOUR calling and that is wonderful! We women are not all called to just one thing. We have many callings and they can be fulfilled in various, multi-colored ways.
Thank you for not following the cookie-cutter mold that some would have us believe is the only “biblical” way of living.
You ladies are simply brilliant. The VF really is embarassingly insane and their inconsistencies are humorous to those with their eyes open. I often feel it hard to sympathize with the Botkin girls since I’m so sickened by their constant, holier-than-thou lies and ludicrous exegesis. What’s the name of that horrific film you talked about, regarding some woman and the whiny men in her life who shun her after hearing about an abortion?
Ladies, do theologians believe menstruation is a curse? That it is a result from the fall? 😦
I was not aware that this was believed in Christianity. I mean, I actually only heard that bizarre notion from a scary movie called “Carrie”. But now I’m hearing Christian women tell me they’re not sure!
I can’t understand why someone would think this when I see it as an ingenious method of creation. Also, I’m thinking, if the essence of being female is so despised, do they not also despise us?
I am very disturbed. 😦
“An early list of the “ten curses of Eve” appears in the “B version” of the midrashic collection, Avot De Rabbi Nathan, (hereafter, ARNB). ARNB is a kind of expansion of the well-known Mishnaic tractate, Pirkei Avot. It is thought to have been composed as early as the second century C.E. In the 42nd chapter of ARNB, we read:
Ten decrees were passed with regard to Eve.
The first is menstruation, when she is driven from her house and banned from her husband.
The second is that she gives birth after nine months.
The third is that she nurses for two years.
The fourth is that her husband rules over her.
The fifth is that he is jealous of her if she speaks with any other man.
The sixth is that she ages quickly.
The seventh is that she ceases to give birth while men never cease being able to beget children.
The eighth is that she stays in the home and does not show herself in public like a man.
The ninth is that when she goes out into the marketplace her head has to be covered like a mourner. That is why women precede the bier, saying: We have brought death upon all the inhabitants of the world.
The tenth is that if she was upright, her husband buries her. For we find that this was the case with our ancestors: our father Abraham buried Sarah our mother. Isaac buried Rebecca our mother. Jacob buried Rachel and Leah. “