We build fences to keep ourselves from committing certain sins. Soon these fences – instead of the sins they were designed to guard against- become the issue. We elevate our rules to the level of God’s commandments. “ Jerry Bridges
Have you ever heard of the “Stay-at-Home Daughters Movement”? It’s a relatively new movement that appears to be promoted by Vision Forum (Doug Phillips) and his cohorts. Young girls and single women are encouraged (perhaps coerced?) to be “keepers at home” until they marry. They are forbidden to attend college or seek employment outside the home (that is, their parents’ home). These maidens spend all of their time honing their “advanced homemaking skills”, which include cooking, sewing, cleaning, knitting, etc. A stay-at-home daughter is under her father’s “covering” until he transfers control to her husband.
When I first learned of the Quiverfull Movement, I wondered how a wife and mother could take care of so many children. As I have read about the experiences of stay-at-home daughters, it has become clear that it’s primarily the daughters who take care of their younger siblings – not the mothers. These young girls/ladies are truly moms-in-training. How sad that so many stay-at-home daughters are robbed of their own childhood!
In case you are having doubts about whether this movement is for real, check out these blogs written by stay-at-home daughters.
Jasmine Baucham, daughter of Voddie Baucham (a Southern Baptist pastor), had been posting on her blog Joyfully at Home until just last month. She explained that she keeps her readers updated on three things: “1.When my book was out. 2. When I got another sibling. 3. When I said goodbye to spinsterdom.”
Then Jasmine explains that two out of three isn’t bad, meaning that her new book (which shares the same title as her blog) has been published and that her parents have added another arrow to their quiver… Although Jasmine explains on her blog that she “chose to forgo the typical college experience so that I could live under the discipleship of my parents until marriage,” her bio indicates that she is completing a degree in English literature — perhaps through online study?
Then there’s “Miss Kelly and Miss Andrea” who have a blog called “Ah the Life”.
And we certainly cannot leave out Anna Sophia and Elizabeth Botkin who wrote the book So Much More, which we reviewed here at TWW. Their blog is called Visionary Daughters
Interestingly, Anna Sophia (who co-wrote So Much More when she was a teenager) recently published the following on her blog:
“I just turned 25. Oddly, it seems a lot more than one year older than 24. The realization that I have lived a quarter of a century brings new awareness of the preciousness of time, the reality of aging and death, and the fact that life unfolds at a speed and in a way that I can’t control. I’m past feeling like my life is stretching out endlessly before me – I’m a good third of the way into it (Lord willing) and the ticking of the clock seems to grow louder.”
Why hasn’t her father found her a beau to marry yet? I thought the goal of Quiverfull and Stay-at-home daughters was to get married young and have lots of babies as Anna Sofia and Elizabeth gleefully advocate in the conclusion of their book.
Gina McGalliard has written an eye-opening article entitled “House Proud: The troubling rise of stay-at-home daughters” that we encourage you to read. (Please excuse the name of the magazine).
“Integral to Vision Forum’s belief about female submission is making sure women are not independent at any point in their lives, regardless of age; hence the organization’s enthusiasm for stay-at-home daughterhood. The most visible proponents of this belief are Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin, sisters and authors of the book So Much More: The Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God (published by Vision Forum), and creators of the documentary film Return of the Daughters, which follows several young women staying home until marriage, and details how they spend their time serving their fathers.”
What greatly disturbs me is the following excerpt from House Proud:
“Although the Botkins and their stay-at-home sisterhood believe that women have a duty to be obedient, if men fail in their endeavors—their work, their marriages, their faith—guess who’s responsible? “If our men aren’t successful, it largely means that their women have not made them successful. They need our help,” the Botkins write. Wives, claim the Botkin sisters, have the ability to “win” over their husbands with respectful and submissive behavior, for when the husbands observe this, they will become “ashamed and repentant.” (The sisters are strangely silent on what to do if this isn’t effective.) And daughters have the same responsibility: “Before you can accuse your father of being unprotective, ask yourself: ‘Do you make it clear to him that you are a woman of virtue, worthy of his special protection? If your behavior was more gentle, feminine, respectful and lovely would he be more inclined to be protective of you?’” Relationships with mothers, by contrast, get little consideration within the literature and blogs of the stay-at-home-daughters movement. Mother-daughter dynamics are mentioned in the Botkins’ book and film only in the context of readers becoming future mothers.”
This movement definitely has its dissenters, as Gina McGalliard aptly explains:
“The stay-at-home-daughters movement has inevitably inspired controversy and dissent, much of it among dedicated Christians who consider the movement to be a dire misconstruction of their religion. According to Cindy Kunsman, a survivor of what she terms “spiritual abuse” and the author of the blog Under Much Grace, stay-at-home daughters who have exited the lifestyle are—despite what the rest of us might presume—usually well prepared academically, but lack certain key skills for success in life. ‘Those young women who received excellent training have an easier time acquiring job skills when pursuing college and healthcare training, as many of them have done quite successfully,’ said Kunsman in an interview. ‘However, because [these young women] were required to abdicate all significant problem-solving to another agent while in their families of origin, they lack skill and practice in critical thinking and planning… They must work to build integrity, self-reliance, autonomy, and trust in themselves, which they were taught to derive from the identity of the family.’ ”
We focused on Hillary McFarland in yesterday’s post, and she is quoted in House Proud, as follows:
“One of the most outspoken counter-CPM blogs is Quivering Daughters—the name a play on the phrase “Quiverfull”—authored by Hillary McFarland. ‘Increasing numbers of women in their late twenties and thirties remain ‘safely’ at home, patiently waiting for husbands to find them,’ writes McFarland in her book Quivering Daughters: Hope and Healing for the Daughters of Patriarchy. ‘As unmarried adult daughters continue to perfect the art of homemaking, help to mother and school young siblings, and learn to be a godly helpmeet, many through spiritual discipline strain to cauterize wounds made tender with disappointment.’ “
If marriage and motherhood are so important to stay-at-home daughters, then why does it appear that many are not yet married?
I want to end with a comment posted by Mary Elizabeth on Your Sacred Calling, a blog that advocates the stay-at-home daughter movement.
Mary Elizabeth said…
“I shudder to think of all the young girls in your community whose futures are being drastically limited due to your absolutely archaic thinking. This will probably not be posted, again due to a narrow mindset that cannot stand to be challenged, but I simply had to say something. I sincerely hope and pray your daughters wake up and realize their potential before it is too late.”
Lydia's Corner: Exodus 10:1-12:13 Matthew 20:1-28 Psalm 25:1-15 Proverbs 6:6-11
feel very sad for these girls
“Before you can accuse your father of being unprotective, ask yourself: ‘Do you make it clear to him that you are a woman of virtue, worthy of his special protection? If your behavior was more gentle, feminine, respectful and lovely would he be more inclined to be protective of you?’”
Not one of use “deserve” the love and protection of Jesus Christ. Yet, He died for us WHILE we were undeserving sinners.
The “lie” of this movement is very clear when we understand the very basics of the Gospel. But so much legalism, rules, roles, etc, make it impossible to see the incredible truth of GRACE.
It is a cult.
I find myself absolutely fascinated by this movement. The most interesting part of it to me is that it elevates as the ideal life one that most young women in the modern western world can’t acheive – working for Dad. Of course if you are a young Gothardite your father might already be at home running his own business. For the rest of us, Dad has realized that there is honor and not sin in “working for the man.” These young women are being told that they can learn all sorts of skills, and perhaps the princesses of the movement are. Even in larger families where the oldest daughter might have enough work without Dad simply in helping Mom, the younger daughters will still be left twiddling their thumbs. The rest of the girls watching Return of the Daughters and buying the entire marketing scheme hook, line, and sinker will find themselves in an even sadder state than any unmarried Botkin daughter can even imagine.
Lydia nails it that understanding grace would help many in this movement. May we all have a better understanding of grace today.
Thanks for your insightful comment. Doug Phillips and Company have created a cottage industry out of this kind of nonsense, and some gullible families are buying it hook, line, and sinker. What troubles me the most is that these stay-at-home daughters have no freedom whatsoever about their futures. They have to sit around the house and wait for daddy to go out and find a suitable husband. Sadly some may will wait in perpetuity…
I am no feminist, but these pathetic patriarchal attitudes have given me a glimpse into what must have stirred women of a bygone era to stand up for equal rights. History is repeating itself in this dominionist crowd.
You are so right! This is a marketing scheme that is wreaking havoc in the patriarchal homeschooling crowd.
Jasmine Baucham is featured in Return of the Daughters, along with the Botkins. Now that she has published her first book, I guess she’s well on her way to cashing in on the stay-at-home daughters movement, just like the Botkin girls.
Sadly, it will probably be years from now when the irreparable damage of this movement is finally revealed for all to see.
This is absolutely pathetic.
This is simply another manifestation of human beings believing they will get closer to God if they go back in time culturally. We have seen this in 20th Century America many times. At least the Amish (sp?) make good furniture and foods and by and large keep to themselves.
But this movement doesn’t even really produce anything – except an obsession with being perfect and having a perfect family. That’s just idolatry.
I feel sorry for the people who get into this stuff. But what really gets me angry is when it creeps into the church.
We have several homeschool families at church. I have passed your articles on to our pastor and youth pastor so they can be aware of these movements and such. So far we haven’t seen any of these extremely negative tendencies about which you write.
But these articles are helpful. It keeps me aware of who’s who in these movements, and it helps me recognize the malarky when it is vocalized. We had a brief encounter with the “courtship” issue and some parents recommending “I Kissed Dating Goodbye”. We nipped that in the bud, but I have a sense that some of these issues lurk beneath the surface of what is going on.
Our church leadership does not approve of any of this, so it does not get promoted.
Still, it helps to know what is out there.
You make some excellent points in your comment. Here’s what frustrates me. Just how successful are these extremists in fulfilling the Great Commission?
Regarding homeschooling, I have friends and family who have homeschooled successfully over the years, and I homeschooled my daughters for four years when they were young. For the most part I am a proponent of the homeschooling, but when families take the extremist positions we have described here at TWW, I have to speak out.
Thanks for getting the word out to your pastors about these fringe groups.
The reality up close is much worse. A friend of mine moved to a new state and her and her husband got involved in what they thought was a typical baptist church. They soon figured out it was serious patriarchy. All the kids were homeschooled and all the daughters stayed home raising kids. It was considered a sin to send your kids to Babylon. Even Christians schools were considered bad. They left but eventually some of the older daughters of people they met while there ran away from home and they took them in. These were 20-22 year olds.young women.
These girls had not been educated past very basic high school. They were to serve their father and do housework and be perpetual babysitters. They could not even drive!. Neither one of them had ever been to a gyn for a basic exam. It was found that one had a horrible cyst and that it needed to be removed so they arranged for that. She had been in pain for years! But no doctor was to injure her “virginity” by any exam. It was a sin to work for another man and neither were allowed to even think about college. They had NO basic social skills for dealing with the world, going to college or holding a job in the world..
Their parents were not backward people. They were well to do and very patriarchal. They put on a very good face to the public but life is sick inside.
The church was run by a well known FIC person who is buddies with the Mohlers and Doug Phillips. And it was SBC.
” For the most part I am a proponent of the homeschooling, but when families take the extremist positions we have described here at TWW, I have to speak out.”
So am I even though I would never do it.. And I am finding more and more homeschooling families are turning away from the extremists. Problem is, they took over the movement and were making a fortune with conferences, materials, etc. They make a ton of money off people they are telling to start businesses. It is amusing in a way. Doug Phillips’ Vision Forum uses these young people as free help to make a fortune. They don’t have to pay the girls, you know.
It’s frightening to learn what’s really going on in some patriarchal families. My heart goes out to these daughters who have no freedom regarding their future. I’m convinced that this IS NOT what God intended!
So this individual to whom you refer is buddies with Al Mohler? I know he is acquainted with Paige Patterson and is a close friend of Doug Phillips.
BTW, I heard Phillips speak at the 1998 North Carolina Homeschool Convention. That was the same year he established Vision Forum. A year and a half after that I enrolled my daughters in a wonderful Christian school, and our years of homeschooling came to an end. It seems we got out just before the extremists took over, praise God!
All we can do is alert our readers of the dangers of patriarchy, quiverfull, and the stay-at-home daughters movement.
Do you remember reading this article I wrote about two months after we began blogging?
Do you think Randy Stinson (who earned his M.Div from SEBTS) introduced Al Mohler to the head of NCFIC? http://www.ncfic.org/
I’m still trying to put the puzzle pieces together.
Last comment of the day, Lydia…
I haven’t kept up with Randy Stinson lately. Have you heard of the D6 Conference at which he’ll be speaking next year?
Randy is addressing how to reach out to men and get them involved in church.
Deb, I remember that blog post. I do know from a friend that worked with Stinson at SBTS that they were trying to infiltrate most academic programs with FIC focus. It did not go over well. Especially with the older students returning for PhD’s. As I understand it, they backed off a bit. My guess is that they simply did not call it what it is and it is still there. That is usually how they do things. (The Orwellian term “complimentarian” comes to mind)
It is simply another push for control over people. While family is important we must ask WHY the family is important in the New Covenant because there are some passages that seem to negate what the FIC/Patriarchy/Quivering Daughters people are expousing.
My understanding is the New Covenant is about making disciples. The Old is about being fruitful and multiplying. If this is not true, what do we make of these teachings from the New Covenant:
49 “I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished! 51 Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. 52 For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. 53 Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” Luke 12
34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’[e] 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. Matthew 10
1 Now it came to pass, afterward, that He went through every city and village, preaching and bringing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with Him, 2 and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities—Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons, 3 and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who provided for Him[a] from their substance. Luke 8
Above we have a MARRIED woman traveling around with Jesus and supporting Him out of her resources.
19 Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.”
21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Luke 8
We know that Peter was married and NOT home leading his family. There are other examples but you get the drift.
Could it be we need rethink how we view family? My children are my responsibility but ONE DAY, my prayer is that they are simply my brothers and sisters in Christ. Our husbands are our brothers in Christ if they are saved.
We MUST point to Jesus Christ at all times. There are many forms of idolatry roaming around Christendom. One is “churchianity”, the worship of the church, building, programs, leadership, etc. Another is the idolatry of worldly authority structures we are bringing into the family and the Body of Christ. yes parents are the authority over their young children but what is the goal? Lifelong authority over them or that they become mature believers full of the pure wisdom from above?
I would mention names but a well kept secret from the pew sitters is that these guys love to sue. People would be stunned to learn how much these guys use the legal world to maintain their image. It is not about winning, it is about tying people up for years in legal wranglings and scare tactics.
And the daughters of the patriarches have requested anonymity. they have been through enough.So, I understand.
Am I the only one here who sees how closely parallel the Botkin system is to fundamentalist Islam? I can’t be the only one, that’s why I’m an avid fan of TWW, I enjoy immensely what the thinkers here have to say!
We like you as well. And yes, there is a similarity. Next week I will review a book called Favorite Wife about life in a polygamist group . There are even more striking similarities to Botkin fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism.
Church covenants in abusive churches merely serve to prevent the pew sitters from suing. The anointed ones can sue the pants off any and all and often do so. However, they have the money from the church coffers to pay the attorney’s bills-money that the little guy has given. And the little guy is often the focus of the suit.
“Am I the only one here who sees how closely parallel the Botkin system is to fundamentalist Islam? I can’t be the only one, that’s why I’m an avid fan of TWW, I enjoy immensely what the thinkers here have to say!”
No. It sounds familiar because all patriarchy comes from the same root: Sin. It is the foundation of Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses and Islam. It is cultic. It elevates mere humans instead of Jesus Christ.
So glad you enjoy what’s being discussed here. I have seen the similarities you mention as well.
I believe patriarchy is rooted in sin as well, and it needs to be rooted out of Christendom!
This is such a shame. All these young women are missing going off to college and getting drunk and sleeping around every weekend like the good Baptist girls, (ministers’ daughters), I knew at Baylor. After their abortions, they married successful Baylor grads who are making gobs of money and are every bit as, “kept,” women as the ones being marginalzed here.
In this day when there are so many women who will not respect their husbands, and considering the shameful divorce rates among Christians, it’s amazing that these girls, many of whom have genuine faiths and truly are trying to serve the Lord, are looked down upon more than the worldly, promiscuous, rebellious, but praise God, independent, girls you seem to admire so much.
“I believe patriarchy is rooted in sin as well, and it needs to be rooted out of Christendom!”
Come on now girls , this is the old “the devil made me do it ” thing.
I am on my way to church so this response will be short. Both Deb and I have daughters who are in college- mine studying to be a nurse and hers to be a teacher. My daughter loves the Lord and spent these years helping a church set up a special needs program. Deb’s daughter has been on mission trips to NYC. They do not sleep around. They want to do good things in this world for the Lord. These are the women I admire.
You condemn all girls who go to college as whores-abortions, sleeping around ,etc. That is unbecoming to paint everyone with your broad brush. You need to look deeper. So, it is just the women who will not respect their husbands? How about the men who do not love their wives as Christ loved the church and so beat them around. I know lots of those as well.
I want my girls to be educated and use their talents in the service of God, their world and their families. It does not need to be monolithic-just serving their families.
So all girls at Baylor sleep around and get abortions? I know a few who would be very, very upset with your characterization. There are many there who serve the Lord as well. And, I bet you know it. In every setting, be it homeschool, Christian school and secular school, there will be people who serve the Lord and those who do not. The Bible is replete with examples. Take Lydia, for example-a businesswoman who used her wealth in service of the new faith.
“In this day when there are so many women who will not respect their husbands, and considering the shameful divorce rates among Christians, it’s amazing that these girls, many of whom have genuine faiths and truly are trying to serve the Lord, are looked down upon more than the worldly, promiscuous, rebellious, but praise God, independent, girls you seem to admire so much.”
If the men are like you, it is not wonder they do not respect them. What is to respect?
“I believe patriarchy is rooted in sin as well, and it needs to be rooted out of Christendom!”
Come on now girls , this is the old “the devil made me do it ” thing.”
Huh? Please explain your vague statement.
“This is such a shame. All these young women are missing going off to college and getting drunk and sleeping around every weekend like the good Baptist girls, (ministers’ daughters), I knew at Baylor. After their abortions, they married successful Baylor grads who are making gobs of money and are every bit as, “kept,” women as the ones being marginalzed here.
In this day when there are so many women who will not respect their husbands, and considering the shameful divorce rates among Christians, it’s amazing that these girls, many of whom have genuine faiths and truly are trying to serve the Lord, are looked down upon more than the worldly, promiscuous, rebellious, but praise God, independent, girls you seem to admire so much.”
Michael, It is a sin to malign a whole group of people unless you know for a fact that every single woman that goes to college becomes a whore and gets an abortion. Even then, your love for Christ means your heart would be broken for these lost. Not hateful toward them.
Your hatred of women screams from your comment. The women you do not control you see as rebellious whores. Believe me, I have seen this all over the patriarchy movement for years. In reality, you have a serious problem of deep hatred in your heart that does not come from Christ. Yours is a works religion with NO Grace. I pity you because you really believe you are following Christ with your rules and roles for women. You have a religion of preeminance for yourself. It will be hard to let go of.
Micheal is the typical Pharisee living out the law of the OT. However, even the law of Moses was not as Strict as Michael’s. (Micheal is spouting the typical patriarchy party line)
Actually, Michael is living out of the Talmud. But remember, those who do not know who they are in Christ MUST have someone to lord it over in order to feel important and “religious”. For patriarches, it is women.
150 years ago, it was slave owners. There is a hardness of heart that only a road to Damascus type of intervention could change. Pray for their daughters to escape so they can experience Grace from believers.
It is sweeping generalizations like yours that earn Christians very negative labels.
While there are female college students engaging in the activities you describe, some are actually making very good choices. Dee and I EACH have two daughters in college who are counted among the virtuous.
I genuinely hope these stay-at-home daughters find fulfillment in life.
Anyone else notice how Michael blames the women? This is also a basic tenant of Patriarchy. In effect. Patriachs teach that women ARE sin. It is a lot like Islam in that regard. Women are blamed for enticing men. Men are not accountable.
“Dee and I EACH have two daughters in college who are counted among the virtuous. ”
You must understand that the Patriarchs never believe this. The fact your daughter are there means they are whores. This is how they think. Women are deceived and cannot have the indwelling Holy Spirit apart from a man over them who must act as their Holy Spirit for them.
How is it “the old devil made me do it” thing?Patriarchy is rooted in the old covenant and is not part of the new covenant unless I am reading a different Bible. I am confused by your statement.
There is one part of your equation that you left out. Since Baylor has slightly more women than men, it must mean that more men are sleeping around with these women. Why did you not mention the men in this “theory”of yours? So, therefore, more men are sleeping around than women so do you call the men names? Libertines? “Real” men? Deceived by women? Gullible?
Also, why do men get a pass on the working world? Women stay at home because they wish to be virtuous? Somehow men can work in the world and have no problem with being virtuous? Good night! I am getting more confused by the minute.
“Also, why do men get a pass on the working world? Women stay at home because they wish to be virtuous? Somehow men can work in the world and have no problem with being virtuous? Good night! I am getting more confused by the minute.”
Here is how it works in Patriarchy. The woman has the “deception” gene. Even the CROSS cannot override it. But men did not inherit the ‘sin with your eyes wide open sin gene’ from Adam. Or even if they did, the Cross works for them. Women must have an earthly mediator between her and Jesus and it must have male parts. Only male parts can represent Christ on earth. See IN CHRIST, there IS male and female.
This is why women cannot be real Christians by themselves. Since Christ was male, we have no model for being Christlike in our specific gender roles. We are simply left out in the cold UNLESS we can have children. Then we are saved by having kids. Too bad about those barren women who long to follow Christ.
This seems to be a perversion of the Gospel. What is it that makes people want to assert their superiority over others? Racism, slavery, all sorts of discrimination are all aimed at making some more equal than others. This is a sin problem that is amazingly taking hold is some church cultures.If it wasn’t so ridiculous, it could be funny.
I know a guy who is into this stuff. He likes to march around pretending he is some sort of patriarch instead of the doofus that he is.I think this is how some guys compensate for getting beat up by bullies when they were kids.
“I know a guy who is into this stuff. He likes to march around pretending he is some sort of patriarch instead of the doofus that he is.I think this is how some guys compensate for getting beat up by bullies when they were kids.”
Among other reasons. If I stood all the well known Patriarchs I have personally met in a row, who make a living off this doctrine, I would tower over them all in height. :o) This is not a hard and fast rule but there is a pattern.
Wow! It’s been great to have been away for awhile to come back and read all the comments. I can read them from such a clearer perspective, seeing how truly hyper-defensive and condemning many on this blog are.
The point I made was not intended to slam all women who go to college and make an overgeneralization about them. That would be ridiculous! I would think that you would have been astute enough to read between the lines and understand that I was simply contrasting the girls who want to stay at home, walking out their sincere faith, with those who go off to college and abandon their faith and live without conviction at college. Guess not. It strikes me as odd that there is more disdain for the former, rather than the latter.
You know, Deb and Dee, I would love it if you would really consider my point. It seems that you are more negatively concerned about these sincere believers who have conviction to stay at home and give respect to the fathers, family, and future family, than you are about girls who leave their families to live on their own and who live a lifestyle that neither honors God, their Christian family, or their future family. And again, for the less-astute, I’m not talking about ALL girls who go to college. Get real!
My daughter will go to college next year and I’m glad for it. She’s godly, educated, independent, and all I could hope a daughter could be.
I always appreciate your exposing of abusive situations, and where abuse is applicable here, I’m right there with you in condemning it. I also can see that some of these lifestyles are born from true conviction and sincerity of faith, whether misguided or not. But it seems to me that whatever criticisms you have of me overgeneralizing about the girls I was referring to, could be equally applied to your remarks about the girls and families in this so-called movement. The difference is, though, I’m not really talking about all girls who go to college, as many on here wrongly concluded.
Lydia, your accusations and judgments are ridiculous, uninformed, wrong, and just sound kind of nutty. So are both comments by anonymous. Neither one of you know me well enough to have any kind of contextual evidence for your judgmental remarks. If anyone needs to repent from sinful things said, it’s you.
Matt, I’m not blaming women. I’m contrasting one group of woman with another. One woman gives respect to her husband, following the biblical instruction, the other doesn’t. My leaving out men’s responsibility to love their wives was not intended to exclude them, it was simply not applicable to my contrasting of these two groups. See what I mean about hyper-defensiveness?
As you know, we are very concerned about spiritual abuse on this site. Why do you think that we might be concerned about this issue? In fact, there is a great deal of concern about the reported instances of abuse of girls who are to “stay at home.”
Read the accounts of these girls. I just got a note about a girl who had to get help to escape her home . Many of these girls are used as unpaid household help for their quiverfull families and then told they are “preparing” for their lives as wives and mothers. Have you ever read their accounts about their love for their fathers? Some of it is very strange, indicating to me that there could be an unhealthy attachment between father and daughter. I have read some of the stuff on the Botkin site and it is very strange.
Do you think it is a little odd that these girls actually think they are honoring God and their families by staying at home and forgoing pursuing an education to use their brains that God gave them? Could it be that this is a legalistic view of Scripture that defines being a “good” Christian by the action of staying at home? I actually believe that it could be just as dishonoring to God to stay in a self imposed exile in an unhealthy family arrangement as it is to go off to school and go wild. Both can be unBiblical. Are you so sure that they are any more sincere in their beliefs than girls who go off to school and end up going wrong? Both can be sincere and both can sincerely go wrong.
Michael, you said “All these young women are missing going off to college and getting drunk and sleeping around every weekend like the good Baptist girls, (ministers’ daughters), I knew at Baylor. After their abortions, they married successful Baylor grads who are making gobs of money and are every bit as, “kept,” women as the ones being marginalzed here.”
I think both of these types of girls can be unBiblical and can be abused by the men around them. Both daddy and the good Baptist boys who sleep around with the good Baptist girls at Baylor.
The ones at home may be trapped into thinking that they are just a little bit more godly than the girl who goes off to college. Its one of those things like drinking. The Christian who has a glass of wine is just a little less godly than the one who abstains. We have our little hierarchy of rules which indicate who is a better Christian than who. It is a trap and quite unbiblical.
I believe that this movement exhibits a warped view of the Gospel and defines true “womanhood” as forgoing an education or interacting with the world. They forgo bringing the Gospel to places outside of their nice, safe little home. BTW, just so you understand, I have an MBA and stayed at home with my kids. I want my girls to go out and develop their talents and strengths while bringing the Gospel to a dying world. I do not need them here to take care of the house nor does their dad insist that they spend their days worrying about his needs and comfort. Instead we spend time encouraging them to grow into the women who understand their world and can use this understanding to bring God’s redeeming light into darkness. We are all saved at home. They need to go into the world and speak truth.
BTW, Lydia is far from nutty. She is very well versed on the nuttiness that is ongoing in the church. When she says something, she speaks from first hand, eyewitness experience. What is scary to me is that many in the pews have no idea how much these ideas are gaining acceptance.
As I said, when there truly is abuse, I am with you, condemning it. In the same way that you and I understand that not all girls who go to college are promiscuous drunks, we must also understand that all girls who choose to stay at home and take a different route than you would are not abused, ignorant, or misled girls.
While I share your beliefs about girls going to college and learning to live independently, I am not prepared to criticize the practices of well-intentioned, faith-filled, families that have a different view than me, unless it actually involves abuse. On the other hand, to my point, I think there is much to criticize in the trend of church girls who go off to college and live like the world and bring great dishonor to themselves, God, their families and future families. That kind of behavior, in my opinion, is much more worth the criticism than these other girls trying to live out their faith with a clear conscience.
I know that Lydia is far from nutty, which is why I would have expected more from her than her venomous, condemning, ridiculously wrong, shallow judgments about things she knows absolutely nothing about. When someone comes up with such erroneous statements that state that I hate women from thin air, it does sound nutty, because she could not even begin to substantiate that statement with one shred of evidence. It’s simply not true and I will not tolerate those types of judgments. That also applies to anyone else on here who would make those types of statements. I certainly did not make those judgmental and condemning statements about anyone’s character, here.
BTW, would you please repost my statement without my last name. Thanks.
“Lydia, your accusations and judgments are ridiculous, uninformed, wrong, and just sound kind of nutty. So are both comments by anonymous. Neither one of you know me well enough to have any kind of contextual evidence for your judgmental remarks. If anyone needs to repent from sinful things said, it’s you.
Matt, I’m not blaming women. I’m contrasting one group of woman with another. One woman gives respect to her husband, following the biblical instruction, the other doesn’t. My leaving out men’s responsibility to love their wives was not intended to exclude them, it was simply not applicable to my contrasting of these two groups. See what I mean about hyper-defensiveness?”
Michael, you may not have picked up on this but your comments above show your own bias. I do not think my comments are that much different from Lydia’s, yet you call her “nutty” with other insults. But you respond to me in a much more civil manner with an actual explanation.
I have seen this quite a bit on many religious type blogs from men and it is uncanny how women are condescended to for the same content and type of comment as men yet the men are are treated as if their comments have merit even if they disagree. Women are just “nutty” and easily dismissed.
You probably don’t even realize you are doing this. It comes from years and years of being taught that women are more easily deceived, more emotional, cannot be leaders, are to be “loved” not “respected”, etc. You will most likely want to deny this, I am sure. But it more obvious than you might imagine on your vast difference in interaction with Lydia and I.
“While I share your beliefs about girls going to college and learning to live independently, I am not prepared to criticize the practices of well-intentioned, faith-filled, families that have a different view than me, unless it actually involves abuse.”
Whose “well intentions” are NOT allowing an 18-19 year old young woman from further education or even working? The daddy?
Are you saying the 18 year old young woman should have no say in her future, her education, etc? Because that is what is happening.
Most have been taught to live only to please their father,even as adult women. And that is abuse…spiritual and emotional. Why? Because he isn’t Jesus Christ. You call that “well intentioned”. I call it idolatry and elevating a human mediator between these young woman and Jesus Christ because these young woman are NOW adults. (Or should be if they had been raised properly)
I pray my children become my brothers and sisters in Christ in their adulthood. Not idolizing their father (who would never stand for it). That is disgusting.
I will ignore your name calling but think Matt hits the nail on the head! Thanks Matt!
you said… “most have been taught to live only to please their father,even as adult women. And that is abuse…spiritual and emotional. Why? Because he isn’t Jesus Christ.”
I would call it abuse especially if it was Jesus Christ.
you said… “most have been taught to live only to please their father,even as adult women. And that is abuse…spiritual and emotional. Why? Because he isn’t Jesus Christ.”
I would call it abuse especially if it was Jesus Christ.”
I know you would, Karlton. Nothing I can say will change your views on that.
You accused me of blaming women, AN ACTION. Lydia and anonymous reached ridiculous conclusions and made comments that were judgmental regarding my heart and the way that I feel toward women, in addition to how I am actually living my life.
“If the men are like you, it is not wonder they do not respect them. What is to respect?”
“Micheal is the typical Pharisee living out the law of the OT. However, even the law of Moses was not as Strict as Michael’s.”
“Actually, Michael is living out of the Talmud.”
“But remember, those who do not know who they are in Christ MUST have someone to lord it over in order to feel important and “religious”. ”
“There is a hardness of heart that only a road to Damascus type of intervention could change.”
First, anonymous doesn’t know me from Adam. Second, he could not substantiate any of these statements because they’re all false; they could not be farther from the truth. They are conclusions drawn from thin air and do sound very nutty.
“Your hatred of women screams from your comment.”
“The women you do not control you see as rebellious whores.”
“In reality, you have a serious problem of deep hatred in your heart that does not come from Christ.”
“Yours is a works religion with NO Grace.”
“I pity you because you really believe you are following Christ with your rules and roles for women. You have a religion of preeminance for yourself.”
Again, Lydia doesn’t know me from Adam. Second, she could not substantiate any of these statements because they’re all false; they could not be farther from the truth. They are conclusions drawn from thin air and do sound very nutty.
To conclude, Matt, your comment was fair game because it does not contain false judgments about me, my character, or my beliefs. I adequately answered your comment, pointing out that I was simply contrasting Dee’s harsh treatment of this issue without consideration of the church girls who go off to college and dishonor God, themselves, their families, and future families. So, although you were entirely wrong in your conclusion that I was blaming women, I understand how you could have read my comment and interpreted that way.
Not so with Lydia’s and anonymous’ conclusions. They don’t know me, my heart, or my beliefs. If they did, they would know that I am almost exactly opposite of just about everything they judged me to be. They took large leaps to make the ridiculous judgments they made and have no supporting evidence. In addition, Matt, if you’ll notice, my comment wasn’t just about Lydia, it included anonymous.
“Lydia, your accusations and judgments are ridiculous, uninformed, wrong, and just sound kind of nutty. SO ARE BOTH COMMENTS BY ANONYMOUS. NEITHER ONE OF YOU know me well enough to have any kind of contextual evidence for your judgmental remarks. If anyone needs to repent from sinful things said, it’s you.”
So, your comment about me being bias is incorrect and your conclusion that I was condescending to her because she is a woman is also incorrect. My response appropriately fit her AND anonymous’ comments equally.
Actually, you could change my views on that very easily…simply provide direct empirical data for the existence of the Christian God, the fact that this God authored the Bible and I’ll be glad to reexamine my position.
Now, if you find yourself saying something along the lines of “well, there isn’t any direct empirical data for the existence of God, that’s why faith is needed”, then you will immediately understand how I cannot put any credence in your belief system. It is spawned from stories, subjective feelings and a desire to believe.
And if you agree with me on that, then you might understand why I believe it is abusive to children to teach them that these beliefs somehow represent reality and that it not only represents reality but that it is the ultimate source for truth and anything which might seem to contradict it has obviously been twisted, misrepresented or provided compliments of the devil himself.
What a terrible thing to impose on a young mind. The ability to apply reason to our thought process, the ability to critically analyze our surroundings is a tremendous ability, unique to humans…why should we ever teach a child that to ignore this ability is a good or right thing to do.
The world is full of gods, each one believed by his/her adherents to be real, posses great powers and some even have survived death itself…outside of interesting bedtime stories and to show the richness of human imagination and cultures…they have provided nothing…Jesus would be included in this list.
Dizang ruler of the ten hells
Teshub – god of weather
Sutekh (deity) – god of weather (possibly same as Teshup)
Alalus – primordial entity (see Anu of Mesopotamia)
A’as – god of wisdom
Kaskuh – god of the moon
Kusuh – god of the moon (linked with Kaskuh)
Arma – minor moon god
Arinna – sun goddess, consort of Tarhunt/Teshup
Arinniti – sun goddess (may be same as Arinna)
Istanu – god of the sun and of judgement
UTU nepisas – sun god
UTU taknas – sun god
Hannahannah – mother goddess
Hebat – mother goddess
Aruna (Hittite mythology), god of the sea – son of Kamrusepa
Aserdus – goddess of fertility
Shaushka – goddess of fertility
Elkunirsa – god of creation, husband of Aserdus
Ellel – god of the sky
Hepit – goddess of the sky (may be same as Hebat)
Halki (Hittite god) – god of grain
Hanwasuit – goddess of the king
Hasameli – god of metalworkers and craftsmen
Hazzi – god of the mountains and oaths
Sarruma – god of the mountains, son of Teshub and Hebat
Hutena – goddess of fate
Inara – goddess of wild animals, daughter of Tarhunt/Teshup
Ishara – goddess of oaths and of love
Kamrusepa – goddess of healing and magic, mother of Aruna
Khipa – tutelary deity
Lelwani – goddess of the underworld
Rundas – god of the hunt
Telepinu (god) – god of farming
Tilla (deity) – bull god
Upelluri – god of dreaming
Ullikummi – stone giant
Wurrukatte – god of war
Irsirra – goddess of destiny
Alalu – god
Pirwa – god
Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe
Alternatively, Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a cocreator of the world.
Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe
Brahma – creation
Vishnu – Maintenance
Shive – Destruction
Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Māori mythology ;
The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
Viracocha in Inca mythology;
Rod in Slavic mythology.
I suspect that you would read each of their stories and dismiss belief in them as silly nonsense from years gone by…yet if someone mentions your god, all of sudden it is entirely different….but it’s not.
Don’t take this as anything personal, it isn’t. It is just an ongoing frustration of mine to see people caught up in this stuff.
There was no name calling for you to ignore. Unlike you, I characterized your comment, not you. You, on the other hand, sinfully made false judgments about me. I was very careful NOT to call you a name or characterize you. However, your judgments, along with anonymous’, were ridiculous, wrong, uninformed, and sounded nutty, in my opinion.
I am glad my daughter gets to further her education in college next year, to equip herself for what God has called her to be and do in this world for Him. I share your enthusiasm, acknowledging that our kids are already joint heirs in Christ with us and are equal in value, even now. With that mindset, we honor, respect, and love each other, although they have a command to obey their parents, for now.
My wife and I feel as you do, that our kids’ college education is important and has become a minimum achievement.
Regarding these families, it’s great that you have an opinion about what is right. Fortunately for them, they don’t have to live out your conviction; they can live out their own. I can see how you might see some of what they are doing as abusive. That’s fine. But, I can also see how some of what they are doing is much more honorable than the church girls, (and guys), who go off to college and become dishonorable in their behavior. That was my original point.
Finally, Matt missed it by a mile and so did you.
Happy week after Thanksgiving. That is quite a list of gods. I actually don’t know most of them. I am thinking about what you have written today and will try to formulate an answer after I write a post for today.
I know the atheist/humanist crowd has an answer for this but I can’t remember. How does one empirically prove that something is beautiful? Or is it subjective? And if it is subjective, then how do we determine whether or not to protect something because it is beautiful?
How do you feel about the boys who go off to college and live exactly like the girls you are criticizing? What if there was a movement to keep al the boys at home as well in order to protect them? What would happen if, in order to so this, the families would need to go on food stamps and welfare to support the family?Why daughters only in the movement; why not sons as well? Are daughters more susceptible to sin than sons?
I actually think that it is unScriptural to purposely keep girls only out of the workforce and college for no reason except to “protect” them. It is a form of isolationism which is in direct opposition to the command to go into the whole world. I think these families have an unhealthy distrust of God and also their own upbringing of their daughters. I am not so sure that these families are faith filled in the sense of grace and freedom. And, there is a higher likelihood of abuse in such situations. When abuse does occur, many of these young women have little understanding that this lifestyle is odd and could feel isolated without an out.
Once again, I think it is not an either stay at home and be pure or go to college and be a slut. And once again, their are no slutty girls without equally slutty boys.
“Not so with Lydia’s and anonymous’ conclusions. They don’t know me, my heart, or my beliefs. If they did, they would know that I am almost exactly opposite of just about everything they judged me to be. They took large leaps to make the ridiculous judgments they made and have no supporting evidence. In addition, Matt, if you’ll notice, my comment wasn’t just about Lydia, it included anonymous. ”
Michael, We can only take your own words as they appear in type. No one needs to know your heart to interact on a blog. We can only go by the words you write. One problem you have is that you accused us of “not reading between the lines”. A very strange rebuke. Here is your quote:
“I would think that you would have been astute enough to read between the lines and understand that I was simply contrasting the girls who want to stay at home, walking out their sincere faith, with those who go off to college and abandon their faith and live without conviction at college.”
Let’s face it, your original comment was not that nice in “simply contrasting”. You called the girls whores but said nothing about the guys who profess Christ and act like whores. And you insult us for not being smart enough to read between your lines. So, we are to blame for your lack of clear communication.
It is not that simple. First of all, you have no idea whether the girls have a choice or not. You are assuming they do when many of us know they don’t or if it is communicated that they do have a choice, their “other choice” would be sinful according to Patriarchy.
Your original comment did communicate between the lines if you want to know the truth: It is mostly women who are living sinful lifestyles at college.
Perhaps you blame the women for enticing the young men?
But we know it takes two to tango.
I’m not going to get into another fruitless conversation about the common pet peeve on this blog, patriarchy or complementarianism or the like, whatever you want to call it, when I was simply contrasting the GIRLS who go to college versus the GIRLS who stay home.
You’re entitled to your opinion about these things and so are these families. As I’ve already stated, I am for girls going to college and I’m against abuse. I’m also for families walking out their own convictions where abuse is not involved.
You’re right, you don’t have to know my heart to interact on this blog. But, when people, like Lydia and anonymous leap to wild conclusions, making ridiculous judgments, unsubstantiated, wrongly characterizing me, my heart, or my beliefs, something they know absolutely nothing about, I’ll characterize those comments for what they are…nutty.
Also, I think your continued attempt to try to imply I’m bias for not mentioning men lacks logic. Whether or not I was clear in my first post, I have now made it clear that my intention was to contrast two sets of girls. It would be illogical for me to bring guys into the equation. That’s a side issue.
What you may not know is, I’ve already gone around the block with Lydia, Dee, Deb, and others, ad nauseam, regarding this issue of equality of men and women. I’m not going to open up that bottomless pit again, except to say, they are equal in value.
In the meantime, although I do not agree with keeping girls home and preventing them from getting a college education, I recognize the effort they are giving to walk out their conviction of what God would have them do. And I give them more credit than the countless church-grown girls who go off to college and live a rebellious life, dishonoring God and their families. If there are girls or families that need criticizing, I would prefer to criticize the latter.
And just so I won’t be misunderstood again, I’m not referring to all girls who go off to college and boys are irrelevant to the comment I’m making.
Well, I didn’t realize that our focus on stay-at-home daughters would cause such a lively discussion. The purpose of the post was primarily to inform our readers of what appears to be a trend in the Christian homeschool community. After all, that’s one of our primary goals here at TWW.
My daughters were home for almost a week over their Thanksgiving break from college, and I must say that it was great having their help with the “homemaking” responsibilities. Just think, if they were stay-at-home daughters, I could kick back and let them do all the work around the house! Yep, there’s definitely an incentive for parents to choose this lifestyle for their daughters. I’m sure SAHD make excellent teachers and babysitters for their younger siblings!
My family loves Colonial Williamsburg. We used to visit there two or three times a year when my daughters were younger. I vividly remember going into some of the houses and hearing a docent explain that during colonial times only the boys received any formal education. The girls focused on learning domestic skills because they didn’t need an education. Well, history seems to be repeating itself in the “Sisterhood of the Stay-at-Home Daughters”.
I’m with Dee — what if a SAHD decides against her parents’ desires and wants to attend colllege or get an outside job? If she’s eighteen or older, I believe her First Amendment rights are being violated by her parents.
From my perspective, I’m glad that my daughters are busy earning college degrees so that they can support themselves while they are single and possibly help with the family finances if and when they get married. What happens to these degreeless daughters if they get married and their husbands die prematurely? Just something to think about…
Your points are valid and I agree with you that girls should get a degree. In fact, when you look at the numbers, there are actually more girls getting degrees than men, currently, and that trend is expected to continue.
I would imagine that this supposed, “movement,” within the Christian homeschool community is very small and sectarian; almost every family I know of that homeschools sends their daughters to college.
I disagree with you regarding her First Amendment rights being violated, but I’m not going to get into a legal argument here. But, even if they were, there is something more important to consider. Children have a commandment from God to obey their parents. Likewise, a truly godly parent understands that loving their children includes imparting godly wisdom through the years so they may be able to stand on their own one day. Parents who love their children do this and those who dogmatically want to rule their children do so to their own demise, unwisely.
But, when parents and children agree, not under duress but out of conviction, believing this to be God’s plan for a season, we should not be so quick to condemn. Sure, share our opinion, but ultimately trust God to work in their lives.
Finally, where real abuse might occur, we should intervene. But, some of the definitions of abuse that have been conveyed here, regarding this topic, would most certainly not be considered in court as being legitimate abuse.
If for some reason, my wife and I decided that our daughter was to not attend college next year, and I heard claims of abuse, all I could do is laugh at how preposterous that claim would be.
No need to respond I was just in my “let’s light a fire” mood and wanted to generate some comments…
I agree with you, saying that something is “beautiful” is a subjective assessment. But the truth of something being beautiful starts and stops with the individual making the determination.
I think the human mind is quite capable of seeing or believing what it wishes to see. Even the most intense of emotional experiences is a poor guide to reality. That said, I am not denying either the reality or the fervor of people who have had spiritual or religious experiences, but reason forces me to conclude that while the experience itself was real…it says nothing of the reality outside of my head.
I have another question, concerning faith healing…why does God not seem to like amputees? We all read about miraculous cancer healing, cold, epilepsy, cripples, deafness, sore throats…but it seems, pray as hard as they like, be as pious as they can be, pray with all the faith they have, amputees are screwed cause God won’t heal them!
“If for some reason, my wife and I decided that our daughter was to not attend college next year, and I heard claims of abuse, all I could do is laugh at how preposterous that claim would be.”
It would be emotional and spiritual abuse toward her.
Perhaps it does not bother you that some young women raised in Patriarchy are not allowed to even see a doctor so they won’t lose their proof of virginity before marriage. This is quite common in Patriarchal circles. And cruel. Especially for the young woman who had a cyst the size of a grapefruit that had caused her pain for years.
This “movement” is quite mainstream. Voddie Bacham is a leader as are some other well known names. It has infiltrated the SBC to an alarming degree.
You’re exactly right! Voddie Baucham is definitely viewed as mainstream. He is so influential that he’ll be speaking at the 2011 Gospel Coalition Conference.
Check out the promo of his daughter’s book over at Vision Forum. It appears that Jasmine Baucham is profiting from telling others how to be a SAHD.
Here’s Voddie Baucham’s bio as listed on The Gospel Coalition website:
“Voddie Baucham (D.Min., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) currently serves as pastor of preaching at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, Texas. He has served as an adjunct professor at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston, Texas, and Union University in Jackson, Tennessee. He is the author of several articles and books including, The Ever Loving Truth, Family Driven Faith, and What He Must Be.”
Voddie Baucham received his M.Div. from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (during Patterson’s reign, I think). In April 2005 I attended the “Preview Day” at SEBTS, and Baucham was the chapel speaker. I had never heard of him before, and I enjoyed his message. What a shame that he’s gotten involved with Doug Phillips and Vision Forum…
“It would be emotional and spiritual abuse toward her.”
Hogwash! With dogmatic, narrow conclusions like that, you’re moving speedily toward having absolutely NO credibility at all. You seem more extreme than the extreme you criticize.
In light of our conversation here, I asked my daughter at dinner tonight how she would respond if I told her that her mother and I had decided to keep her home next year instead of allowing her to go to college. She responded that she would look for a job and save her money for college in the future. She admitted that she would be upset, but she would comply.
Funny, Lydia, that she didn’t say that she would file a complaint with the local police for emotional and spiritual abuse. She didn’t threaten to sue us so she could exercise her supposed First Amendment rights. She didn’t even hint that she would tell a friend or her youth pastor that she was being emotionally or spiritually abused at home.
And before you leap to some crazy conclusion that she is so beaten down with years of abuse, that she has been trained to be compliant, take a deep breath and refuse to even go to a place that would be very much the wrong conclusion.
She would be compliant because, after years of wisdom poured into her, and after years of tremendous trust she has developed toward us, she would know that we would not ask her to stay home for a year unless it was the very best thing for her. And only God, first, and her parents, second, would even be qualified to know what would be best for her.
Having said that, we intend to send her to college, because we think it is the best thing for her, presently. But if we didn’t, the conclusion that it would be abusive, in ANY way, would have no credibility with us.
Regarding your comments about Patriarchy, I don’t think using extremes to prove your point is very convincing. Most of us are not populating those groups and have more sense than to look at those extremes as credible examples.
“This “movement” is quite mainstream.”
No, it’s not.
“I’m with Dee — what if a SAHD decides against her parents’ desires and wants to attend colllege or get an outside job? If she’s eighteen or older, I believe her First Amendment rights are being violated by her parents. ”
The First Amendment (and the others in general) are about the powers of the government, not the powers of a father. Once someone turns 18 in the USA they are mostly able to do what they want within the law. If their father is forcefully keeping them home, then the father is now a kidnapper or similar. If the father just says “no” and the daughter stays, well we have an issue of ignorance or willful obedience on the part of the daughter.
Since you are discussing these issues with your college bound daughter, would you please ask her how compliant she would be if you demanded that she be be a Stay-At-Home Daughter until she gets married? No college and no job outside the home. She would be a homemaker in training “under your covering” until you find her a husband.
I discussed this with both of my daughters on Saturday, and they think the Stay-at-Home Daughters movement is nuts!
“Funny, Lydia, that she didn’t say that she would file a complaint with the local police for emotional and spiritual abuse. She didn’t threaten to sue us so she could exercise her supposed First Amendment rights. She didn’t even hint that she would tell a friend or her youth pastor that she was being emotionally or spiritually abused at home.”
It would not do her any good to file a complaint. She is not a minor at 18. She can simply leave although it would be hard without any skills or preperation to live in the world independently.
“She would be compliant because, after years of wisdom poured into her, and after years of tremendous trust she has developed toward us, she would know that we would not ask her to stay home for a year unless it was the very best thing for her. And only God, first, and her parents, second, would even be qualified to know what would be best for her. ”
I find this very sad. I would hope that she would have the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide her and give her wisdom. I do have to ask why more Christian parents are not striving for that with their children becoming adults. We are a nation of perpetual children. So many 30 year olds living off mom and dad. We cannot make their existence pain free or error free. They must learn to depend on Jesus Christ and of course, their parents are there for encouragement and wisdom. But sheltering them from progressing and keeping them perpetual children is also dangerous and only puts off the inevitable.
We did not even have a term for “teen” before WW2. They were considered young men and women. Now we call them kids at 25. It is such a shame.
I think many of our kids, both boys and girls, would respond in the way that your daughter did. In fact, many take a gap year to travel or earn money or even decide what in the world they want to do. You did tell her she would be allowed to go to college after a year-not stay at home and take care of you.
That is an entirely different situation than these poor stay at home daughters. They are told, from the get go, that they will not be going to college, that they will stay at home and take care of all the little children running around, take care of daddy’s “stuff” and by doing so they will remain virtuous.
Firstly, I have a problem with just girls being “virtuous.” There is something odd about this movement since it focuses on “protecting” the girls. I know enough of today’s college boys to understand that they are as bad as the females. So, they don’t need to stay at home and be virtuous? I keep asking this question.Why just the females?!???!! There is a theological agenda here that bothers me.
Secondly, if a child is told from Day 1, that the world is unsafe, that women should not go to college because they will be harmed, that there role is ONLY to take care of mother’s quiverfull and they must take care of daddy, then you are talking about purposefully setting up a straw man.The daughter is not exposed enough to understand that she has real choice and that there are viable Christian option. This is an insulated life that is not based on the freedom of Scripture but on legalistic rules that have no basis in New Testament theology.
This sort of structure is a set up for abuse and, in fact, there are many, many reports of abuse by children in these groups. There are small groups forming to help girls escape from this bondage. If this is simply a faith-filled alternative, then why are there so many reports of abuse? The reason for a higher possibility of abuse has to do with an insulated family structure.
These are people who are desperately trying to keep world at large at bay and to eradicate the sin nature inherent in all of us.There is a higher likelihood that minor instances of disobedience will be treated as major issues. These families heap rule upon rule until the faith looks like a Pharisaical book of laws to be punished, usually, in these families, with beatings.They definitely believe in “spare the rod.”
As an instance, I have it from a good source that a well-known family in this movement, has the father wait for the his grown daughters outside of restrooms, during public events, because he needs to “protect” them in public.BTW, this public is Christian only, homeschooling only crowds-a rowdy group as I have ever heard.
Now, I will concede that many families have abdicated their responsibility to oversee their kids, both boys and girls, in their formative years. In my years in Dallas, I saw supposedly Christian parents allowing their kids to participate in all sorts of things. For example, in third grade, their were parents taking their kids to R rated movies and I am not talking Patriot here. Their kids were mouthy, obnoxious children who didn’t have one whit of training in manners.
However, I view these parents in the same light as the parents of the stay at home movement. Neither of these groups are facing their culture head on. One is hiding and the other is caving in. Courageous parents train, warn, encourage, and provide opportunities for their kids to interact in all different venues. Once they have reached in age of maturity, it is time to let go and let them make the inevitable mistakes. All of us have our regrets from our young adult years. It is those mistakes and sins that help us to understand who we are in light of our relationship to God and helps us to realize that we are all in desperate need of His grace.
One of my favorite verses in the Bible is written right after Peter’s marvelous confession that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus, delighted at Peter’s understanding says “Upon this rock I will build my church and the very gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Note the posture of the church. It is not building gates around those in the church to protect against hell.The church is going to the very gates of hell and breaking through them, confronting what is inside and shining the light of Christ into utter darkness. That is true faith-knocking on hell’s door, not hiding out in insulated homes or joining in in the darkness.
Dee, Excellent comment. I agree there are serious problems on both sides. My daughter attends a private Christian school so was shocked when she was invited to a slumber party of a classmate who bragged they were going to watch a very scary movie her mom was getting for them. My daughter did not want to go. She knows that it is dangerous to put such things in our minds for a momentary ‘thrill’. This is not a ‘rule’ in our home but a matter of what our hearts desire and why.
This was Deja vu for me. Many years ago, my niece had the same challenge. She even called home and asked my brother to come and get her because they were showing the Silence of the Lambs to 11 year old girls! A ‘Christian’ family was allowing this.
So, on one side we have a total lack of discernment and on another a Talmudic rules and roles religion.
One more thing I have noticed is that some of these Patriarches are using their daughter’s to make money. Some of it is not well known and on a small scale. I also have friends who have been threatened with lawsuits if they write about side of Patriarchy. I hope that does not happen to you all. These people are viscious. It is how they make their living and image is everything.
My friend, Cindy, has done a ton of research on Geoff Botkin. Read it to get a sense of what is behind this movement since they are on the forefront as the architects:
Ok, one more thing…Botkin’s background is in the cultic ‘shepherding movement’ of the 1970’s just like CJ Mahaney who started ‘People of Destiny” before SGM..
Lydia – you know CJ? That was my church in Maryland with Larry Tomczak – Gathering of Believers
No wonder you are an atheist! You were in a cult.
It wasn’t at all cultish back then, least that’s my recollection. It was born out of the catholic charismatic movement CJ and Larry authored a book together called “Clap you Hands” which sort of kicked things off.
My heart just sank… You were part of the Gathering of Believers? Have you read our posts about C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries? Do you know how Larry Tomczak was booted out by CJ & Co.?
What made you leave that church or stop believing whichever came first?
Part of the problem with this topic is that an extreme sect seems to be presented as some mainstream movement. It’s not mainstream. If it is represented as such, the ignorance is on behalf of those who represent that it is.
There is a tension here between what might be legal for the daughter and what her obligation is toward God to obey and honor her parents. I give priority to God as a higher authority than our government and obedience should be given to Him over her own desires.
But, obedience should occur within the context of a loving relationship, and if she has parents that are ignorant of what love means, preventing their child from growing up and standing on her own, then we have a moral dilemma. She can choose to be disobedient to her parents and wrestle with her conscience regarding her actions, or she can stay and suffer, but with a clear conscience, and hope that her parents gain some wisdom and change their minds.
Oh, do your daughters know these families personally and discussed with them, in depth, why they do the things they do from a biblical perspective? How about you and Dee? Or are you really just looking from the outside making judgments about something you really don’t know much about? Are these parents just a bunch of evil abusers, in your opinion, or are they just trying to live a godly life, even though they might be off track?
If I asked my daughter the questions you pose, it would have been in the context of years of teaching her what the bible says with regard to these matters. And since the wisdom had already been imparted to her, she would desire these things, herself, and I would not need to force her to do anything. That is how I imagine the families you have been referring to interact.
That is not the wisdom we taught our daughter, though. So, it would be a fruitless exercise to ask her these questions now.
“She can simply leave.”
She could, but she wouldn’t. If we asked her to stay at home, she would. You see, Lydia, my daughter is one of the wisest Christian girls you will ever meet. She understands the wisdom and the rewards of obeying parents. Do yours?
My daughter is a Spirit-filled believer who has proved to her peers time and again that the wisdom in which she walks pays dividends far beyond the turmoil her friends experience because of their lack of wisdom. No need to be sad. My daughter is Spirit-filled and Spirit-led and that Spirit does give her wisdom, the same wisdom that the same Spirit gave us to impart to her when she was younger. She is mature beyond her peers. We have taught her well, but have not been overprotective at all.
She goes to school where her peers have done drugs, gotten drunk, and slept around. She has gone to all the events, dances, parties, proms, etc., yet has not fallen prey to the foolishness just mentioned. All her relationships with boys have been on a friendship basis, and she has more friends than most of her peers, and is one of the most respected girls in her school.
We taught her and sent her into the world to influence them, rather than be influenced by them. She has laid hands on her teachers and classmates and prayed for them and their families. She is truly a light there and she will be the same in college. She lives her life the way she does because we equipped her and trusted her and empowered her and taught her what it means to follow the Spirit, not just the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but also the filling of the Holy Spirit.
So, no need to be sad for us. Be sad for the parents of the girls who sleep around, get drunk, do drugs, have low self-esteem, who rebel against their parents, and who don’t follow God.
Great post! I think you covered the balance I was seeking from my first post. We understand that, as parents, from the time we take our kids home from the hospital, our main job is to equip them to stand more and more on their own, within a family, church, and world community. Some fail by either not equipping adequately and others fail by not pushing them out of the nest. Our endeavor has been to equip and push. Thanks for articulating that so well.
Dee, Deb (almost addressed you as Double D’s…but realized it had other unfortunate implications 🙂 )
I believe Larry’s leaving was shortly after my leaving although not related and I’m not sure of the dates. I was there around the time that TAG became GoB until GoB started branching off to Covenant Life.
“But, obedience should occur within the context of a loving relationship, and if she has parents that are ignorant of what love means, preventing their child from growing up and standing on her own, then we have a moral dilemma. She can choose to be disobedient to her parents and wrestle with her conscience regarding her actions, or she can stay and suffer, but with a clear conscience, and hope that her parents gain some wisdom and change their minds.”
This is where we have to take all scripture into account. Your focus on “obeying” parents when you are supposed to be an adult conflicts with other scripture:
Matthew 10:37-39 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.
Matthew 12 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers!
Some young adults rebel against their parents and go into dangerous mission fields. I know two of them personally. One can “honor” their parents without obeying them as adults. Parents do not always know best for their ‘supposed to be adult’ children. If we raise them in the Lord, we have to have prayed fervently and then let them go.
And I am afraid you are quite wrong about this being some wacky fringe sect. These leaders have spoken (and were paid to speak) at SBC pastors conference where only the up and coming and influential are asked to speak. Some ARE SBC. One of my earlier comments about girls running away (in their 20’s and the one who had never been to a gyn who had the horrid painful cyst) was from an SBC church that is full patriarchy. And a big leader in the FIC movement.
“She can simply leave.”
I was not talking about your daughter. That was in reference to your insistence that an 18 year old can call the authorities about abuse. Where is she to go? A foster family? She is too old. The authorites will tell her to leave. That was my point. I have some experience with this as a former volunteer at a rape crisis and abuse center. Once you are 18, you are considered an adult in most areas of the civil sphere.
These girls do not leave their families because they have no money, no marketable skills, very little education and no idea how to make it. They have also been taught that any dissent from their father is sin. He is prophet, priest and king.
You’re right that we are to love God more than our parents. The bible says that those who love God, obey Him. His commandment to children is to obey your parents. So, if one really does love God, he will obey his parents.
The question is, when does one leave? When are they to be on their own? I think that age is very arbitrary as a measure of adulthood.
When I asked my father-in-law for permission to marry my wife, I realized that I could have just done what I desired without consideration for his desires because I was almost 30 and my wife almost 26. The same applies to her mom, whom she was living with, after having lived on her own for a couple of years in another city.
However, I recognized that if I got their permission, it would accomplish several things. One, it would honor them, recognizing that she was their daughter, not her own, even though she was an adult, making her own decisions in life. But, it also made firm in their minds that they were releasing her and giving up any perceived authority in her life, if for some reason that matter was still ambiguous. In fact, a year after we were married, her dad wanted to chime in his disagreement with one of our major decisions. We sat him down and told him it was too late; he had already given up his right to have that level of influence.
It also provided parental support for our marriage with their stamp of approval. And when things got tough, there were no lingering doubts in my wife’s mind that she could allow as a stronghold to give her a reason to opt out of our covenant at some later date.
I can’t tell you how many ladies I know that rationalized in their minds that they should marry their Christian husbands, against the wishes of their unbelieving mothers, only to later say, when things got tough in their marriage and they wanted to divorce their husband, “My mother warned me I should not marry him.” Then they say, “I should never have married him.” Next, divorce.
The point is, until there is an understanding reached between parents and children of when that young adult is released, it is wise to seek and follow their advice. We don’t live on our own, we live in community. While I agree with your assessment of fearful parents not equipping young adults and releasing them, I would at the same time strongly urge young adults to honor and obey their parents until that release is clear, for the sake of conscience and to avoid the types of pitfalls I described above.
While some of these men may be in the mainstream and talk at these conferences, I doubt that these are the core messages that they speak on at these conferences. In other words, mainstream preachers may have fringe beliefs that they don’t fully let people aware of.
Finally, what’s the point of all this discussion? What are we to do with it all? Because, when push comes to shove, if I ran across a girl who was debating running away from home or obeying her parents, I would counsel her to obey her parents. That’s not all I would say, but that’s where I’d land between the two choices. How about you? Would you tell her to disobey her parents?
Good point Lydia, an even more disturbing question is who would think that they would make a good candidate for a wife? Only someone who wants to perpetuate the cycle.
Your earlier comment made me LOL. Thanks!
“‘She can simply leave.’ I was not talking about your daughter. That was in reference to your insistence that an 18 year old can call the authorities about abuse.”
I was not insisting that an 18 year old can call the authorities about abuse. I was using sarcasm to show that it would not be abuse to disallow my daughter, if I wanted, to attend college next year. Let me recap the sequence for you:
1. Me – “If for some reason, my wife and I decided that our daughter was to not attend college next year, and I heard claims of abuse, all I could do is laugh at how preposterous that claim would be.”
2. To which you responded – “It would be emotional and spiritual abuse toward her.”
3. To which I responded – “Funny, Lydia, that she didn’t say that she would file a complaint with the local police for emotional and spiritual abuse. She didn’t threaten to sue us so she could exercise her supposed First Amendment rights. She didn’t even hint that she would tell a friend or her youth pastor that she was being emotionally or spiritually abused at home.”
4. To which you responded – “It would not do her any good to file a complaint. She is not a minor at 18. She can simply leave although it would be hard without any skills or preperation to live in the world independently.”
5. To which I responded – “She could, but she wouldn’t.” etc.
So, somewhere we got off track. But, I get your point and legally she is entitled to leave.
I hung around on the outskirts of the catholic charismatic movement in the 1970s. Were you familiar with Father John Bertolucci (?sp) who met in the upstate New York area. I used to go to some of his meetings. Some of those nuns could sing up a storm.Did you know about him as well?
Are you aware of the aftermath of the shepherding movement? You can read abut it here or google it. Old CJ and Larry were in the thick of it and there have been a number of accusations swirling around those two for years, especially CJ. His stuff got so much negative attention that he has morphed his ministry into PDI (People of Destiny) and then into Sovereign Grace Ministries.
Much of his stuff is about hyper control. Strangely enough, some of the more mainstream theologians have been hoodwinked into thinking he is just one of the guys, completely overlooking the years and years of accusations of trouble throughout all of his morphing identities. His affiliations are often garner the attention of cult watch groups.
What was he like when you hung around him?
I didn’t know father John, but I did know Scott Ross who had one of the first Christian rock radio stations in Freeville NY along with a pretty cool commune.
C.J. and Larry were joined at the hip, I actually used to help out doing sign language interpreting for some of the services. Larry was always a bit more formal, responsible, level headed, C.J. was the wild long blonde hair, but very intense. I definitely enjoyed talking with Larry more.
I’ll give it some thought tomorrow and see what I can stir up from the old memory banks for you. 🙂
There was another guy involved as well named Pierre Bynum, not sure if it rings any bells for anyone.
CJ is now known as the great bald one. In fact, a number of his “followers” shave their heads, kid you not.
It definitely is a small world. I hope you will read today’s post about KingsWay. SGM has some serious problems.
PS. Did you know that CJ pulled a bait switch on Larry and deposed him, utterly? Major creep move.
Here’s what the Wikipedia article on Sovereign Grace Ministries includes about Larry Tomczak. There are links included which back up this iinformation.
“Tomczak left the leadership of PDI in 1998 and later suggested that the increasingly Calvinistic theology of PDI was a major factor in his departure. He has described the parting of ways with Sovereign Grace Ministries as “an unbelievable nightmare” during which his family “were threatened in various ways if [they] did not cooperate with [PDI/SGM]… A letter was circulated in an attempt to discredit me and to distort the events surrounding my departure.” Other notable charismatic figures, such as Lou Engle, founder of The Call prayer concerts, and Che Ahn, pastor of Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena, CA, also ceased to be formally associated with PDI during this period.”
I guess you left shortly before 1998?
Here is some additional information about Tomczak from his Wikipedia article.
“Departure from PDI
Tomczak eventually left the leadership of PDI in 1998 and has subsequently suggested that the increasingly Calvinistic theology of PDI was a major factor in this parting of the ways . Some of this period’s tensions also arose because Tomczak’s fitness as a father was called into question by church leadership over what Tomczak described as the “teenage rebellion” of his son. Tomczak declared that this time “…seemed like an unbelievable nightmare” during which he, his wife Doris, and their son Justin “were threatened in various ways if we did not cooperate with the ministry that we were leaving… A letter was circulated in an attempt to discredit me and to distort the events surrounding my departure. Our own family members were divided.”. Tomczak claims never to have received an apology for the events of this period.”
Again, the footnotes provide the information sources.
Hey, I remember Che Ahn too very nice guy!
‘CJ is now known as the great bald one. In fact, a number of his “followers” shave their heads, kid you not.’
I saw a bunch of “CJ followers” at the SBC convention in 2009. All shaved heads, all hanging out together. They even tried to emulate his perpetual giggle. He is a big deal in certain areas of the SBC and is big friends with Mohler. It is scary how much his cult of personality has permeanted the SBC.
it has been some time since I dealt with shepherding stuff. interesting so many of you, including Karl, also rubbed up against it. I remember a close friend of mine that I actually respected quite a bit prior sitting me down and trying to ‘woo’ me into the model. Telling me how wonderful it was to have someone looking after you and providing ‘guidance’ in major decisions.
It always seemed the antithesis of Jesus emphasis on our personal responsibility to follow God, to ‘work out our salvation with fear and trembling’. If I’m always letting somebody else tell me how to follow God, how will I ever learn to follow Him myself? Plus, it sort-of reminded me of the Moonies – if you remember them.
Anyway – a lot of my friends from this time suffered quite a bit at the hand of these kinds of groups. I’m glad I was never sucked into it.
What is funny is that before I learned SGM was an outgrowth of this stuff, I remember telling my wife – ‘gee, this just sounds like an SBC version of the Charismatic shepherding movement!’ 😉
Even the NC says that children should obey their parents. So I ask, do you ever stop being a “child” and become an adult?
What if you have no parents like me?
I always thought the goal was to raise eventual ADULTS in the Lord. I worry about people who want their 25 year old to “obey” them.
“Would you tell her to disobey her parents?”
Absolutely when they have not even allowed her to go to the doctor to deal with her abdominal pain which turned out to be a huge cyst on her ovaries that had to be removed. her parents would not allow her to see a gyn at 20 years old because her virginity was more important than her pain. She had never even been on a date and she was only allowed to do housework. No college, no work outside the home waiting for the proper young man to ask her to marry him.
This was a gal in an SBC FIC church. So sure, I would encourage her to OBEY JESUS CHRIST. Not a sinful scripture twisting human being who happens to carry the title;daddy.
Just as I suspected. You use one extreme example to justify your very weak point.
To recap, you would counsel yound adult girls to disobey their parents, against God’s command. No surprise there.
Michael…God doesn’t command adults to obey their parents. I’d encourage a study of the Greek and Hebrew text where this is concerned. Also, the Misnah would come in handy.
You reason as if the bible promises the wisdom of parents to officiate life decisions for grown children. It doesn’t. The fact is, it’s more than a little dangerous to assume that all parents are qualified to do such, and perhaps dangerous to assume that even most are. I know of many parents in the patriocentric community that I wouldn’t trust to get my order right at the Wendy’s drive-thru, much less officiate life decisions for me.
In James chapter 1, the bible promises liberally given wisdom for anyone who asks for it in faith. This would include adult children. And…the source of this wisdom isn’t their earthly father, but their Heavenly Father. To assume that parents have a duty and responsibility to officiate the life choices of adult children, or to assume that parents are the “ordained” conduit of this heavenly wisdom, is total presupposition and total legalism.
It’s also only found in the cultic, fringe sections of rigid Christian fundamentalism.
As usual, you get it!
We may have run in similar circles. I knew I liked you!
I’m not sure how many of my posts you’ve read, but your answer sounds like you have not considered my other posts. I’ve made it clear that I do not agree with the fringe sects that parent this way. My beef has been to address the bias presented on this blog against these groups that seems to be observed from the outside, without understanding the heart, faith, or conviction of these people, the vast majority of which are NOT abusing their children.
The extremes are on this blog, where they label almost any type of submission or obedience to any type of authority, abuse. In fact, authority is a four letter word on this blog, it seems.
The bible makes it clear that children are to obey their parents. I agree that obedience to God overrides obedience to parents. I also would say that obedience to parents is part of being obedient to God. Children should be taught to hear God on their own and follow him. That is one of the main jobs we parents are entrusted with. Then they should be released over time into full adulthood.
I have also agreed that some parents overprotect and ignorantly do not equip and push out of the nest. There seems to be some level of negotiation or agreement between the parent and child as to when that young adult is free to make their own decisions in life. I think more and more freedom comes gradually over time. But in the areas where these young adults have not yet gained their freedom, they need to continue to have a heart that obeys God and their parents.
I am not in favor of Lydia, Dee, or anyone else condemning people because other families are not on the same time-table as they are with regards to when these kids should gain full adulthood. That’s between the parent and the young adult. Frankly, it’s none of theirs or our stinkin’ business when this happens. It’s fine that they have a different opinion. They can apply their different opinion to their own families, as I have applied my different opinion to my family. But, as long as they continue to be extreme and call this abuse, I will be on here contradicting them, because it’s not abuse, (except for the extreme and rare cases they cite).
Finally, to be quite frank, I’ve followed this blog enough to believe that to some degree, some on here hold up their femininity and quest for homogenous equality to the level of being an idol. They twist scripture to craft God into the image they desire to the same level that the homosexuals twist scripture to justify their perverse lifestyle. I’m not referring to Dee and Deb, though.
My better sense tells me this is not a conversation I should get involved in..but then again, that just wouldn’t be me. So I would like to share something that at one time was fairly personal, but I suppose after 30 years it ain’t that big a deal.
While I was attending Gathering of Believer’s in DC, my pastor (shepherds, if you like) were Larry Tomczak and CJ Mahaney…I remember one incident that might give you an idea of how these people use their influence. One day, after my roommates had left to go to classes, I had a visitor, she was a new member of the church and wanted to have some coffee and just “chat”, well at least that’s what she said. As you might imagine, first it’s the coffee, then the kissing starts next thing your looking for a room (in this case my roommate’s room, cause mine was full of dirty laundry!). Well, as things happen, guess who came home cause he had forgotten some books…yup, my roommate….oops!
So, word traveled pretty quickly back to the leadership…and I had a surprise visit from not 1 or 2 but 3 members of leadership in the church. First they demanded to know, in detail by the way, what exactly we had done…I was then informed I would not be allowed back into the church until I had confessed what I had done to everyone on Sunday morning…like that was ever gunna happen! When I hesitated to agree, the 3rd leader who was there basically gave me my very own hellfire and brimstone sermon (in a coffee shop for Pete’s sake), and explained in vivid detail how they were going to pray and ask God to turn me over to the devil for the good of my soul and if I didn’t “come around” they would dis-fellowship me and make an announcement to the rest of the congregation that I was “off limits so to speak”.
Now, don’t get me wrong, the sex was totally worth all of that nonsense and I’d do it again in a heartbeat, if only I could remember her name!
Point being, even though you can make a good case for saying that these parents might be totally benevolent and benign in their actions having only the welfare of their children at heart. I have found, not just through my experience but through the experiences of many others as well that secrecy, forcibly isolating people from potential friends, trying to have or maintain control over others typically has a dark side associated with it and sometimes, but not always it surfaces for others to see. To quote Stargate a little, “I believe that that which grows in the dark but withers in the light of day does not belong on the vine. “
“Finally, to be quite frank, I’ve followed this blog enough to believe that to some degree, some on here hold up their femininity and quest for homogenous equality to the level of being an idol. They twist scripture to craft God into the image they desire to the same level that the homosexuals twist scripture to justify their perverse lifestyle. I’m not referring to Dee and Deb, though.”
Michael, you can do better than ad hominem. It is so passe. But there is a problem. Homosexuality has always been quite rampent in PATRIARCHAL cultures. And which feminists are you speaking of? The early ones at Seneca Falls or the later ones like Gloria Steinham? Which one am I? I am confused.
And what on earth is homogenous equality? All I know is that “IN CHRIST” there is no male or female. What confuses me about such accusations you throw at me is: Who is to be my biblical role model since Christ came as a male? Who am I to emulate since my Savior is male and gender roles are so very important to salvation? What exactly are our non biological spiritual differences for these “roles”?
I am a mutualist in the spirit of Eph 5:21 (the verse most pastors skip over). We are not to be like the Gentiles that lord it over with their worldly chain of command structure. As I mentioned earlier, my goal is that my children become my brothers and sisters in Christ when they are adults. And we must not forget all the “one anothers” apply equally to all: Male and female.
It is a good thing Jonathon did not obey his dad. :o)
I’m not doing ad hominem in this case. I think I’ve made my case without the need for it. You, on the other hand, resort to extremes to validate your points, which are weak, at best. It’s difficult and tiresome to have a debate with someone about the economy when they are so extreme that they keep coming from the angle that the world is one week away from ending.
But, it’s clear, at least to me, that you see things through a certain filter. To me, you’re like the carpenter, and everything is a nail to you, the same nail. You keep hammering away at the same topic, (nail), no matter what the topic is. It’s always about, no authority, no submission, patriarchy, equality, abuse. And the the scripture is always what gets burned in the process. So, erect your altar and continue to worship the god of homogenous equality. You’ll eventually figure out what that means.
Thank you for sharing your story with us. It is fascinating. Here is the problem with the way it was handled. 3 members of leadership? Good night! Why not a conversation between you and another guy? Did your roommate talk it out with you? Its interesting that SGM, CJs current permutation, does a lot of “turning people over to Satan” instead of working things through. I seems to be a default position. Did they know you? Did they know what you believed, where you were at? Why chastise you in a coffee shop in public?
What did you do in response to this? Did you leave the church at that point?
Darn it, Karl. I have so many questions.
Michael…You’ve just declared yourself God of your family by determining your own time-table.
Again, I encourage you, strongly, to research the Hebrew and Greek of the scriptures which you’re reading presuppositions into, and also reference the Misnah. You’d see, for instance, that the passage in Numbers 30, which speaks to a girl in her youth, is in reference to a girl under the age of 12 – something still ceremonially acknowledged in the Jewish faith.
Authority based on presupposition IS a four letter word, not to mention a few other variations – and it IS spiritually abusive.
I’m not familiar with your other posts, but just your stated view on authority in the posts in this thread puts you well into the fringe if it’s indeed what you practice.
“There seems to be some level of negotiation or agreement between the parent and child as to when that young adult is free to make their own decisions in life. I think more and more freedom comes gradually over time. But in the areas where these young adults have not yet gained their freedom, they need to continue to have a heart that obeys God and their parents.”
No foundation that you’re building this belief on is based on scriptural teaching or precedent. This is all your own presupposition. This isn’t a spiritual path you’re following, but a conservative Christian cultural one. The difference in those two things is enormous.
You’re too funny!!
Well remember I was only maybe 20 something, as I recall I was a mix of scared, angry, and indignant…yes I left that church, but it would be a long time before atheism came into the picture…maybe another 10 or so years.
But I do remember they did with the girl exactly what this group is doing…she was given someone to “watch over her” which basically meant any “dates” cleared through leadership, outside activities as well and she was strongly encouraged to fellowship only with other women (leadership’s wives of course).
It’s so ridiculous…it truly amazes me that people believe in God and all the nonsense that follows…more so with some people than others…for my friends I hope they see the light and for the rest, well I guess to be charitable I at least hope they don’t get to the end of their lives only to realize how much they have wasted.
Did you have a chance to ask your college bound daughter how compliant she would be if you told her that you have changed your mind about her attending college next year. Instead, she is to be a stay-at-home daughter until she gets married. This is the reality of stay-at-home daughters.
“This isn’t a spiritual path you’re following, but a conservative Christian cultural one. ”
How convenient. You pull out the culture card on me with regard to this issue to say that once a child reaches 12 years old, she no longer has to obey her parents and has no authority in her life but God, if I’m reading you correctly. In other words, you’re defining what we should do now by what the Jews did then, without regard to our present day culture.
But when the debate is about wives submitting to their husbands or about women remaining silent in the church or about women teaching in churches, we conveniently now think that their culture is outdated and our culture is relevant. Do you not see the inconsistency in that?
If you’re going to apply your standard of culture, then apply it consistently. And if you apply it consistently, then a whole lot of arguments presented on this blog over the last couple of years simply go up in smoke.
“Authority based on presupposition IS a four letter word, not to mention a few other variations – and it IS spiritually abusive. ”
However, my comment was not about authority based on presupposition. It was based on the fact that almost every legitimate authority is not recognized here.
My foundation is spiritual, based on what I’ve learned from the bible and been shown by the Holy Spirit. You know the bible doesn’t talk about electricity, but I still have enough sense to turn on the light when I come into a room. What about you, do you light a lamp or candle instead, because that’s the biblically, cultural thing to do?
So which is it, are we going to adopt their culture or can we operate and make decisions within ours, biblically. Because, if we’re using your argument and 12 years old is when the girls become adults, then their culture should also dictate how they dress, who determines who the girls should marry, etc.
In Deuteronomy 21, it references a rebellious son who would not obey his parents, being a glutton and a drunkard. I have a hard time believing that this drunken glutton is 11 years old or younger. The Hebrew word mainly just means son, without regard to age.
Why didn’t Isaac pick out his own wife, since he was 40 years old? What if he refused to marry the one his dad had picked out for him. Would that have been dishonoring or disobedient? Should we be picking out our kids’ spouses, since that was the way it was done back then? I can imagine Lydia going berserk over that one!
Ephesians 6:1, Children, obey your parents…means offspring without regard to age.
Therefore, you are the one presupposing there is an age affixed to this commandment, and wrongly so. And with all your weak arguments, I doubt very seriously that anyone on this blog stops giving instructions to their kids for them to obey when they turn 12. Do you not see how easily your arguments can be picked apart?
“I’m not familiar with your other posts, but just your stated view on authority in the posts in this thread puts you well into the fringe if it’s indeed what you practice.”
You obviously have not read my posts on this thread or you completely misunderstand them.
I already answered the question, but here’s my post again, in response to your question.
“If I asked my daughter the questions you pose, it would have been in the context of years of teaching her what the bible says with regard to these matters. And since the wisdom had already been imparted to her, she would desire these things, herself, and I would not need to force her to do anything. That is how I imagine the families you have been referring to interact.
“That is not the wisdom we taught our daughter, though. So, it would be a fruitless exercise to ask her these questions now.”
My daughter would not want to stay home because we built in her the expectation of something different.
Now here are the questions I posed you earlier that remain unanswered:
“Do your daughters know these families personally and discussed with them, in depth, why they do the things they do from a biblical perspective?” (In response to your daughters thinking they’re nuts).
“How about you and Dee? Or are you really just looking from the outside making judgments about something you really don’t know much about? ”
“Are these parents just a bunch of evil abusers, in your opinion, or are they just trying to live a godly life, even though they might be off track?”
I Cor 7:36-38 – But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is PAST HER YOUTH, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.
Ephesians 6:1 – “children”=”teknon”, a word that refers to “small” children, a word related to “talitha” (little)
I didn’t say we should rely on any culture. I didn’t advocate 12 year adulthood. I simply pointed out one instance of biblical instruction rather than a biblical account of Hurrian, Sumerian, or Chaldean cultural norms – like the red herring you present with Isaac, et cetera. What I DID suggest is that your personal belief isn’t a biblical one, but a presupposition not based on scripture. You’ve said nothing to change my mind. Your position is about your own personal culture (the conservative Christian sociopolitical culture), and you search for and misapply scriptures to support your position rather than making your position the fruit of the scriptures. For instance, the scripture you’ve cited in response to Deb, 1st Corinthians 7:36-38, is a culturally based passage, unless you want to ignore the instructions to slaves in the verses that preceed it. If you fail to read the scriptures in context, they’re just so many words on a page.
You think what you’re doing brings you “godliness”, and you justify this thought process by diminishing anything outside of your personal culture. Your initial post in this thread demonstrates as much. These are all typical behaviors and patterns of cults/spiritually abusive types.
Whether it’s anyone’s intention to abuse matters little to me. Good intentions killed the cat.
“My foundation is spiritual, based on what I’ve learned from the bible and been shown by the Holy Spirit. You know the bible doesn’t talk about electricity, but I still have enough sense to turn on the light when I come into a room. What about you, do you light a lamp or candle instead, because that’s the biblically, cultural thing to do?”
So, is your position spiritual? Or is it based on common sense? It can’t really be both, unless you want to spiritualize common sense – something that will leave you, champion of the scriptures that you are, with nothing to measure against or be accountable to, living “spiritually” according to your own whim as common sense dictates. Leave the spiritual things spiritual and leave the personal/cultural things personal/cultural. Mixing the two is where “movements”, churches, and individuals get off track.
To answer the questions you posed to Deb…
1) I know them personally, and I know the human debris left in the wake of their belief system personally. They have the same “biblical” perspective you do – a narrow, rigid interpretation of scripture that makes up about 10% of their “biblical” lifestyle, and “godly” presupposition (generally made by the leaders of their authoritarian movements) that makes up the remaining 90%. They’re culture warriors, reconstructionists, and dominionists…or, they’re pawns in the agendas of the people who promote (and make much money from) these teachings.
2) I know things I wish I didn’t. I deal everyday with people whose lives have been destroyed by these practices of “authority” and patriarchy.
3) Yes to both. They’re abusing their families. There’s no such thing as “good” abuse. I couldn’t care less what their motivations are.
What is the typical age were women marrying in the 1st Century?
During the Renaissance boys at 14 and girls at 12 … In Rome, girld 14-16 Men mid 20s or more, and currently in the US it varies by state between 16 and 19 with NH still aloowing girls age 13 to marry if the boy is 17 or under and with parents permission.
However, if you believe that God knows what He is doing, then puberty should be the age, after all that’s what it is all about…populating the Earth.
Karl, you said:
“However, if you believe that God knows what He is doing, then puberty should be the age, after all that’s what it is all about…populating the Earth.”
Actually (aside from the sarcasm about populating the Earth – a task we have accomplished perhaps a little too well) this falls into the kind of reasoning that justifies all manner of sin and abuse based on what is ‘natural’ in the sense of what our physical bodies are prone to do based on the fact we evolved from lower animals (or in your example above, based on ‘how God made us’ (physically)).
But we are more that just animals. We have been given a soul, and we know right from wrong. We do not merely act on instinct, we can think and reason, and we are therefore able to rise above our animal instincts and responses and chose something better.
This is one of the major mistakes people make in reasoning about evolution, and one of the major reasons so many religious folk oppose evolution itself so intently. Evolution explains the origin of our physical bodies, and to a great extent the origin of many of the natural inclinations we have that we might call the ‘sin nature’. But it does not, and should not, give license to act like, revert to, or base our comprehension of right and wrong on our animal roots. We are NOT animals, and we can not justify reversion to a base animal nature simply because our physical form is derived from what was millions of years ago simply an animal.
So to say the equivalent of “God makes us sexually aware at puberty, therefore we should marry at puberty” is silly. We already take one of the longest if not the longest time in the animal kingdom to reach sexual maturity. But it really still is not quite long enough – at least not in the society our minds and soul have come to embrace. We therefore marry when we are ready to be independent of our parents, when we are emotionally mature enough to at least feign being a good parent in whatever culture we are in. In the US in 2010, that makes getting married before one is at least part way into ones 20’s a fairly risky proposition.
And we marry because our mind, our knowledge of right and wrong, tells us it is best to find a partner and commit to them long enough to provide the 20, 30, or even 40 years (depending on the age gap of your kids) of guidance and support needed to raise good kids that will grow up and contribute to society. And we resist our animal urge to mate with anything young and pretty that will mate with us so that this better end can be best accomplished. Because it is the right thing to do, because it is the responsible thing to do. Because we are not merely animals who are primarily motivated by whatever urge or desire or instinctive action happens to present itself at that particular moment.
Thanks for bringing your expertise about the patriarchy movement to The Wartburg Watch. I have been checking out your blog, and I can already tell that it’s going to be an important resource. I am sorry that you have been deeply hurt by this movement.
I haven’t read much yet over at your site yet, but I really liked what you wrote in your June 18, 2010 post entitled “The Paradox of Patriarchal Politics”
“The most disturbing thing about the hyper-fundamentalist, patriocentric crowd, though, is the hypocrisy of every political position they take. They want the government out of their lives as much as possible, with intrusion at an absolute minimum, no Big Brother forcing them to do things they don’t want, telling them how to do the things they are allowed to do. No controlling or meddling in their lives in areas the government has no right to be snooping and directing. They likely consider the old Soviet Union and it’s oppressive communist system to be very much the “Evil Empire” Reagan described it as. Freedom, freedom, and more freedom, so they say. I’m with them so far.
They want corndogs, apple-pie, Pepsi and Coke, and freedom galore for everyone, so they say – except for their own families (who are treated like their own personal state property), ruling their own homes in the oppressive style of Stalin, and except for those with opposing political views. Freedom…for them to be unabated religious tyrants and control the lives of others.
Democracy for themselves. Communism for their families and enemies.”
I have never thought of patriarchy in this way before, but that’s exactly what’s going on in this movement. I thought a husband was supposed to love his wife as Christ loves the church, not lord it over them.
I hope our readers will check out your website because it contains a wealth of information.
You’re incorrect. teknon means, “a child,” without reference to, “small.” It’s akin to tikto, “to beget, bear.” If you look at how teknon is used throughout the New Testament, it certainly can apply to small children, but the , “meaning,” is more in line with offspring, without reference to age.
I’m not sure which verse you’re referring to in Numbers 30. Maybe you can clarify. If you weren’t implying that we should look to their culture or what they considered adulthood and you were not advocating 12 year adulthood, then I really don’t get your point. Maybe you can tell me why you brought it up.
And also tell us all, when does someone, biblically, in your opinion, step into adulthood, and when can they disobey their parents?
It’s real easy to generally discredit someone’s beliefs, like you did, without citing specific examples and proving them wrong, scripturally. Why don’t you be more specific and tell me exactly which beliefs of mine you believe are not biblically based and share a scripture or two why my belief is wrong.
Regarding the I Corinthians passage, I just wrote the verse down without any comment. Then you talk about how that’s a culturally based passage. That lame argument is the oldest one in the book and not effective and lacks thought. All of the bible happens within the context of their culture. Duh. Should we scrap the whole thing because we now have a different culture? Maybe we have a different culture BECAUSE we’ve departed from the bible. The challenge here is, deciding if the passage should ONLY apply to that specific culture and having a credible reason why. Can you enlighten us?
Then, were those instructions by Paul appropriate in that culture and what are we to derive from them?It’s interesting that he allowed a father to permit or not to permit a daughter to get married. And still, today, OUR culture still has young men asking the father, (and mother), permission to marry the daughter. We still have fathers walking down the aisle to eventually, “give his daughter away.” So, if it was culturally applicable then, how about now? It’s still in our culture. Wouldn’t that passage be appropriate to us as well, since we are still practicing that, culturally?
“So, is your position spiritual? Or is it based on common sense? It can’t really be both, unless you want to spiritualize common sense – something that will leave you, champion of the scriptures that you are, with nothing to measure against or be accountable to, living “spiritually” according to your own whim as common sense dictates. Leave the spiritual things spiritual and leave the personal/cultural things personal/cultural. Mixing the two is where “movements”, churches, and individuals get off track.
Common sense, or wisdom, and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. In fact, Paul prays that the Ephesians would be given a spirit of wisdom. That wisdom comes as the Holy Spirit reveals the scriptures. You know, it was the Pharisees who took pride in their knowledge of scriptures, but did not have the spirit or understanding. Would you say this might be true of you, as well, since you seem to diminish the Holy Spirit’s work in people’s lives?
It’s interesting that you focus so much on abuse, yet you also abuse. First you, in the same way that you criticize on your blog, parents who shut down conversations, and call it abuse, because of the lack of allowing dialogue, you make very general statements that no one can defend, instead of specific references that someone can debate. That’s abuse. Do you recognize that in yourself?
Then you use condescension like, “champion of the scriptures that you are,” to further shut down meaningful debate, trying to get your jabs in? Would you be so humble as to recognize that as abuse and hypocrisy?
Finally, I didn’t read your answers to questions I posed to Deb. But you can answer my questions to you, if you want.
Thank you for your post and dispelling the lack of logic in Karlton’s post. In addition, it has been shown that, because of our poor modern diet, kids reach puberty at an earlier age, now. Kid’s from other countries with healthier diets reach puberty later. the implications of this to Karlton’s post are obvious.
Why didn’t you read Lewis’s responses to the questions you posed to me?
And why did you even bother mentioning this?
“Should we scrap the whole thing because we now have a different culture? Maybe we have a different culture BECAUSE we’ve departed from the bible. The challenge here is, deciding if the passage should ONLY apply to that specific culture and having a credible reason why. Can you enlighten us?”
I am curious as to why we no longer allow polygamy or slavery since Jesus Christ did not overturn those cultural norms. Why do we now find them sinful?
Lewis, Great blog, btw. I have visited before as commandmentsofmen was linked from thatmom’s site, another family that came out of the patriarchy movement years ago.
I asked you the questions.
Why don’t you answer the second part? You are the one always using culture as the trump card for things you can’t answer. Are you the sovereign person who gets to decide which is disqualified because of culture?
Deb…Thanks very much for the welcome. I appreciate it.
Michael…If my arguments were as “weak” as you say, you wouldn’t have to continually tell me how weak they are. If my blog has offended you to date, you may want to wear a seatbelt for future visits. I’m not interested in debating you. I’ve no culture to defend. Since the rest of us lack logic, understanding, discernment, and the Holy Spirit, and can only resort to condescension and weak arguments, there’s really no point. I bow, err, submit to your infinite superiority.
Lydia…Thanks. Please visit anytime.
That’s why I asked if we should scrap the whole thing. The fact that something was part of that culture does not mean we should continue that custom. At the same time, culture can’t be used to trump everything, since ALL instructions in the bible occurred within a different culture than ours.
You have often brought up the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Isn’t part of that role to give each believer some level of discernment about when instructions in the context of that culture should or should not be applicable for us today? And if not the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and some practical hermenuetics, then what do you use to know whether of not some instructions are not applicable to us because of culture?
I guess the answer is, no, you will not acknowledge your own abusive behavior, masked as condescension. You simply added more of it. Big surprise. Also, no surprise that you lack the backbone to answer my questions, specifically, so I can carry on a meaningful debate about specifics areas where you think my beliefs are not biblical. In fact, you haven’t even mustered up enough courage to even identify which beliefs you find unbiblical. No surprise.
I know what is means to be abused by people who are legends in their own minds and lack the courage to deal with things. That simply appear to bow out gracefully, but instead are simply cowards who really can’t support their positions. They just generally, like you. criticize. Kind of like the silent treatment you criticize on your blog. You would fit into that category. Your behavior here is cowardice, hypocritical, and abusive.
If you ever man up enough to debate honestly, I won’t hurt you too badly. I’ll demolish you, but kindly.
Good website. Your story sounds very interesting.
Michael…I hope you enjoyed the irony there. I sure did.
dee…Thanks. I appreciate it.
I was not implying that we marry because we hit puberty. I think that actually, the reverse fear is true. As non-believer’s we are free to come up with a reasonable time for sex, reproduction and marriage based on a host of factors from maturity of the individual, cultural, societal and legal considerations. No one that I know is promoting sex at onset of puberty. What I was trying to say is this…
The reason for puberty is reproduction and if you believe that an all powerful God created humans and certainly had control over the design of how we work, including the age of onset of puberty, then you, as a believer, would have to wonder why God designed us to have puberty at that age if not for sex?
I think it is the believer that has the issue to deal with here. Am I being clear, sometimes I tend to bounce around. As an atheist I can simply say…ah early puberty makes evolutionary sense..earlier you reproduce, better chance for reproduction before something kills you and starting earlier means more offspring if you do live a long life, but I am not bound by nature, I am free to decide for myself what is appropriate, society can decide..maybe 16 is ok, maybe 23 is better it is whatever makes psychological and cultural sense. On the other hand, if you believe an omniscient God who knows better than all of us together, created us with an early onset of puberty then how do you justify raising the appropriate age when God obviously thought differently?
I read the study you referred to, or one like it…yes girls over the last 30-40 years do seem to being going through puberty earlier (varies by race) and is thought to possibly be related to BFI, so now we have some who reach puberty at 8 or 9 years old, and 30 years ago it might have been 10-12. In either case, way to early for sex in my opinion.
Right. I thought it was ironic that you are the very thing you war against on your blog.
By the way, I’m not offended at all by your blog. I am for anyone who sheds light on true abuse. I haven’t read most of what’s there, though. Hopefully, you’ll be more specific about your stances, biblically, than you were on this one. I think when one is more specific, it promotes intelligent debate.
What also seems a little ironic is that there are so many accusations on this blog about cult-like behavior, and when I gave it some thought, today, it occurred to me that this blog has become very cult-like, itself.
It’s where hyper-antipatriarchal or hyper-antiauthoritarian people assemble and then treat people who disagree with them the same way they criticize other cults for treating dissenters. Thanks for pointing out the irony.
It is hyper authoritarian to believe a young women in her 20’s should do what her father thinks she should do for her life. If she is not making good choices by her 20’s…then who is to blame? If she is not mature, then who is to blame?
It has not escaped us that you are not too concerned with young men. I think the Patriarchy movement has influenced you more than you are willing to admit. You think it is “Christian”. Many think the rules and roles of these works based religions are holy.
“Why don’t you answer the second part? You are the one always using culture as the trump card for things you can’t answer. Are you the sovereign person who gets to decide which is disqualified because of culture?”
Why did you not answer my inquiry as to why the “cultural norms” of sinful polygamy and slavery were not overturned by Jesus either.
“I guess the answer is, no, you will not acknowledge your own abusive behavior, masked as condescension. You simply added more of it. Big surprise. Also, no surprise that you lack the backbone to answer my questions, specifically, so I can carry on a meaningful debate about specifics areas where you think my beliefs are not biblical. In fact, you haven’t even mustered up enough courage to even identify which beliefs you find unbiblical. No surprise. ”
Michael, you always resort to ad hominem when someone is trying to have a conversation. You do not allow differences of opinion in hermeneutics. You have to offend people who do. This is exactly the tactics of patriarchy so many of us have experienced. But you are offended by any discussion of patriarchy as sin. And it is sin and a huge sin trap for men.
Don’t forget Colassians where fathers are told not to provoke their children.
I am going to write a book review today regarding polygamy and intend to compare to to the current movements of patriarchy and quiverfull. It is startling to me how these two groups share very similar “Biblical” thoughts yet are two different faiths. Could they both be interpreting the Bible wrongly? This should rattle a few cages over at SBTS.
Do you really believe that this blog is cult-like? For years, I have dreamed of a forum in which people could dike out their thoughts on various aspects of the faith. That means allowing for just about any thoughts to be printed. I think we have only deleted a handful (@5) since we started this about 1 1/2 years ago.
Perhaps it is my Russian upbringing that gives me a different perspective. My Russian dad and his friends got very emotional when they defended their point of view.There was much shouting, hand waving, and, if full truth be told, some vodka downed during the fight. But, there was nothing truly personal about it. And friendships were maintained because those involved knew it was just another “free for all.”
I also try to treat everyone with respect. For some, it is kid gloves only. For others, who I believe have great strength of character, I let it hang on out there. I respect you very much Michael. You have shared your story with us and you truly are a member of the Fellowship of the Wounded along with many others, myself included. I have learned much from reading your thoughts.
I also love Lydia. I would want her by my side in any theological debate. She, too, has stories to tell of deep experiences that have changed her point of view. That is why I named our Bible readings each day after her.
Lewis has a difficult story to tell as well. His blog is fascinating and I look forward to hearing more of his experience and pain. He, too is a member of this unique fellowship.
The blog is a place to hash it through. Where thoughts can be expressed and arguments made. I pray that it will be like my deceased Russian fathers and his friends. Lots of emotion, yelling and screaming, and, in the end, blood is thicker than water; in this case, the blood of Jesus.
Finally, Michael, let me tell you that I am so glad you are here and challenging us to think things through.
Polygamy, really? Maybe it’s my advancing years but at my age the thought of a harem of young buxom women waiting to be made happy is something I hope to never have to experience.
“I am going to write a book review today regarding polygamy and intend to compare to to the current movements of patriarchy and quiverfull. It is startling to me how these two groups share very similar “Biblical” thoughts yet are two different faiths. Could they both be interpreting the Bible wrongly? This should rattle a few cages over at SBTS.”
I do not know what book you are reviewing but I have read quite a few books concerning Mormonism. Some are from women who escaped and wrote about their experiences. I was astonished at some of the same language and actions that are in Christian Patriarchy. The similarities are eerie in how they view women.
CBMW even wrote an article a few years back suggesting that there will be male authority over women in heaven. Even in our spiritual bodies! This is a Mormon doctrine that anyone who has studied their bizarre beliefs would know about.
There is also a similarity between the ESS the Patriarchal types are teaching and Mormon doctrine. Whenever Jesus Christ is lessened in anyway, it is cultic and heresy. That is the key.
“What also seems a little ironic is that there are so many accusations on this blog about cult-like behavior, and when I gave it some thought, today, it occurred to me that this blog has become very cult-like, itself.”
That is a typical response that is more ad hominem. Since I might agree with you all on some things, we are a cult? I do not follow your teachings nor do you have any perceieved authority over me. And you allow dissent on this blog which is not something cults allow. Try commenting over at the gender blog. :o) Most of the Patriarchal blogs are either heavily moderated or do not allow comments. They are to be listened to and obeyed. IF this blog was a cult, Michael would not be allowed to freely comment here with not only ad hominem but dissenting opinions that might possibly influence people. It would not be allowed.
Michael…I’ve made you feel threatened and very insecure, and my history in similar situations has taught me that it’s pointless to “debate” with you.
That isn’t condescension. That isn’t any kind of intended insult. It’s an observation. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I don’t believe I am.
I’ve no interest in a debate with you or anyone else. I haven’t expressed any interest in a debate with you or anyone else. I’ve no sociopolitical culture to protect and defend. I speak up on behalf of people, not theology, not particular interpretations of scripture, not sociopolitical cultures. If you’re waiting on “biblical stances” for such, you’ll be waiting for a while. I’ve no interest in turning my purpose into something legalistic.
When a person, or group of people, attempts to control another person, or group of people, particularly when they attempt to use the scriptures to do so, I speak up.
“When a person, or group of people, attempts to control another person, or group of people, particularly when they attempt to use the scriptures to do so, I speak up.”
Good point! I overheard a public situation recently where a father was emotionally abusing his daughter and using the scriptures that she must obey him. It was very sad and she was devastated because he was brow beating her to do something she was very uncomfortable with. And he kept claiming it was “love” when those of us who heard (he was very loud) it knew better. And someday, she will know better, too, I pray. And will experience the true love of her Father.
I personally think men listen to this stuff from the pulpits and become enamoured with the power and influence they think it welds. If you don’t go along with them then YOU are in sin. It is a huge sin trap for the men not to mention what it does to the daughters.
You are so gracious.
In response, when we engage in the conversations and add mostly critical judgments of a person, instead of debating the issue, providing supporting evidence for our beliefs or evidence why someone else is wrong, it feels like we are doing the very thing we criticize others of doing, abusing.
Debate is fair game because intellectual capital is presented and it stimulates and challenges the thinking of others. I have appreciated that here in the past. But condescension, and judgments about motives and character, is not welcome and feels like the abuse we condemn, here on this blog. In my opinion, we need to raise our game a bit. Recent comments of condescension felt just like the abuse I received from my former, “pastor,” who didn’t have the capacity or security to have a debate, and so would resort to taking stabs at my character, mocking, and belittling.
I may have set the tone, somewhat, by my original sarcastic post. But, frankly, after having taken a break from the blog for awhile, I was surprised to have read so many comments that were judging of my character, instead of evidence, challenging my view. Then, human nature kicked in and I was ready to brawl like your Russian relatives.
I really don’t mind, passionately expressing views and challenging one another. I have appreciated that you and Deb have allowed open debate to the degree that you have, without the need to bring out the hook and ban some from the blog.
I also must understand that some will respond from places of hurt, or from just a lack of knowledge concerning how one can communicate effectively. Some may still think that bashing the person is the same as bashing the argument someone has made.
To conclude, I think we all need to raise our game to a level that is, at least, more respectful. That includes me. We need to be more carefully aware of when we are jabbing the argument we feel is refutable or when we are jabbing the person making that argument, making judgments about what they feel, what their intentions are, and what kind of character they possess. Because, when we do the latter, we are guilty of the very thing we disdain the most; the abuse of others. If we continue this low form of communicating, we may not be “cult”-like, because anyone can leave at any time, but we are approving of the “cult”ure here.
First, trust me, I do not feel insecure or threatend by you in any way.
Secondly, it’s fine that you do not want to debate. You don’t have to. But, if you don’t want to, then please don’t challenge whether my beliefs are biblical or not, and then bow out. Either get in or get out. But, don’t get in, criticize me and make condescending remarks, and then bow out without proving or defending your remarks. That’s like me punching you in the face, and then telling you, when you’re ready to fight, that I really don’t want to fight. In other words, it seems like you wanted to get your punch in without being accountable for it.
Micheal, we simply disagree with your interpretation of the Word. You think God instituted sinful humans (saved by the same exact grace) as authorities for those in the Body, marriage and adult children. I believe that if we are believers we are part of the Holy Priesthood and none are “in authority” over other adults. They are only lowly servants to one another in different spiritual functions. WE can be “shepherds” to other believers but we are not in authority over them. (This is not the same as the government which we must obey unless it wants us to sin)
We are not to be like the “gentiles”. God was furious when Israel wanted a king. He was there king. As believers, Jesus Christ is our authority. Why would he hang on a Cross to put a human mediator between Him and female believers?
This is what makes us a peculiar people. We have the indwelling HOly Spirit. Problem is, we have quite a few professing Christians who are claiming to be the Holy Spirit for other adults in order to control them.
A lot of this misunderstanding for centuries comes from a wrong translation of Kephale as authority. It is normal for humans to operate in the flesh and claim preeminance where the Word is actually teaching a lowly servant.
I agree with about everything you just wrote. We’ve hashed this out before and I have written repeatedly that I believe we are all equal. I have also agreed with your characterization of people as servants, not ones to lord over others. I said at the beginning of this topic, though, that I’m not going to get into a lengthy discussion about authority, etc.
Where we differ, related to this topic, is the cut-off point where a child becomes an adult. I’ve asked for someone to determine that, here, and no one can or will. No one has thrown out an age or a qualification for when that occurs. I took the lead and said it happens gradually. As that occurs, the parents gradually step away from areas of responsibility in a young adult’s life and thus transfers that authority to the young adult.
However, if your most recent response is related to my most recent response to Dee, then I think you’ve missed the point. The point is not that we do disagree about things on here. I certainly take no offense to that, and I have no problem holding my own in a debate.
It’s how we disagree that’s sometimes the problem. I confronted you, anonymous, and Lewis about unfounded judgments made and condescending statements, not for the sake of validating an argument, but for the sake of belittling. Your’s were simply judgments about me, “hating women,” that were not based in anything I said or in anything at all. It’s completely false. And I pointed out that you have no way of knowing what’s in my heart. With all your comments, I’ve never said that you hate authority or hate men. I could have easily said something like that, but how would I know that?
So, in conclusion, it’s not about disagreeing, it’s about judging wrongly, and about abusive communication, not so much on your part, but others.
i am actively seeking for my adult status to be removed. Life seemed so much simpler as a child anyway. 🙂
Michael…When you feel that you have the personal right to dictate the terms of debate (particularly in an arena that isn’t your own) as you essentially just did in your last comment, you’re always gonna come across as insecure and threatened. No one will be interested in that kind of exchange. Ever. If anything, it demonstrates a need to control the situation, and that doesn’t reflect very well on the beliefs you espouse.
It isn’t your place to determine FOR us what’s welcome in an exchange, what constitutes reasonable exchange, or what constitutes valid viewpoints. ALL viewpoints are valid, even if wrong, to the person holding it. I expect I wouldn’t agree with many of yours, but that obviously doesn’t make them any less valid to you. It isn’t your place to determine which questions posed to you are valid and worth answering, and then expect all questions you pose to be answered – and answered only on your terms. That would leave you as the sole gatekeeper of dialog.
Please don’t present yourself as a martyr and victim of an unprovoked attack. If I want to “get in” I’ll do so, and if I want to “get out” I’ll do so – when I want to and why I want to. You don’t even begin to have any place to dictate terms to me.
Discussion is one thing, but “debate” is overrated.
Now, if you’ve been legitimately offended by any of my comments, I apologize.
You’re an idiot! Lame-excuse for an apology not accepted.
Anyone else notice that Lewis criticizes, then won’t provide supporting evidence of his criticism; when confronted or asked to give support for his positions, he won’t, but criticizes and condescends even more? When brought to light this type of abusive behavior, behavior where he installs himself as the expert, (superiority), with no accountability, (since he won’t defend his criticism), he doesn’t acknowledge, but instead, blames the supposed, (but not in reality), victim. CLASSIC ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR.
Deb, you said he has expertise in the patriarchal movement. Apparently, he does, and he has learned to be exactly like them…abusive. Shame on you, Lewis. And shame on the rest of you, here, who either have failed to notice this abusive behavior, or refuse to do anything about it and call the @#% on the mat, simply because he agrees with you about some position you have.
Very hypocritical, in light of what this blog is all about.
For clarification, the criticisms of which I speak are not of positions people have taken, but of the people, themselves.
Lots of meanness being dished out here.
I have been thinking about how to respond to your request to stop others from commenting. When we first started this blog, we wanted to prevent people from getting mean and mad at one another-no name calling etc. So, one day we deleted a comment when someone got mean.However, another person told us that we should reconsider. She felt the world should see how we all interact, the good, the bad and the ugly.
The more we thought about this, the more we decided to be the one place that we could let people speak freely without being thrown out of a community which seems to be the typical way many authoritarian churches function.
Now, we won’t tolerate foul language of deliberate deception, both of which we have had to delete.
So, in light of the fact that this is an adult site, most of us claim to be Christians, many here have been hurt by various churches, and some need to express themselves without fear of reprisal, I think it is OK to let these discussions occur.That does not mean that I think they are all edifying or done well.
Hopefully this will end up like my father’s Russian friends. Loud, angry and still friends.
Thanks for responding.
I was not asking you to filter out comments or stifle the conversation in any way. I was also not dictating, as one concluded, how conversations must occur, either. My suggestion simply was, “In my opinion, we need to raise our game a bit,” and later, “I think we all need to raise our game to a level that is, at least, more respectful.”
You questioned my use of the term, cult, here and I wanted to shed light on the fact that we spend so much time condemning abuse and attitudes of superiority, but then, behave abusively and superior ourselves. I think Jesus said something about getting the plank out of our own eyes first, right? When we post on blogs or even have our own blog, specifically condemning abuse, I think it behooves us to not be abusive ourselves, if we hope to have a semblance of credibility. Apparently, at least one person disagrees with me about that. That’s fine.
I enjoy discussing issues and am not threatened at all when someone challenges me on an issue. I feel like I learn something each time I’m challenged to consider another’s point of view. I’m a better person for it.
But when someone takes pot shots and makes condescending statements and wrong judgments about a person’s character, yeah, they’re free to do so, but we can forget about being friends after the rumble.
There are a lot of strong personalities here, and I can’t help but ask myself, are we somehow responsible for, at least some, not all, of the abuse we have experienced from others because of our own tendency to communicate in mean ways? I’m looking to remedy that in my life. And I’m not going to continue to subject myself to abuse from others, because I don’t want to react to that low level of communication, in kind.
Anyway, keep shining the light; it’s needed. But don’t get stuck. I appreciate you and your chiseling away, helping the church to conform to the image of Jesus Christ.
Michael…If you don’t accept my apology, no problem. I genuinely don’t feel I owed you one. I think if you’ll go back and read my initial comment in this thread you’ll see that I came here to join a discussion. It was pointed, but it wasn’t personal at all.
If you choose to see what I say as an attack on your personal character, that’s your choice and that’s something I have no control over.
I don’t accept your blame. That choice is mine.
I haven’t lashed out at you.
“Michael…If you don’t accept my apology, no problem. I genuinely don’t feel I owed you one.”
Right, that was clear, because your, “apology,” was no apology at all. That’s why I rejected it. A real apology contains the acknowledgement that the giver of the apology was wrong and was sorry for what he did. You said, “I’m sorry if YOU…,” not acknowledging any fault in you, but in me. Classic.
And the statement that you genuinely felt you did not owe me an apology, shows that you lack integrity, offering one anyway. You didn’t even mean it! Do you understand that’s inconsistent? Do understand that’s lying?
It’s clear that you used condescension, which is a way to belittle someone. If you choose not to acknowledge that, that’s your problem, not mine. I’m just not going to give you a pass on it.
Michael…I don’t care what you feel I deserve a pass on and what I don’t. The apology I offered was an attempt to be gracious. I didn’t need to be gracious. The situation didn’t demand my graciousness. I was trying to, as politely as possible, bow out of a situation that was making (and apparently still is) you very insecure. This isn’t my blog. I don’t set the boundaries here. With that in mind, I saw (and still see) any “debate” with you as a dead end and felt it best if I bow out. You don’t seem to want that, and I can only speculate that it’s because it gives you no control. You seem to not just want to “defeat” me, or whatever, but to want a public acknowledgement that you’ve done so so that everyone else will also know I’ve been “defeated” by you.
You’ve referred to me, whether outright or through implication, as a coward, an abuser, a sucker-puncher, lacking integrity, a legend in my own mind, condescending (while ignoring the restaurant-quality condescension you’ve offered everyone here throughout the thread), feeling superior, as a self-installed expert, lacking credibility, lacking courage, lacking backbone, a hypocrite, lacking in manhood (with the promise of destroying me, albeit “kindly”) and now as a liar. There’s probably a couple more I’m missing. This is on top of dictating to me terms by which I can worthily “debate” with you.
I don’t take measure of my male appendages by how I fare in an internet discussion. From my perspective, I don’t owe you an apology. Frankly, I think you need to grow up and get over yourself.
If you bring this crap over to my blog, I’ll give you the boot, and I give you my word on that.
While totally politically incorrect, in this instance I think it fits…
Dear Lewis and Michael, your arguing back and forth is like the Special Olympics, even if one of you wins you’re still retarded!
Can we please just drop it, without anyone trying to get in “the last word” ?
First, I won’t be wasting my time over on your blog. Second, I’m not insecure, but you can’t seem to get that through your thick head, even after I’ve told you a couple of times.
You weren’t interested in my suggestion that we raise the level of respect a bit, with your ridiculous lecture about dictating and control of this blog, which is the last thing I want to do. So, instead of conversing about issues, which was my preference, I did not hold back from sharing my opinion of you.
With one side of your mouth you tell me not to dictate how things are communicated on this blog, accusing me of wanting to control things. Then, from the other side of your mouth you criticize how I communicate. Who wants to control things, here. I think it’s you. And of course, no big surprise that, if I was dumb enough to waste my time on your blog, you would give me the boot. Now, uh, who needs the control? Yes, that would be you.
Offering a false apology, under the guise of graciousness, from one side of your mouth, and admitting that you don’t feel like you owe me an apology, from the other side of your mouth, is evidence enough that you do, in fact, lack integrity. And by the way, that’s not gracious. Lying never is.
Bringing your condescension in what you’ve said, “champion of the scriptures that you are,” and ” bowing to my superiority,” are evidence enough that you are condescending and abusive. Criticizing my views, saying they’re unbiblical, then being unwilling to show how, or even state which of my views you’re referring to, is evidence enough that you are a coward. You did sucker punch. Then you continue to criticize me for pointing that out.
How many times have we all seen some abuser beat on somebody, verbally, and then turn and blame the recipient of that abuse for being insecure, angry, or demean them further by patronizing them, calling them martyrs, playing the victim, as you called me?
I can see through your sense of superiority and understand that you really are the one who is insecure. And, you are a hypocrite for fighting for the rights of the abused, while you abuse. Give me a break!
Lastly, I’m not going to take any of your crap on here so you might as well stop trying to take a dump on me.
Woops, one more thing. Didn’t you say with one side of your mouth that you were going to bow out? Have some integrity, and do what you said you were going to do. Go away!
“You questioned my use of the term, cult, here and I wanted to shed light on the fact that we spend so much time condemning abuse and attitudes of superiority, but then, behave abusively and superior ourselves. I think”
This would be like telling the pastor he cannot preach on sin because he is a sinner.
Right, it is like that. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t confront the pastor about his sin, right?
If you don’t think I should confront people who condemn abuse about their own abuse, then to play out that logic, all anyone ever needs to do is talk about whatever their sin is, and condemn that sin. Then, no one can confront them about that sin, because they’ve talked about how OTHERS do it.
I have not requested that people stop talking about abuse, though. I have just confronted their own abusive behavior.
“I have not requested that people stop talking about abuse, though. I have just confronted their own abusive behavior.”
go back and read your very first comment here. One thing you are missing is that in abusive environments dissent is NOT allowed. Yet, you are allowed freedom to post here and interaction on your views. I am astonished you find that “abusive”.
You just want us to talk about abusive behavior in the way you deem acceptable. And you want to insist that all examples are from an extreme fringe group. But they aren’t. The example I gave of the runaway 20 year old daughters is from an SBC church that is FIC and very close to SBTS and Al Mohler, which is the flagship seminary of the SBC. Pretty mainstream.
Maybe you should go back and read more of my comments, because I have repeatedly said that I appreciated the exchanges and challenges here. Did you see those comments? I haven’t labeled disagreements or dissenting views, “abuse.” Maybe you should read my comments more carefully.
So, because we have freedom to debate issues and disagree with one another, it’s not abusive writing when we condescend, make false judgments, without merit, name call? And at home, since you have freedom to discuss issues with your family members, because of that freedom, it’s okay to call each other names, act unbecomingly, judge each other without merit, act superior, condescend and the like? I get it. No one on here abuses. It’s just everybody else.
“You just want us to talk about abusive behavior in the way you deem acceptable”
Of course I do. That’s what having an opinion is all about. So do you. That’s why you’re on here trying to get us to accept your view. Is that a problem?
I’ve already responded to your belief that it’s mainstream, and I still disagree with you. There’s a difference between someone mainstream believing something, and the same person actively promoting something, and mainstream people accepting those beliefs broadly. If you believe the last is true, I think you’re out of touch. In addition, I haven’t heard one discussion or sermon or speech on daughters staying home. If you think it’s really mainstream, please share some numbers with us to quantify and provide support for your belief.
“Of course I do. That’s what having an opinion is all about. So do you. That’s why you’re on here trying to get us to accept your view. Is that a problem? ”
It is called milieu control and you are practicing it,. You name called me quite a few times but it is ok when a “masculinist” does it? The bottomline is that you have shown here over and over with me and Lewis that you have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to Patriarchy. I do not want power over another adult human. I want them to have the indwelling Holy Spirit and stop being spiritually dependent on fallible humans.
You know position of the bloggers here yet you still come back and use sarcasm, anger and insults to make your point…even so far as to suggest young women who go off to college become whores. (until we called you on it and you had to digress from that). Your counterparts in Patriarchy do not allow dissent. You are blessed to freely give opinion here. Some of us know what it is like to be shut down because we are female.
Here is your first comment:
This is such a shame. All these young women are missing going off to college and getting drunk and sleeping around every weekend like the good Baptist girls, (ministers’ daughters), I knew at Baylor. After their abortions, they married successful Baylor grads who are making gobs of money and are every bit as, “kept,” women as the ones being marginalzed here.
In this day when there are so many women who will not respect their husbands, and considering the shameful divorce rates among Christians, it’s amazing that these girls, many of whom have genuine faiths and truly are trying to serve the Lord, are looked down upon more than the worldly, promiscuous, rebellious, but praise God, independent, girls you seem to admire so much.
I did not digress, I clarified. You can go reread my comment doing that. It was never my intention to lump all girls who go to collge in that group. But the fact is, many girls DO go to college and act like whores. Can you deal with that fact? However, you seem more concerned with, and criticize, the girls that stay at home and don’t act like whores than the ones who do. That’s fine. But, I have the freedom to point it out. Seems like your compass is off.
Contrary to your accusation, I am not trying to control anything. And I share the exact same privilege as you do, to come on here and comment. And when you ignorantly, without basis, say I’m a hater of women, then I will confront your crap, which comes from YOUR chip on YOUR shoulder, and call it for what it is…NUTTY!
I welcome dissent and have no problem with it. But when you make unfounded wrong judgments, I’ll confront you about it. Deal with it.
This is such a shame. All these young women are missing going off to college and getting drunk and sleeping around every weekend like the good Baptist girls, (ministers’ daughters), I knew at Baylor. After their abortions, they married successful Baylor grads who are making gobs of money and are every bit as, “kept,” women as the ones being marginalzed here.
If all those “good Baptist girls” (ministers’ daughters) remain at home to serve daddy until Prince Charming shows up then just who are all those “good Baptist boys” (ministers’ sons) at Baylor going to get drunk and sleep around with every weekend? It takes two to tango, you know.
Speaking of Prince Charming, here is a great review of Before You Meet Prince Charming, one of the Duggars’ recommended books for girls. Start with this post and read forward.
In this day when there are so many women who will not respect their husbands, and considering the shameful divorce rates among Christians, it’s amazing that these girls, many of whom have genuine faiths and truly are trying to serve the Lord, are looked down upon more than the worldly, promiscuous, rebellious, but praise God, independent, girls you seem to admire so much.
Let’s turn that statement around and look at it from a different angle:
In this day when there are so many men who will not love their wives, and considering the shameful divorce rates among Christians, it’s amazing that these boys, many of whom give the illusion of having genuine faiths and trying to serve the Lord (while getting drunk and sleeping around with coeds) are looked up to as such paragons of virtue and authority.
Doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it? Remember for every “disrespectful” divorced Christian woman there’s an “unloving” divorced Christian man. I don’t buy into this “men want respect, but women want affection” thing anyway. I think everyone wants respect. Without respect there can be no love.
Give it up, Michael. Your backpedaling is not convincing anyone. It’s too late. You’ve given us a glimpse behind the curtain. You may not be a Geoff Botkin, Doug Phillips, or Voddie Baucham, but you certainly seem to lean in that direction.
I think Lydia got under somebody’s skin.
Uh-oh, Anonymous. You’re next.
I do not know if we have an edit button so I shall refer this to our guy behind the curtain. If you give me permission, I can edit your comment since I have access.
I asked similar questions at the start of all of this. You can see me asking questions about the guys at Baylor who sleep with the coeds. In fact, since there are more women then men, it would logically seem that the guys would have to do more sleeping around to keep up.
I do not think this is a female versus make issue. I think it is a moral issue that transcends gender. In my own experience, I have seen Christian parents who are waaaaay too protective and their kids rebelled and then i have seen parents waaaay too liberal and their kids we obnoxious brats with horrible morals and standards.
I think there are many Christians who believe if they just set certain rules, like “courtship, etc., then their kids will escape the pain and suffering of a wild lifestyle. The two families that I know who instituted this courtship stuff found themselves with two girls who got pregnant out of wedlock. Then, I would say of the homeschooling families that I have known, about 50 % of them had rebellious kids. I am not saying either of these approaches is wrong. I am saying that something else is at play.
I wish it was easy. Its not and I am skeptical of anyone who write a book with the “solution” to raising morally perfect kids. Last time i checked, all of us are sinners and sin seems to have a way of circumventing our rules and walls.
No problemo, Lewis. I’m acquainted with the type. Most are either short, wannabe “manly” men with Napoleon complexes or big oafs who took one too many hits on the old gridiron.
If you give me permission, I can edit your comment since I have access.
That would be lovely, Dee. Thank you. Then you can delete my 5:17 comment altogether.
I hope I did what you wanted correctly.
We’re back from the beach. It was sleeting there when we left, and the snow is beautiful here!
Way to dig down deep and come up with something no one ever talks about around here. You’re sooooo original.
Yes, Baylor boys are bad, too. Big surprise. I’m so sorry that I forgot to filter everything through the anti-patriarchal filter. I forgot that I should never make a comment negatively against what some girls do without making sure I give equal negative lashings against men. I know there are people who have been on here a lot longer than I have. I have not been on here for awhile, so I didn’t get the rule book that you all seem to operate from. Anyone have a copy?
So, let me get this straight, if the blogger writes an article about girls staying home, or whatever, it’s patriarchal of me to compare that group of girls to another, different type of girl, right? To be accepted here, I have to bash men, too, even though that’s not what we’re talking about, right? But if I equally bash men, will that be satisfactory?
Gosh, it’s getting confusing here. I know I’ve been bashing Lewis a lot lately, and it seems unfair that I should be bashing a man so much, without equally bashing women, too. I mean, I don’t want to be accused of unequal treatment, paying more attention to Lewis, a male, than to the women, subjecting myself to more criticism.
So, let’s see, how about, “All you ladies are a bunch of wackos.” Uh, I don’t know, it seems I was harder on Lewis than that, and I don’t want to be unfair to the women, you know, since it’s so important for them to be equal in all things. How about, hmm, “You women couldn’t put two and two together and are always so illogical, you know, being run by your emotions all the time.” That was pretty condescending. That seems like I’m getting a little warmer. But something seems like it’s missing. Oh, here’s something I said to Lewis that I should equally apply to the women, here, so they will feel equal and all. “You’re idiots!” “Go away!”
Please let me know if I’ve done a good enough job of making you feel equal now, okay? I just don’t want to be accused anymore, on here, of giving partial treatment to the males here.
But, to all, you make such a great point about the guys at Baylor. How were you ever able to think that up? Gosh, ya’ll are TRULY amazing. Truly. Really. Amazing. I’m just soooo impressed. So sorry I left them out. Please forgive me. It’s really wonderful being a part of a community, here, where everyone likes be equal and no one has a chip on their shoulder.
It’s also sooo cool how, no matter what the topic is, somehow, almost supernaturally, the conversation ends up being about the same thing, over, and over, and over, well, yeah, over and over again, and even, over and over and over again. Wow, could that be the Holy Spirit? Nah, couldn’t be.
“I’m acquainted with the type. Most are either short, wannabe “manly” men with Napoleon complexes or big oafs who took one too many hits on the old gridiron.”
Come on, now, let’s give equal negative comments to the girls. So, if, “the type,” of male you’re referring to is short, wannabe, “manly”, men, what do we say about the type of female who posts here? They must be tall and dikey who are women wannabes. I know Lydia has repeated told everyone how tall she is. And if the other type of males took too many hits on the gridiron, I guess the women here are always illogocal because they’re hyper-emotional all the time.
No offense. Really, I’m just trying to be fair to you women and make sure you’re equal and all. And I want to make sure you, anonymous, don’t receive any criticism for just bashing men, and not bashing women equally.
I know you asked the same type of questions at the start of this and my response was that I was not going to have that discussion again. The conversations we all had about men and women and their perceived inequality and roles were quite lengthy, this summer, and in my opinion, were very well covered. If anyone wants to look through the archives, they may. Plus, I thought the question of Baylor guys was irrelevant, not altogether, but to the point I was making.
Do I think there are just as many immoral guys at Baylor and other colleges? Of course I do. I was not singling out girls. I was contrasting girls to girls. It’s hard to explain that to ones who seem to have a fixation on the topic of equality among women and men, though.
I agree that some parents are way too overprotective and others are very liberal. I would venture to say that it’s not just a moral issue, it’s also a relationship issue. When you have the type of relationship with your kids that allows open dialogue and kids can talk to you about anything, then you have a platform of love, trust, and respect that allows true discipleship between parent and child.
It’s also a relationship with God issue. You and I know that imposing rules on kids don’t change their hearts. If these kids are surrendered to God and love Him, they won’t want to do things that displease him. It’s our job to introduce our kids to that relationship with God and nurture it, in addition to letting them observe that we love God and are completely surrendered to Him. These things are true whether one is homeschooled or not.
My practice has been, not just to tell my kids what they can and can not do, but to teach them why it is wise or unwise to do certain things. When they have the wisdom and desire to be wise, then there is enough buy-in on their part, that I don’t have to tell them some rule. Their heart governs their actions. That’s their protection, not some externally imposed insulation from society, like the girls that are forced to stay at home.
Interesting Michael, that your first post sounds so similar to the Dugger’s book. The Dugger’s have milked Patriarchy to a nice lifestyle they sell to others.
“It’s also a relationship with God issue. You and I know that imposing rules on kids don’t change their hearts. If these kids are surrendered to God and love Him, they won’t want to do things that displease him. It’s our job to introduce our kids to that relationship with God and nurture it, in addition to letting them observe that we love God and are completely surrendered to Him.”
Be sure to let them see your comments here as a model of such, Michael.
Goodness, was that not an epic, hour-long
rant tantrummeltdown in the wee hours of the morning?
Bravo, Michael! Bravo! 😆
I’ll make sure they know not to put up with people like you, who talk against abusing, while they abuse, who apologize, but don’t mean it, thus lying, and who say they’re going to bow out, but never leave, lying again. In fact, they already know and despise your kind, who criticize others for lack of biblical foundation, but don’t know how to defend his position. My 17 year old daughter has more integrity and backbone than you.
Are you bowing out, yet? You know, like you said you would?
Thanks. It was important to demonstrate how much I really am on board with everyone here, totally in agreement, so making sure the women get equal treatment. It was fun and refreshing, even in the wee hours. Thanks for your support!
I’m glad my posts interest you so much.
I’m not familiar who Dugger is or what his book is about.
You’re such an inspiration to a few, here. Keep standing tall.
I don’t play defense, Michael. I’m not insecure.
I really hope you’re not teaching your children to “despise”.
So glad to hear you’re not insecure. I’ll take you at your word and stop saying you are.
Let me rephrase. It was a poor choice of words to say, “despise your kind.” I’ll certainly teach my kids to despise behavior which is despicable, not people.
Didn’t you say you were bowing out?
To the initial “debate”, yes.
Typical. Don’t do what you say you’re going to do, so when confronted with the lack of integrity, just change the terms. “Oh, what I really meant was…” I’ve seen that before.
Just got back from seeing the Trans-Siberian Orchestra, after going to church this AM. BTW they are awesome and give an incredible concert for the money.Highly recommended unless you thing combing classical, traditional and grunge rock must be an invention of the devil. I personally think that, in heaven, we will rock on.
Since this debate has seemingly centered around gender issues, I was wondering what any of y’all thought about the article on Friday as it relates to patriarchy.
My daughters and I had a great time at the TSO concert. I might have spotted you and Dr. Jon. Were you sitting a few rows back on the left near the front of the stage?
Michael…Nothing I or anyone else could say to you will satisfy or appease you as a legitimate answer, which is why I lost interest in the original topic – the authority (or lording depending on perspective) of a parent over an adult child. If you’ll notice, I bowed out of that debate long ago. I’ve no intention of revisiting it. That “debate” is over.
I gave you my opinions as to why I felt your beliefs extra-biblical and presuppositional. You found them illegitimate and refuse to acknowledge them as valid. I don’t care that you found them illegitimate or whether you find my positions and opinions valid. That’s your deal to sort through. I stand fully behind my positions as stated earlier. You’ll have to find someone else to argue with about it. I know that this burns you to the core. Again, that’s your deal to sort through.
Right, you gave YOUR opinions with no biblical evidence of why my points were extra-biblical or presuppositional. Opinions like that are a dime a dozen. If you want to be taken seriously about putting forth an opinion, in the future, you might want to rethink whether or not you also should present supporting evidence. Presenting evidence, in the future, will lend credibility to your position and to you.
Now, just to make sure you don’t misunderstand, this is simply a suggestion. I’m not dictating that you have to. I don’t feel the need to control anything here. I’m just trying to help you have a semblance of credibility.
That’s fine, you don’t want to discuss this or be challenged, or never did, for that matter. And, just to let you know, I’m long past the time when I was intersted in debating this issue.
So, please, go away. Show some integrity to your word and bow out.
“So, please, go away. Show some integrity to your word and bow out.”
I have been patiently reading your exchange here with Lewis. As we begin a new week, I want to make the following clear:
You are always welcome to comment here at TWW, but so is Lewis. I am sorry that you are so annoyed at him, but I have appreciated his comments.
For more understanding of the stay-at-home daughter movement in context of the patriocentric system, I would encourage anyone interested to listen to the series of podcasts I recorded this past spring and summer, including an interview with Hillary McFarland. Having lived inside this movement and understanding the theological beliefs that drive these people, I think you will find these helpful.
I’m sorry that the comments on this post have gotten sidetracked. Rest assured, we will continue to focus on patriarchy, stay-at-home daughters, family-integrated church, quiverfull, etc., etc. etc.
There’s so much to discuss…
I am not asking Lewis to go away from this blog. He said many comments ago that he would bow out of this conversation, but has yet to do so. I have asked him to do what he said he would do.
Frankly, Michael, it’s time to move on.
I am disappointed that we got so far off topic in this thread. I want to reassure our readers that we will revisit patriocentricity and related topics in the near future, so stay tuned…
Sounds good to me.
Frankly, Deb, patriocentricity and related topics seems to be revisited in just about every thread, here, ad nauseum. One can scarcely make a comment about anything without it somehow being revisited. It might be instructive for some, here, to consider how the quote, at the top of this post by Bridges, might relate to the overemphasis of the issue of patriarchy and related issues, here.
Michael has a problem with being challenged. He gets snarky and mean. His last comment makes no sense when one considers why this blog exists. He seems to think if we are in sin for talking about Patriarchy so he insults you all about posting blog posts about it. He wants to regulate what you talk about. Of course his comments sound just like a typical Patriarch. but they cannot see themselves.
Perhaps your blog posts are hitting too close to home for him?
Please look at the entirety of this blog. We’ve been at it for 1 1/2 years. Look at the categories. I would say that we have covered so many different subjects, all over the place. This blog is not about gender, the SBC, an incident at a previous church, CJ Mahaney, etc. It is about the world of faith and the various trends and topics that seem to be relevant.
This week we are going off into a previous subject about SGM and a bombshell that we have in our possession. It has nothing to do with patriarchy but with authoritarian pastors messing with the flock.
Let me clarify
We are equal opportunity offenders on this blog.
First, I don’t think that anyone has presented much on here that I would consider, “challenging,” from a biblical or intellectual argument. I also do not mind constructive criticism, where the end game is profitable. But, I believe that none on here like the kind of criticism that is destructive and abusive. That is where I confronted several on here about those kinds of statements.
Second, my statement makes perfect sense. I’m sorry you’re not able to get it. Maybe that’s the problem. You’re guilty of the very type of blindness you accuse me of.
Third, my beliefs about men and women are extremely close to many on this blog. So, your comments, trying to put me into the Patriarchal camp, are just laughable. You can go back to the summer and read my comments to find out what I truly believe. Since we discussed that topic ad nauseum, then, I made it clear from the get-go, to Dee, that I was not going to go there on this thread, since that is such an over-focus, in my opinion.
I understand that you blog about various issues, and I appreciate the diversity of issues brought up. However, even in the context of those different issues, gender issues arise quite a bit. It reminds of the episode of Frazier where he’s riding a bike. No matter how hard he tries not to steer toward the mailbox on the curb, that’s exactly where he heads each time he gets on the bike.
I’m not saying you are the one steering us there, though. I have appreciated dealing with those issues, here, but it is my impression that some people just have those issues at the forefront of their minds so much so that everything is touched by their over-focus.
But, I’m glad that you are an equal opportunity offender. That’s great.
“First, I don’t think that anyone has presented much on here that I would consider, “challenging,” from a biblical or intellectual argument.”
Very typical patriarchal comment. Only they are biblical, know the bible and make biblical arguements like you did when you talked about the young whores who go to college. And of course, no one is as intellectual as a Patriarch.
This is what years and years of believing in your own superiority because of sex and being told you are in charge has brought you.
“Third, my beliefs about men and women are extremely close to many on this blog. So, your comments, trying to put me into the Patriarchal camp, are just laughable. You can go back to the summer and read my comments to find out what I truly believe. Since we discussed that topic ad nauseum, then, I made it clear from the get-go, ”
So, you contradict yourself a lot?
It seems that the more educated you are, the more likely you will get married and stay married and have children inside of marraige, as opposed to outside of marraige, which supports the view that sending your girls off to college can be a good thing and can enhance the values Christain parents desire to teach their kids.
Thank you for bring this CNN article (published just today) to our attention. You are on the ball!
I especially liked this excerpt:
“Highly educated women also are getting married more and staying in those relationships longer, according to the report, which suggests this is a “striking reversal of historic trends”
The report cites an adherence to a “marriage mindset,” which means religious attendance and faith in marriage is now a way of life for the highly educated.”