links for 2009-11-15
-
A rebuttal to the homeschooling patriarchy movement: "Christians often misunderstand 1 Peter 3:1…, thinking it is referring to Christian marriages instead of to women married to non-believing Greek or Roman husbands who 'obey not the word.' That passage was never intended as a command to Christian women to let their Christian husbands get away with any and all selfish and ungodly conduct 'without a word'!" Read the whole thing. Your thoughts?
This entry was posted
on Sunday, November 15th, 2009 at 3:01 am and is filed under Blog stuff.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:44 am
I think she has a point, though I’m not ready to chuck the whole thing. I do believe that Jesus and Paul support the husband having final authority, but I don’t think this means we need to be always quiet when they are in sin or if the husband’s behavior is inconsistent with Scripture. We need to lift them up in love and confront them when they are obviously in sin.
I tried the quiet submission, being “perfect” – impossible, but I really tried, in my first marriage. I know that’ll raise lots of red flags. I married a man who had been raised in a patriarchal Christian home and I wanted a strong male head (my mom ran our house). He knew his Scripture, refused to watch any questionable scenes in movies, and seemed to treat me like a princess. There were some signs I didn’t choose investigate too closely b/c it all seemed to good to be true.
On our honeymoon, he told me it was a mistake. He wanted to be with lots of women. It was a brilliant move on his part, b/c I spent the next four years trying to be a slave to be worthy of his love and make up for the life he had given up. It took two years to realize what was happening (I found tons of hidden hardcore porn and it all started making sense). Those first two years of our marriage consisted of me working full time to fund med school, running a paper route at night, working out 3 hours a day on 800 calories to be pretty enough (he always told me how disgusting I was during sex and how I could never fulfill him – part by part. I was 115 at 5′6 and he’d always call me fat). I tried to love him perfectly, rarely confronted his behavior. I was dying inside. He would fantasize how he’d kill me. It was so psycho. He had professed faith, been raised in a conservative Christian home, and had taken vows before God. Why was I the only one trying to uphold the vows?
Well, I won’t bore you with how it all played out. I did leave for a few months after finding the porn to figure out what to do. I did lovingly confront him and told him I wouldn’t come back till it was gone and he got help. Well, he threw it out (there’s always the internet), but said his schedule was too busy to get help. He would if we needed it later…
When I finished putting him through med school, he told me he wanted out. He wanted to be with lots of women. It took forever for him to actually finalize the divorce. Not because he didn’t want it, but it was inconvenient to his residency (plastic surgery). In the meantime, I was absorbing all kinds of debt, getting parking tickets from states I was never in (most things were in my name b/c I’d had the job).
Anyway, I am remarried (I know some of you would not approve). My second marriage is sooo much better. Just the normal human problems. I try and respect my husband’s authority and be his help mate, but I’m not a doormat. I am his helper. I do call him on his sin. I do privately challenge him when I think he’s wrong. But I do respect his decisions and try to always honor him in front of our children.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:47 am
I certainly don’t think we should be taking scriptural lessons from someone who proclaims to have abandoned the faith. *However* she indicates the two heresies of the patriarchy movement through her story and that of the other women she quotes:
1. It is works based. The patriarchy movement is trying to earn God’s favor, and that can’t be done. IT will ALWAYS lead to pain and frustration.
2. It is isolationist. The men are taught that they are the SOLE head of their family, thereby setting them up as the pope over their own catholic church. Because it is necessarily separated from the accountability and authority of church elders, patriarchy will, without exception, lead to error and oppression.
I grieve for the people caught in this movement who can’t separate it from the truth of scripture, and I think there are probably just as many devastated hurting men in this movement, who are doing it all the “right way” and just can’t handle the pressure of doing it all on their own.
I don’t think there is much difference between the patriarchy movement and the fundamentalist Mormons, with the sole exception of polygamy.
I would like the opportunity to truly debate this, but it seems to be a sacred cow in contemporary conservative Christianity.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:04 am
I agree that Vyckie isn’t the best person to listen to on this subject.
I also grieve for anyone who is captured by the deceitfulness of sin, no matter what “movement” they embrace.
Patriarchy can be an avenue for wicked men to be tyrants within the home, especially if they are married to subservient women. The sin nature rears its ugly head, and lives are destroyed.
In the same way, an egalitarian couple that is not in submission to the Holy Scriptures and not surprised by the infinite Grace of a Holy God can have a works-based relationship that turns nasty.
“You do the dishes, I’ll take out the garbage.”
“You didn’t do the dishes, you jerk.”
etc.
All relationships, no matter the model, must be governed by the greatest commandment, to Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and by the second greatest commandment, to love your neighbour as yourself. If that is the basis of the relationship, it will work, and it will glorify God.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Patriarchy issues aside, I’m reluctant to receive scriptural teaching from someone who claims to no longer be a “fully convinced Cristian”
http://nolongerquivering.com/vyckies-story/
and believes there is “a biblical case for universalism”.
http://nolongerquivering.com/2009/10/12/vyckies-story-part-25-i-have-never-seen-a-righteous-man-forsaken/
This is the first time I’ve seen this website, but in poking around I’m seeing some red flags.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Isn’t the author of that post a woman that goes by the name of KR Wordgazer? I think that she just guest posted for Vyckie. I’ll go check….
November 15th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Yes. Check it again, Janet and Coralie. The article is by KR Wordgazer who has not left her faith. She makes her case from a very articulate position. I agree with her.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Its hard to find fresh water in a poisoned well. Be careful who you listen to. I am all about open debate and perspective, however I think Romans 16:17 is applicable when we are talking about someone who is denying the faith and is in open rebellion against God.
Surprisingly, nothing in the article offers to contradict the validity of scripture; in fact she makes it plain that her family was NOT applying scripture in a myriad of ways. People selling salvation for money or killing infidels in the name of Jesus do not prove Christianity wrong. They merely prove that they do not understand the Bible or the teachings of Jesus.
My question: are we still wasting time making the obvious observation that extremist, fundamentalist & chauvinistic “patriarchy” is harmful, or are we going to debate what the Bible actually says about husbands, fathers, wives, mothers, children & families?
If the Word of God teaches it, we should practice it regardless of what label others put on it. It then does not matter how they misuse that label, because I am not defending a label, I am concerned about following scripture.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I have spent a couple years coming around and trying to understand what I believe in regard to this whole movement. 10 years ago I fell for it all hook, line and sinker – and the sinker part about drowned me. After getting rid of almost all my books regarding the whole conservative/quiver-full/patriarchy movement and just sitting and reading the Bible, I finally fell like I can breathe air again.
The saddest part of all of this is from the beginning my husband told me to read the Bible and not follow any man made “convictions”. I didn’t listen and suffered internally for many years. This year I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. I feel like I left a abusive relationship that existed only in my head. God is merciful though. God used my husband to save me. This year I really started listening to him tell me that our life does not have to be “perfect”. It is ok that I am my own person and have my own thoughts. Do I submit to my husband? Yes I do. But at the same time my husband asks my opinion on every issue and considers what my and the children needs are too. “Patriarchy” is not a bad thing when the man knows how to consider his wife and children too. For what it is worth I make most of the decisions in our home. My husband says that he didn’t marry me to tell me to shut up and sit down. He wanted me to use the brains God blessed me with.
Thank you Amy for linking to this. It was therapeutic to write down some of the thoughts I have shared with you personally. I still love God with all my heart but I despise what all the labeling has done to His word. I know I am guilty of this as well!
Ouida Gabriel
November 15th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Ditto what Eric said.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
My comment got very long, so I posted it over on my blog. I’d love to hear others’ thoughts. You can read it at http://www.kitchensinkinc.blogspot.com
November 15th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
My comment got very long, so I posted it on my own blog. I would love to hear your thoughts in response. You can read it at http://www.kitchensinkinc.blogspot.com.
(I’m resending this, because I don’t think it went through the first time. Sorry if this doubles my comment.)
November 15th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
I like to read articles that offer as clear an alternative as a refutation of something. I wish she’d clearly outlined what she thought marriage should be like; that would have given me a better idea of how to respond.
I’m young, and have struggled with patriarchy and the quiverful movements. I’ve spent 4 years trying to convince my husband that I should submit to him. If that sounds off to you, then we’re on the same page. My husband wants to be a leader, but he doesn’t want a doormat for a wife. But with the circles I ran in/respected, THAT had to be the case to be living “right”. Sheesh.
Freedom in Christ is a wonderful thing. Loving Jesus, treasuring His Word, and seeking wisdom in following it is NOW what I am pursuing. NOT pleasing man or figuring out the right way to live life.
I try to think of marriage as first and foremost a relationship between two Christians. If I treat my husband like I know I should treat everyone else, that goes a long way.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
It is very odd to me that so many thought this article was written by Vyckie (who has left the faith).
The byline says “by Kristen Rosser” and if you click on her name, you can read her bio and see that she is a Christian.
Also, the entire article is written in the first person, and she refers to Vyckie in the third person. It would be entirely awkward to read if Vyckie was the author. It also wouldn’t make any sense.
Poisoned well?
I’m not bringing it up to be contentious, but wondering, how do you discuss the content of the article when something as basic as the authorship was missed?
I thought there were several good points in the article worth considering.
Very warmly–because it is so awesomely warm here and because I’m so awesomely chipper,
Amy
November 15th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Thank you for posting this, Amy. I am a MOMYS (mother of many young siblings), but I am not QF nor is our family “patriarchical”. I would have easily jumped into both with all my being, but it has been my husband who reminds me to keep Christ and the Gospel at the center…..as I stare down 40, I am much less prone to campaign for any 1 camp. Perhaps it is wisdom, or perhaps the grace and mercy of God that enables me to realize that God can and does call different families to different paths and we do not all have to look or believe the exact same way on the small stuff (and yes, I do believe that being QF and patriarchical are small stuff) as long as we lift up Jesus.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I think the reference to the misuse of that passage in 1st Peter is interesting. From my experience, all too often verses are singled out and not looked at with a holistic view of scripture.
Just a few weeks ago I was at a wedding where the pastor had a beautiful charge to the couple. He said that before they ever fell in love, he proposed, and she accepted, they became followers of Jesus Christ. He laid the foundation for “brotherly love” as Jesus taught all throughout the scriptures. “Wives submit to your husbands” or “the man is the head of his house” verses are built on top of that foundation. In other words, we are first called to care for one another as brother and sister in Christ.
The entire book of Ephesians has great wisdom on relationships. To focus only on one verse for women and to neglect the rest of the book when discussing the marriage relationship is to miss a tremendous amount of important material.
Often I feel that verses such as the 1st Peter verse cited above become the ’cause’ or the ‘base formula’ for many Christians. If this is what the author of the blog post at NLQ is referring to then I agree.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Oh. I just read comment #11 and she said basically what I said but with less words. :)
November 15th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
I see and am weekly faced with the other side: highly dysfunctional Christian families that have *never* heard the concept of patriarchy. Frankly, I don’t think that this destructive pseudo-patriarchy movement has a corner on dysfunction. It’s just got its own flavor. I agree that the article brought out several good points – but they would be good points for any unhealthy family.
What I don’t get is that I have never seen or heard the “women are doormats” teaching. I’ve also never seen the “rules” that were alluded to. Who’s teaching this? Did I miss something?
November 15th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
I went back to reread the article. It sure helps when you don’t have a lot of chatting in the background while you are trying to read! Of course they could NOT be chattering which means they are drawing on the walls – or playing in the paint;-)
You are right Amy. She does make good points. I also think that her comment about power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts is the perfect answer to your question. There are families that don’t even believe in Christ but have a man ruling over the wife and children like a tyrant. I have to say that if a man enters into this movement and in turn starts to abuse his wife then that trait (for lack of better word) was waiting to come out. Good men want to love their wives, take care of them, and love them without end. Abusive men look for ways to control their women and in Christianity it probably is more common in the so called Patriarchy movement. You have a group of men who lift each other to dominate over their wives and then the wives beating down the women who don’t fall in line.
I never speak in such articulate ways as you Amy. I hope I made sense. Oh, I also wanted to say that when I read articles, I hardly ever read the authors name. I jump right in to get to the point of what they are saying. Just wanted to share that.
Ouida Gabriel
November 15th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
I think we often want everything prepackaged, neatly wrapped and marketed with promises. From the very beginnings of the church there have been people selling something designed to – basically – control God. Do A, B and C and you’ll have……whatever the promise of the month is…..
What I’ve found is that if we walk out our faith in every direction – and not just by spiritualizing our temporal family relationships – we’d see far more true Fruit and not just a focus on temporal rewards (a good marriage, good children, etc).
The principle of submitting to others is a sound Biblical one. I also think on partner can often make a big difference in a marriage by loving selflessly. I’m not sure why it has to be labeled anything other than that….or be taken beyond that.
One thing I often see missing from women and men holding tightly to these beliefs is the fruits of the spirit with those who disagree with their beliefs. I think that’s telling, and quite sad.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Eric said: “I am not defending a label, I am concerned about following scripture.”
I say a hearty “AMEN” to that. I’m so exhausted from labels, labels wrongly labeled, and talk of movements, etc.
If by “patriarchy” we mean a simple acceptance of what the Scripture clearly teaches about roles, about love, about “laying down lives” and honor and completion, then why be so afraid of the word?
If men abuse those roles, it is not “patriarchys” fault; it’s sin’s fault and that needs to be acknowledged. And I think where the difference isn’t made, people get really confused.
We don’t use the term “patriarchy” in our church or family, mainly because articles like these have given it a distorted meaning. (I think initially “patriarchy” was synonymous with what the Bible teaches.) But we follow Scripture. And it is a beautiful thing. We are both sinners, but we both cling to the truth of the Word–apart from that is destructive error. My husband’s leadership in the home doesn’t AT ALL exclude my opinions, voice and desires. We are a team. We honor each other. We’re best friends, equally valuing the others’ person.
Where this isn’t happening between man and wife, God is not being honored, and whatever label you give to it doesn’t change that. But we need to be so very careful that in choosing/abandoning labels we do not destroy the truth of God’s Word for marriage.
The beautiful differences between man and woman should be celebrated as one of God’s greatest gifts. Teaching men to be men, according to the Word of God, should make men the humblest creatures on the planet, and women the most grateful!
And again, Eric was so spot on by saying that just because someone misuses a biblical truth doesn’t make that truth wrong; it makes THEM wrong.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
I’m going to agree with Eric and Kelley.
Of course abusive, oppressive, mean-spirited, dominating “leadership” is wrong, and so is any form of sexual perversion, law-breaking, etc. A man has absolutely *no* excuse if he claims to be a Christian to behave that way towards his wife. If he does, he is not only disobeying God’s direct command to him (to love and to lead *sacrificially*) but also failing to demonstrate the most basic fruits of a relationship with God–faithfulness, gentleness, kindness being among the list of nine that we know so well.
My husband and I struggled with this in our first years of marriage. We were *both* failing to be selfless and other-serving, and both trying to force our own way and our own concept of what should happen. By the grace of God we finally ended up on common ground. :) But that doesn’t mean we have thrown out the model of husband’s leadership and wife’s submission. What we eventually both realized is that we needed to stop trying to make the other obey God’s commands for them, and start obeying God’s commands ourselves. When we are both doing that, it is heavenly.
I think QF is a completely separate issue. QF is a conviction about the blessing of children. There are even unbelievers who get that concept and eschew birth control because of it. Just because there are people who are both dysfunctionally patriarchal and quiverfull does not mean that quiverfull beliefs are therefore automatically dysfunctional.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:56 am
I’ve not read many of his books, but I thought Douglas Wilson made an interesting point in “Reforming Marriage”. I think he said a man’s leadership or authority is not imperative, but indicative (I couldn’t find my copy to confirm these particular words).
He IS the head. Regardless of whether or not he exercises it or others respect it. Some may exercise it as Christ intended it (serving in love and using authority to lift up) or as tyrants. They might try and abdicate it all together, but none of that changes the fact that husbands are at the head. I think all kinds of societal stats confirm this biblical truth.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:35 am
“If men abuse those roles, it is not “patriarchys” fault; it’s sin’s fault and that needs to be acknowledged. And I think where the difference isn’t made, people get really confused.”
I think that this is where this paradymn breaks down. Who is allowed to “acknowledge” when this sort of sin creeps in? Surely not the wives? The church leadership? How will they know? The men surely (seldom) will not be willing to admit that they are abusing their role, because if they were willing to admit it they probably would not be abusing the role in the first place.
I think that it is safe to say that most men, even “nice guys” (my husband is one), are going to be lured by the ability to have ultimate control (my husband is). We were given one another, in marriage especially, to be accountable to each other. If the man is to be accountable to the women (love as Christ loved the Church), but the women is not allowed to hold him to that, or mention it when he isn’t, how is that Biblical?
November 16th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Ugh. Sorry that I didn’t make myself clear. I was saying that I don’t think Vyckie is a good resource for wisdom, not that she wrote the article.
I still say:
All relationships, no matter the model, must be governed by the greatest commandment, to Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and by the second greatest commandment, to love your neighbour as yourself. If that is the basis of the relationship, it will work, and it will glorify God.
That includes marriage relationships, online friendships, and real-life interactions with others. It’s not always easy to die to self, to put others first, to live in light of eternity. However, when we learn to do so, we learn the glorious truth that the yoke of Jesus is easy, and HIS burden (not the burden of a movement or someone else’s expectation) is light.
Truly Biblical marriage partners understand that they are wretches, saved by the grace of God, deserving nothing yet gifted with everything. They walk humbly with their God and with their life’s partners. They hold each other accountable. They know that life is difficult and that their spouse will most certainly sin against them sometimes. They are willing to forgive, because they have been forgiven so much.
Eric said, “My question: are we still wasting time making the obvious observation that extremist, fundamentalist & chauvinistic “patriarchy” is harmful, or are we going to debate what the Bible actually says about husbands, fathers, wives, mothers, children & families?”
Good question, Eric! Let’s focus on what the Bible says, and not waste time debating “patriarchy”.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:41 am
“Isn’t it time to turn away from it and seek God to guide your own individual life and your own individual marriage, not according to formulas, not in terms of works, but as He sees fit?”
My answer to the above question….YES!
I’ve been married for 23 years. I was 19 and he was 23. In today’s world it was a recipe for a future divorce. I think my friends and family were secretly taking bets on how long it would last.
Well it has lasted and I love my husband dearly. We are a partnership. We compliment each other and we respect each other. We recognize that both of us bring strengths and weaknesses to our marriage. We listen to each other. We ALWAYS ask the other person for advice and 99.9% of the time we take that advice. He has never expected or asked for me to serve him. He does not “rule” over me. He doesn’t treat anyone that way. Why should he treat his wife that way? We firmly believe that how we treat each other should be biblical. The main focus in our home is to love others as Christ loves us. Keep that as your focus and whether or not you are a “Patriarchal” family becomes irrelevant.
I truly believe that this is just one of the many ways Satan uses our best intentions against us. He subtly leads us into areas that distract us from God. Without realizing it, we become focused on good works, or serving our husbands to earn God’s grace. I firmly believe that a believer will not lose their salvation. Satan knows this so he focuses on eroding the relationship we have with God by distracting us with useless “formulas” or checklists for living the Christian life.
A strong personal relationship with God will spill over into your other relationships. Keep your focus on Him. He will show you the areas of your life that need changing. You don’t need a movement of a bunch of books to do that for you. Stick with the bible and ask Him to reveal to you what He intends for your life.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:36 am
As the listening ear to many women caught it the web of patriarchy, I believe the gender role discussion is worth having. If you knew what I know, then I don’t believe we’d be so dismissive.
The common thread of these stories is a sincere desire to follow the Lord rightly (with an intellectual acknowledgment that righteousness comes from the Lord) coupled with finally finding “the” Biblical way to live, usually on the internet or homeschool conferences.
As a blogger who has linked to patriarchal material in the past (without knowledge that this was, indeed, a movement with many connotations), I am trying to “right” that in linking a rebuttal. I think there are a few problems with this linked post, but until John Piper writes “Patriarchy for the Glory of God” we’re stuck with general stabs at the topic.
For full disclosure, I am a theological complementarian, but like most, behave in an egalitarian-ish manner in the home (mutual submission at home with decisions made together — while practicing male headship, no female input, in the church).
If patriarchy was nothing more than complementarianism, which is what most conservative Bible scholars believe the Bible teaches, than there wouldn’t be a need to make that wordy distinction. Why have the Patriarchy movement if complementarianism is enough? Simple. Because complementarianism doesn’t go far enough. Patriarchy is not complementarianism.
Complementarianism is a more moderate view than hierarchical tenets prescribing a male priority (a.k.a. patriarchy). Complementarianism is derived from the “hermeneutical hypothesis” that men and women are designed to complement or complete each other on the basis of their gender whereas patriarchy has a more authoritarian distinction.
If I could summarize what most comments are saying here is, “Aw shucks. Patriarchy–smachiarchy. We’re all just going to believe the Bible,” without taking care to note that my point is what the Bible says might be differently summarized than patriarchy.
I feel like I just said “Patriarchy!” and we’re all just playing a word association game. Can we discuss the merits and shortfalls of the linked article?
November 16th, 2009 at 9:42 am
p.s. I’m still chipper. I didn’t mean for my last sentence to sound like I’ve not had my coffee yet….
November 16th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Having read the article twice, I noticed several points that concern me. The first one below offers no scriptural defense that I can find. The second is a misapplication of scripture.
1. “Wives, self-sacrificially giving in to your husbands in ways that exalt them in power and control over you, does not help your husbands! At best, it acts as a temptation they must resist, in order to continue in the humility they know they should walk in as Christians. And at worst, it inflates their pride, feeds their selfishness, and gives them no incentive to walk in love towards you.”
2. “If you are finding very little rest for your soul– if your yoke feels heavy and hard– it is probably not a yoke that comes from Jesus. And it doesn’t glorify God for you to carry it. It doesn’t help you or your spouse grow in love and Christian character. It doesn’t increase the grace of God in your life, or your dependence on His mercy rather than your performance. And it’s not something that God can bless.”
If you are to believe the author in point #2, then God’s Word is full of error. Think of the “heavy and hard” yokes that Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Jeremiah, Paul, and so many more were called to bear.
Kristen also says, “Peter’s words should be read not as laws or commands,” Really? She doesn’t quote the whole passage of I Peter 3, so please read it for yourself. It certainly is God’s word to women and as part of His word that is meant to be followed.
Here is a portion of a comment that Kristen left on another blog at http://coffeetradernews.blogspot.com/2009/10/you-shall-not-tempt-lord-your-god.html :
“This is a blogsite run by Vyckie Garrison, and the Take Heart Project is her brainchild. She is not a Christian, but is seeking the help of Christians in helping those women who want to leave Quiverfull homes but do not want to leave their Christian faith. I am a Christian guest-blogger on her site. If you would be willing to link to No Longer Quivering, and later to Take Heart Project, please let me know. Thank you for your time.
Kristen Rosser”
“Helping those women who want to leave Quiverfull homes” ???? I interpret this to mean at the very least separating from a spouse, and possibly also meaning divorce. Ephesians 5:22-32 shows us that marriage is a representation of Christ and the church. Can you imagine Christ leaving a believer because of his sin? Impossible! And in applying this example to marriage, one should not leave a marriage because the yoke seems heavy.
As a disclaimer, I have never been a part of the patriarchy or quiverfull movements. I agree with the author that those movements have their flaws and misapply Scripture. That’s why the most important thing for any marriage is that it be built on a foundation of two believers who are seeking God’s wisdom in all things. Serving our husbands doesn’t earn us salvation, but obeying God and His word does bring Him glory, and it is what a believer is supposed to do (John 15). I encourage anyone reading this article to be very careful of the applications the author is making and to take into consideration the intent of the owner of the blog.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:54 am
From the article:
Wives, self-sacrificially giving in to your husbands in ways that exalt them in power and control over you, does not help your husbands! At best, it acts as a temptation they must resist, in order to continue in the humility they know they should walk in as Christians. And at worst, it inflates their pride, feeds their selfishness, and gives them no incentive to walk in love towards you.
In the spirit of discussing the merits of the article, I would resoundingly say AMEN to the above, if I were one of those kind of people who shout Amen! :D
We Christian women, if married to a Christian man, are married to our brother in Christ. That being the case, all of the “one anothers” apply. We are to exhort one another, to rebuke one another, to love one another, to pray for one another. My husband is the one God uses to teach me how to live a self-sacrificing life. I am the one God uses (primarily) to teach him the same.
Women who exalt their husbands DO allow them to swell with pride. I have seen it in action. It is appalling to witness a man who expects complete obedience from his wife, and who treats her no better than a dog.
Amy, I, too, am “a theological complementarian, but like most, behave in an egalitarian-ish manner in the home (mutual submission at home with decisions made together” – just so you know where I am coming from.
I have seen “Patriarchy” at its worst, resulting in broken homes and women and children fleeing to a shelter. I have also seen “Patriarchy” mirror the Biblical teaching to love one another sacrificially and deeply, as Christ loves the church. I am not sure that what the Bible says can be summarized differently than Patriarchy – at least the “good” Patriarchy that I have seen in many families. But if you were to define Patriarchy as a man having unilateral authority in the home, I’d have to shout from the rooftops that what the Bible says most definitely ought to be summarized differently.
I guess it depends on your definition.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:19 am
The founders of the Patriarchy movement have defined their terms in The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy. Someone was noting that quiverfull was being mixed up with patriarchy. Homeschooling and quiverfull (as well as age-integrated churches) are are necessary part of patriarchy. It is a whole package.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:22 am
I’m grateful that Sproul, Phillips, and Lancaster put out this document insofar that it clearly defines patriarchy. I think it’s well-defined and includes all the nuances.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I do believe that the writer has a point about 1 Peter referring to women winning lost husbands. Other scriptures mention not eating or associating with brethren who are in rebellion. Ephesians 5 states:
3But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.[a] 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7Therefore do not be partners with them.
8For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9(for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10and find out what pleases the Lord. 11Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.
Our husbands are our brothers in Christ. Before him there is no distinction btw. male and female (one of the reasons baptism replaced circumcision). So, while I believe in biblical headship of the man, I don’t believe that the woman submits in all things. If I had, I would have been engaging in all sorts of vile sexual practices. Neither are we to let our husbands wander so far off the path in silence and submission when we marry them as professing believers. They ought to be held accountable. When they stray so far, they usually cut ties with godly men and the church who would be able to hold them accountable.
The sticky part for women is to remain respectful, to always speak in love, and not try and play the Holy Spirit.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
OK, Amy – now we’re talkin’!! Instead of comment #31, let’s start fresh at the top: Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy – discuss!
There is not a single personal example I have heard or read that involved an abusive and/or dysfunctional relationship where there was not a clear violation of AT LEAST two of the basic scriptural guidelines in the document.
“Public schools are unconstitutional and unbiblical for Christians” steps outside of narrow limits of a discussion of Patriarchy, but the document takes great pains to allow for many modes of Christian education. “God controls the womb” and “children are a blessing” are likewise a bit broad, though necessary to encompass a full view of a father’s heavy responsibility before God. ABORTIFICIENT means of contraception is a specific means, not an overarching ends. It is a statement that contradicts the willful ignorance of employing any and every means of birth control with no thought for the moral implications.
With those two points made, does anything in the Vision Forum document attempt to include “quiverfull”, “homeschooling” and their subsequent independent definitions? While there ARE obvious implications that would influence decisions in other spheres, any “necessary connection” is inferred. Lets tackle one issue at a time, yes?
The FUN part, though, is that Jesus Christ wants ALL of us, no matter which compartments and distinctions we or others try to assign. I am probably better at walling-off sections of my own heart or conduct from the control of Christ than any old legalist is at putting me in a box.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Amy,
You seem to usually beat me to reading interesting posts around the web, but since you mentioned your stance as a theological complimentarian while practicing egalitarianism in the home (which is most likely how I would describe myself at present as well), I thought you might enjoy the following two posts over at The Scriptorium Daily.
(Now let’s see if I can work a little html magic)
Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism, Part 1: A Non-Theological Perspective
Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism, Part 2: A Theological Perspective
November 16th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
While I didn’t go back and specifically re-read the VF doc, I have read it before and I have to ditto what Eric said in comment 32. Taken in the spirit of grace, there is actually great liberty in that document. If you want to get all legalistic about it, it could easily be a living hell.
That said, I’m a Christian. I defy labels because I don’t fit nicely in any of them – patriarchy included. I still maintain that dysfunction is dysfunction whether you slap the label of patriarchy or Family Life Today on it.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
“If you want to get all legalistic about it, it could easily be a living hell.”
I think this is kind of the ultimate point, isn’t it? And the same could be said for egalitarianism, or anything else, like you said Janel.
Legalism can kill anything. I *love* to cook for my family, I do believe that is an integral part of my role as mother/wife/homemaker, and my husband rarely cooks at home. That is not dysfunctional. But if my husband did not deign to touch a pot or wash a dish because it was “below” him because of his “status” as a man, and hollered at me to hoist my heinie out of bed to cook for him even though I was sick unto death (or beat me because I didn’t), then we get into a dysfunctional type of patriarchy. ;)
November 16th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Amy,
Back in the early “homeschooling blog glory days,” I thought I was quiverfull, and I thought patriarchy was a good thing. But over time I learned that I didn’t really understand what those two words meant.
I thought that patriarchy simply meant that a Daddy led his family well, and I thought that quiverfull meant that people loved kids and wanted a bunch of them – or that God had led them to leave the arrival of children up to Him. I completely did NOT understand the rules attached nor how subtle the binding cords could become nor how quickly I could begin to pick up the mindset, nor could I imagine how my heart would begin to judge everyone else who did not see things my way. (That was my own problem, though.) Even though our marriage had worked incredibly well for 15 years or so, we didn’t have a name for what we “were.” I looked at all of these other families – homeschooling, lots of kids – and thought, “Hey! They look like us! We must be alike!” I thought privately that although my husband was a wonderful servant-leader, perhaps he should “be in charge more.” I tried to convince him, he never agreed. He liked us as we were. He liked my brains, he wanted me to have opinions, he didn’t want to make every decision for our family. He talked crazy stuff, like bringing up the concept that he wanted me to learn more, he felt it was his role to build me up. He hoped I would use my gifts and talents. I quietly thought he was a little heretical. (grin.)
Long story short – I’ve read and communicated with some patriarchal/quiverfull families too. Time and testimony has shown me what I did not see when I wore my rose-hued “all things daddy led, homeschooled, quiverfull are good” glasses. I am so thankful, retrospectively, that my husband did not buy my boatload of “we need to be more like this type of family” thinking. Within a good and loving family, almost any type of marriage will work…even patriarchy. But is it healthy? It is good for men, is it good for women? Is it good for the Gospel, or does it work against the Gospel? Does it give a false view of what God requires? (Answers according to me: no, no, no, no, yes, yes.)
Now that my husband and I have truly dissected our relationship in alignment with our theology (something we were loathe to do simply because it “worked” so beautifully…why cut something up that worked?) we both would say that we are egalitarians both in the home and in theology and in church practice. I think it is the best reflection of the giftings of the Holy Spirit, and the best reflection of the Trinity and also of redeemed mankind…the best he and she can be because of Jesus….in the redemption of the fall. No one needs to fight with me theologically (not sayin’ any one will – it’s just our opinions and how we see things and how they work for us.) Amy asked our thoughts, so I’m telling. :)
November 17th, 2009 at 2:04 am
Amy,
I’m so glad you linked to this. It took some serious guts. Good on you.
To those who say Vyckie is not to be listened to,
Ummmm? Are you saying that the only voices worth considering are those voices that agree with your own? How is that approach going to grow us in wisdom?
I am stunned and perplexed that anyone would be so dismissive. Vyckie’s experiences actually caused her to leave her (obviously real) faith—-so wouldn’t that make those of us who love Christ perk our ears up even MORE closely, that we might see and hear what happened so that we can do our level best to make sure we don’t inadvertantly cause such a thing to happen to another family?
To those who say that investigating the *fruit* of patriarchy is “pragmatism” and unscriptural, I would remind you that Scripture says a thing can be known by it’s fruit.
But I notice that the patriarchy camp tends to love families that give pretty pictures, and eschew families who don’t…or who got beat up by the teachings…if not completely destroyed altogether. The camp tends to shush those stories and run them right out of town. Vyckie’s blog is just the beginning of a movement of those who have been being silenced. If you don’t like what Vyckie’s doing, you need to be aware that it’s only going to continue, because there are many many stories just like hers out there.
If the “biblical patriarchy” camp is producing destruction, we need to have the guts to acknowledge it, even if it may mess with a doctrine that we hold as precious. God doesn’t take kindly to those who, ahem, love doctrine above people (see Christ’s discussions with the Pharisees). If it’s ruining homes, maybe it’s not just, “well, yeah, but they didn’t do it right.” Maybe there really is something legitimately wrong with the teaching itself.
It’s not being disobedient to the Word to acknowledge that this teaching is causing some serious destruction. This is obeying the wisdom of Christ. *He* told us to look at the fruit. Keep looking at the pretty pictures, yes. But take a good long look at the pictures that aren’t pretty, too. Don’t dismiss the stories just because some of the women left Christ over what happened to them and their children under the “protective” umbrella of biblical patriarchy. If anything, that fact should make us pay attention all the more.
With concern,
One who was broken by patriarchal teachings in the hand of an abusive man.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:36 am
I really appreciate your willingness, again and again, to shed light on less-than-savory corners of human behavior that are found in the circles you yourself are in. It shows not only humility and the spirit of a learner, but also the desire to not be the impetus for sin or folly in the lives of your readers. I really appreciate these types of posts.
I, too, think it’s easy when we’re the gals who HAVE a kind husband who lives in an understanding way, or who really does serve us and love us as Christ loves the church, to be the gal with the impeccable complementarian theology– because (as you said), we’re in marriages where our husbands DO treat us as equals, DO seek our wisdom and input, and DO value us as partners and co-contributors to the health and “success” of our homes.
Anyway. I really appreciate the discussion and most of all your courage in bringing it up.
~Jess
November 17th, 2009 at 9:07 am
It’s pretty difficult to discuss the merits of the article when we all have different definitions (or interpretations) of the same word. Until I saw your comment, Amy, I was interpreting “patriarchy” by its definition–a system where men have authority-not by a specific list of rules like the one you linked. When people spoke of a “patriarchal movement” I thought they meant a group of people who were attempting to restore families led by the father. Until I read your comment, I pretty much grouped patriarchy and complementarianism together. Now I see there is a distinction.
Granted, I’m obviously not the brightest bulb in the package. I’m one of the ones who missed who the author of this article was.
I think it would be great if you wrote a blog post about this, Amy. For me, your comments shed more light on the subject than the article you linked.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I think it would be great if you wrote a blog post about this, Amy.
I agree it would’ve been more productive if I highlighted the good points of the linked article instead of just a quick link. This was my fault.
The question the author is asking is the right question. Does Patriarchy glorify God? This is a good starting point. Do families who practice this lifestyle draw others to the gospel? Do other people see their good works and glorify their Father in Heaven? Does Patriarchy cause us to repent and believe the gospel?
Or do churches hurt because the division caused over the “unbiblical model of the youth group” and how the grandma teaching preschool Sunday School is promoting secular humanism? When people mock us, is it because of the gospel?
Do Patriarchal families produce more faithful children who repent and believe? Is Patriarchy the answer to why we are losing our children? Is it the system of belief that –if rightly followed–produces faithful children (as if God is manipulated by our good behavior and will say, “Okaaay, you’ve done well, Amy. I’ll save your kids for ya…” ) or is it humble parents who have prayed and played with their children who more often than not find themselves looking for answers and end up in a movement (because they care enough to do it “right” )?
As a woman who has homeschooled, eschewed birth control, and milks a cow in the morning, I understand how my reservations with Patriarchy can seem like a betrayal to women who have followed my blog for many years. Do I really love the Lord and want Him to have all of me or have I turned worldly?
My thinking about the Patriarchy movement isn’t something I just ran into and linked on a whim, but something I’ve been stewing on for over a year. I am still processing it.
I want to be measured and careful because I understand how personal it is for many people.
My concern is the gospel. Is anyone asking why Patriarchy produced a book titled Family Driven Faith and not Gospel Driven Faith? It is a book, not a blog post, and I find it difficult to understand how this missed the editing process. It is symptomatic of the distorted theology.
Patriarchy materials promote *the* biblical way to live, not *a* biblical way to live. This was the red flag that caused me to pay close attention the last several years, many of which included me being on a list called The Patriarch’s Wives (not so I could lurk, but because I thought I was one of them). At best, using the article “the” is a very dangerous, tenuous claim.
I agree that our society makes it incredibly difficult to raise faithful children. I applaud these lifestyle movements insofar that they reminded us of the blessing of children and God’s desire that a man’s heart be for his wife and children.
The leaders of Patriarchy, homeschooling, and the quiverfull movements owe it to their followers, however, to remind them to repent and believe (which is not the same thing as to homeschool and submit), leaving the burden of lifestyle choices to mothers and fathers (ironically), and not to women who attend homeschool conferences and come home, finally, with *the* biblical way to live.
The Church spans all time and all cultures. The impoverished African woman who works outside the home (!) will be in Heaven if she repents and believes. The woman who gave up on her marriage will be in Heaven if she repents and believes. The woman who decided that she could not carry the burden of being pregnant and homeschooling every year will find her place in Heaven, and it will probably not be on the edge of Hell. Blessed are the meek in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Amen.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Comment #40 – Amy
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Standing, shouting, smiling and applauding!)
From an egalitarian living, men teaching, only child raising, pants wearing, short hair sporting woman who nearly got sucked into the whole negative patriarchal thing and by the grace of God was spared the untold heartache I have witnessed around me and that has ripped my own extended family to shreds.
Like others who have commented, thank God (literally and truly) for a husband who valued me and our mutual relationship in Christ more than the opportunity to become my Lord and Master.
I pray the Lord will use this discussion to help women and men find their freedom in Christ and their joy in the gospel, not a man-made system that has destroyed so many relationships in families, churches, neighborhoods, online and beyond.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
[...] is discussing this topic right now. There are a lot of meandering (but good) comments, but if you want to cut to the [...]
November 17th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Hey, Mrs. Amy,
I dropped in via Mrs. Terry’s blog a few days ago, and have been watching this conversation unfold with interest. As the daughter of the author of the book you mentioned in your last comment (“Family Driven Faith”) and the member of a growing family integrated fellowship in Spring, Texas, I have to admit that many of the reservations surrounding the “patriarchy movement” do strike me as a bit laughable. And, I know it can be hard to hear the a person’s tone in a comment, so please do not take my words as disrespect; I am nineteen years old, unmarried, and, while a member of a household that operates healthily and biblically, still just a daughter in this household. I want to be respectful to you as a wife and mother, and as an older woman in the faith.
Your last paragraph struck a chord with me. You said:
“The Church spans all time and all cultures. The impoverished African woman who works outside the home (!) will be in Heaven if she repents and believes. The woman who gave up on her marriage will be in Heaven if she repents and believes. The woman who decided that she could not carry the burden of being pregnant and homeschooling every year will find her place in Heaven, and it will probably not be on the edge of Hell. Blessed are the meek in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.”
My grandmother was 18 when my dad was born, and she was abandoned by my grandfather. She worked to provide for him alone. My mother’s mother was deserted by her husband twice, and raised my mom and her four sisters alone. Throughout my family line, there has been abuse, divorce, and a history of pain that runs so deeply that my mother’s sisters joke about writing a book about it someday. My parents were plucked out of these circumstances by the providential hand of God, not by any good that they had done. And, once plucked, they desired to build a different environment for their own children based on God’s precepts.
I say all that to say that I’m well aware that the church spans all times and cultures, and am not naive enough to believe that everyone in every circumstance can grow up in the home that I’ve been privileged to grow up in. My extended family has shown me that. But that does not negate the fact that God’s Word has given us a mark to strive for.
Growing up in my home is a privilege, and I’m blessed to see my younger brothers growing up in this environment. When I see hurting families, my reaction isn’t to puff up with pride at my family’s “perfection” (we’re far from it =) ) but to thank the Lord for a father who takes his calling seriously, for a mother who takes her calling seriously, and for parents that work as a unit to make my home the safe haven that it is. I want to provide that same environment for my own children.
Homeschooling, stay-at-home mothering, age integrated church services, a welcoming attitude towards children -those are all issues that are easy to get distracted with, but I like to look at the bigger picture: multigenerational faithfulness. I want to leave the same godly legacy for my children that my parents are leaving for me, and I want my children to do the same, from generation to generation. I have such a passion and zeal for the gospel that I’m willing to devote my life to pouring it into the lives of my children in the future, and to devote my life to following hard after the Lord right now in singleness as well.
I love my parents’ zeal for the gospel. When I leave their home, that is what will have been passed down to me -not rules and regulations -but an all-consuming passion that will direct my steps, so that I will live a life of obedience to Christ, not out of legalism, but out of love and reverence for him and his people. I don’t believe God’s Word is silent on marital roles, and I have seen my parents living out their complimentary roles with a beauty and love that I cannot *wait* to experience in my own marriage someday. =) It’s not a yoke -it’s a blessing.
I am sure that I cannot right the presuppositions of many in this comment section by a single comment, and I don’t endeavor to. I just wanted to share my heart from my point of view. Mrs. Amy, again, I mean no disrespect, and hope my comment won’t be taken as such. I enjoy dropping in from time to time and reading your thoughts.
Respectfully,
Jasmine
November 17th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Oops! Sorry for the triple post there, Mrs. Amy! I was having trouble commenting, and kept trying to squeeze all I wanted to say down to size because I thought, perhaps, the comment form was rejecting me because of my verboseness! =D Please do delete the triple posting -I apologize!
November 17th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Amy,
Hello from a fellow Patriarch’s Wife!! I just want to let you know that I so appreciate what you are doing here. We are a homeschooling family who has closely followed what I like to call the patriocentric movement among homeschoolers. We have been to the conferences, own the DVD’s and CD’s and we even started our own FIC church. Like you things began to ring a bit hollow the more we got involved. We had been homeschooling seven years before we began to associate ourselves with partriocentric teachings. It all looked so good. We believed, still believe in a father-led home, we believed in letting God determine how many children we would have. We were tired of our worldly church. We were suckers for this movement.
Once in we saw the truth. Too much emphasis on human effort and not enough on the atonement! I appreciate Jasmine’s comment and I have spoken to Jasmine on the phone as has my daughter. She has been gracious and kind to us. I have met and spoken with Jasmine’s father on two occaisions and even had the pleasure of meeting her oldest brother. I do not doubt that her father is doing what he feels is best and right but I question any movement that states that you can have faithful children by any thing you do. It is JESUS who SAVES.
I live a Christian life sold out to Him because he died for me and I am obedient. I do not do it because of some multi-generational vision. Only the blood of Christ can save the generations that come after my husband and I. We can do every thing right and they may not accept Christ and we can do everything wrong and they will!!! This is because it is Christ’s blood, not how I live or raise my family, that saves. Jasmine’s father and mother’s upbringings show this perfectly.
That is my problem with the patriocentric movement it is man-centered and works based even as it claims not to be. Jasmine I know you are mature and grounded enough not to take this personally. It pains me to have to write these words. You are sweet and intelligent. I have many, many friends still caught up in this movement and I pray for them all as I pray for you. I simply can not sit back any longer and pretend that all is right in this fringe homeschool movement and I thank the Lord for opening the eyes of my husband and I reminding us of His grace.
In Christ,
Mrs. Taunya Henderson
http://www.old-fashionedmusings.blogspot.com
November 17th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I think you make some excellent points, Amy, but I’m finding this conversation a little frustrating. I’ve read books and blogposts and heard speakers who believe in Biblical patriarchy and/or complementarianism. Some came across as harsh and dogmatic, some were peaceful and gracious. Some seemed to look down on people who disagreed with them, some did not. The “degree” to which the men led or made decisions varied. Some speakers talked about gender roles but consistently pointed back to the gospel. Some didn’t. You seem to be grouping them all together.
At the same time, while I believe you have seen some painful things in other families, is it fair to say that the blame lies in patriarchial teaching alone? Dysfunction and abuse happen in feminist, egalitarian, and all other kinds of marriages.
The link to the description at Vision Forum describes what the writers of those tenets believe. It doesn’t really convince me that every person who says they believe in Biblical patriarchy has that full document in mind–as many of the comments here prove.
One question I believe we should ask that I didn’t see in your comment is, “Is patriarchy how the Bible teaches we should conduct ourselves?” All the questions you posed were good ones, but asking them at the exclusion of this one will inevitably lead to making decisions based on what we think will work rather than what the Bible teaches us to do
.
If the exact same book were written but the title was Gospel Driven Faith, that would only further the notion that the author believes his way is the only way. I would say the title reflects one particular area of the “working out of our salvation,” not the basis of our salvation.
There are many things I could do–dishonoring my parents, for example–that would not cause me to lose my salvation but are nonetheless wrong. Teaching something as right or wrong is not that same as saying that someone who practices that thing will go to hell.
Stating that patriarchy is what the Bible teaches is not condemning the egalitarian to hell, anymore than stating that Calvinism is what the Bible teaches is condemning the Arminian to hell. (Sorry, did I cut too close there? :-))
This all goes back to the whole “what is allowed and what is profitable” debate, balancing grace with works. It’s a never ending struggle, but I think it’s good to struggle with it, rather than simply picking a camp and pitching your tent. The conversation is worth having, but rather than debating what the true definition of patriarchy is and whether or not we agree with it, I think what Eric said is right. We should start with what the Word says and go from there.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Jeana,
Very well said. I, too, have been heavy-hearted about the tendency (not only in this thread but in other places as well) to lump the whole thing together and give “patriarchy”, even in a good, biblical sense, a bad name. Thus the reason I feel it is so important to define it. Often we are using one word but people are describing totally different situations/experiences/definitions.
Regarding Dr. Baucham’s book, It think you summed it up accurately as well. The book’s message is wrapped in the gospel. The title is meant to focus on one aspect of the encompassing Christian life that has gotten so skewed.
If there is fault with the book, I would like to see someone list the particular contents that was faulty, not just blame the book for its title. I for one found the book to be one of the most accurate, spot-on books I’ve ever read. I think every family should read it.
Again, it’s a discussion worth having, but I pray that in using a word to describe something (a perfectly normal and necessary thing we do) we don’t throw the truth out with the lies. People committing sin thwart God’s principles. Abuse in marriages is real and must be confronted. The issue lies there, not with the principles.
It’s akin, I think, to acknowledging that it is wrong to kill abortionists. But teaching that abortion is wrong doesn’t “fuel” the act. We don’t change our message because some have taken it and used it for evil. It will probably continue to happen, and we continue to prosecute the murderers, but still the unwavering truth must remain.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
The question I would ask those who support a patriarchal view… Would you enthusiastically support a sister in Christ who was egalitarian in her view and lived her life in such a way? If she was seeking Christ faithfully, sharing the Gospel, and doing her best to walk blamelessly before the Lord, would you support her choices if that included teaching a mixed Sunday School class or not homeschooling or even having a career if that is what she believed God was leading her to do? Would you rejoice that her calling and freedom in Christ led her to do things in secondary matters that were not in line with Vision Forum’s tenants of patriarchy?
While some of the patriarchal camp might say yes they would support her(very slowly and their voices heavy with reservation), the reality is that a great many of them would not be supportive of a Christian sister making those choices. In fact, I suspect many of them would consider that woman to be walking in flat out sin. They wouldn’t say that she would lose her salvation over these choices, but they would clearly believe that she was a second class citizen walking in rebellion in the kingdom of heaven.
Do you think I exaggerate? I don’t. Why is it that people in the patriarchy camp won’t even associate with brothers and sisters in Christ who might make different choices? Why is it that their patriarchal, multigenerational faithfulness views trump the relationship of brother and sister in Christ?
Although Amy has said little on her blog about the results of some of her choices lately (sending her children to Christian school, for example), I would guess that she is persona non grata in many conservative, homeschooling and patriarchal online circles now because she has clearly lost her way (in their eyes). Rather than rejoicing in Greg and Amy finding peace and joy in the ability to rest in Christ and the freedom He has brought them at this season of their family’s life, I suspect there have been feelings of betrayal (as Amy herself said in a previous comment). And why do people feel betrayed rather than thankful that God is meeting her needs in a different way? Because a lot of people out there believe that there is only one acceptable way for men and women to behave and anything that strays from that ideal is wrong. To them, the ideal is the main thing, not the fact that they are a true brother or sister in Christ.
(Sorry for the long comments, Amy, but this topic really gets me going! LOL!)
November 17th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
“The question the author is asking is the right question. Does Patriarchy glorify God? This is a good starting point. Do families who practice this lifestyle draw others to the gospel? Do other people see their good works and glorify their Father in Heaven? Does Patriarchy cause us to repent and believe the gospel?”
I would answer not necessarily. Because even those servent leader husbands are sinful, as pointed out earlier, and here:
“At the same time, while I believe you have seen some painful things in other families, is it fair to say that the blame lies in patriarchial teaching alone? Dysfunction and abuse happen in feminist, egalitarian, and all other kinds of marriages.”
The problem lies in the fact that when there is dysfunction in a family it needs to be recogninze and worked on. In the paradymn set up by Partriarchial teaching, there is no way for any dystunction/sin/abuse/issues to be dwelt with. One is not allowed to question the authority, and even if they were “allowed” they are so busy trying to look like they have it all together that they won’t.
Not just Partricary, but this whole “thing” that Amy is talking about come with the assumption of isolation, superiority (even though the women are expected to be humble, and all that I have met are very much so), seperation, sheep from the goats type of attitude.
I feel that this attitude is inseperatable from the doctrine of *THE* Biblical family. Because of that attitude (which is seldom super obvious), it is harmful to the people in it and those they come in contact with Christian or non-Christian.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I’ll never be rich. I’ll never be famous. I probably won’t be known by any amazing accomplishments.
But I live a happy life loving God, my family, and my children. I have no desire to pressure my children into anything. I have no desire to pressure my husband into anything. They don’t pressure me into anything.
Freedom and love and sheer wonder at the miracle of life and creation are enough for me. I am sorry for the people who must always make a yoke for themselves and for others.
God is great! His creation is beautiful. Be thankful, be worshipful, be free, love. My Christianity is delight driven.
Be warned: If you choose to live out “extreme Christianity” and become weary and overwhelmed, you poison Christianity in the eyes of your children and others around you. Better to do what you are able, so that you can finish the race with joy.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Mrs. Sallie,
You said:
“Do you think I exaggerate? I don’t. Why is it that people in the patriarchy camp won’t even associate with brothers and sisters in Christ who might make different choices? Why is it that their patriarchal, multigenerational faithfulness views trump the relationship of brother and sister in Christ?”
This is a sweeping assumption regarding people that believe differently than you do, ma’am. I don’t have an “us against them” mentality regarding egalitarians anymore than I want them to have a “them against us” mentality regarding me. While I disagree with an egalitarian interpretation of Scripture, I realize that there are times and circumstances where Christian people must disagree with one another.
I have strong convictions about family life, convictions I believe are drawn from God’s Word. Yet, while I won’t lie to you and tell you that I wholeheartedly endorse the opposing beliefs of friends and loved ones regarding biblical womanhood, I realize that I can encourage her in the areas I do agree with, and challenge her in the areas that I disagree with. From old family friends who know where we stand to new acquaintances, our job is to treat them with love and respect, not alienate them.
I often come back to the Arminian/Calvinist debate. I’m a fire-breathing 5 point Calvinist gal ;) , but I’ve had intimate friendships with people who don’t agree with my Reformed theology. We didn’t stray away from those debates ;) , but they were conducted in love and with understanding (or I knew I was going to get in trouble about them when I got home that evening).
In the same manner, I enjoy spirited debate with friends about differences of opinion on men’s and women’s roles, church structure, and education –in the end, though, despite our disagreements, we’re still friends. I encourage them, I pray for them, and I expect them to do the same for me.
Also, I want to point out -as some of the other ladies here have -that even if families rally together on certain principles, outworkings of those principles might look different in every home. To paint all “patriarchal” or complimentarian homes with the same broad brush is a little unfair (for instance, Mrs. Sallie, I smiled when I saw your comment about being a “pants-wearing, short-hair having” woman. My mom’s hair is probably shorter than yours, and I’m wearing jeans while I type this ;) ). We should be wary of any movement where all of the families involved look, think, sound, and act exactly alike. As it is, I think the diversity in “patriarchal” homes (and I’m putting the term in parenthesis because it’s not one I usually use, even though, properly defined, I think it accurately describes a biblical home) might surprise those who took the time to look beyond the presupposition and generalities I’ve seen.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Sallie and Amy, I would take it even further. Does telling a woman that she can not teach a mixed group or have any leadership or ministry in a church setting further the Gospel? As Amy said, are we laughed at because of the Gospel or because of our understanding or application of it? What exactly does it say to an intelligent, successful woman when we tell her that she can only have limited ministry within a church? It tells women who might be drawn to the church that she is not good enough for today’s church. And if the church doesn’t want her, she will find some other place to successfully lead and serve. In this case, our interpretation of the Gospel pushes strong women and the families who love them away. What does it say about God, exactly, when we interpret Paul’s scriptures non-culturally and say that women must not have any leadership role in a church? It says that God does not think that women are intelligent or strong enough or incorruptible enough to minister. It says that God thinks that only men can fill this role. I…just can’t buy that view of God. Why egalitarian in the home, but not in the church? There are very good, clear, scholarly, historical and academic ways to interpret the troubling “women submit” passages.
I have a good friend who knows without a doubt that God has called her to a speaking ministry of some sort. He placed a sincere burning within her heart that she must obey, or be in sin. She has approached various churches about whether they had a place for her in ministry (ministry being more than teaching women or children or working in the nursery,) and she has been shut out and shut down. She is looking elsewhere. And she is a quiet, diligent, loving, homeschooling, God-seeking, God-loving woman.
And then there is me. I look the patriarchal part (except for the short hair and blue jeans.) I’m a stay at home mom who homeschools her eight children, who does not use birth control, and who adores her husband. I appear submissive. He (my husband,) never asks it of me. Where do I fit in? I’m acceptable on the outside, but when people learn my views I am rendered unacceptable. It’s all so strange. There’s no freedom within much of our Christianity. I am very repelled by hard patriarchy (and I will call it that. I don’t think that soft complementarianism is the same thing as hard patriarchy) and I won’t join any church in the future that features any aspects of patriarchy. The gifts of the spirit are available to all people. There are no gender assignments for these ministry gifts. I think the trouble goes beyond patriarchy. I think it extends to restrictions of women in church, as well.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“The problem lies in the fact that when there is dysfunction in a family it needs to be recogninze and worked on. In the paradymn set up by Partriarchial teaching, there is no way for any dystunction/sin/abuse/issues to be dwelt with. One is not allowed to question the authority, and even if they were “allowed” they are so busy trying to look like they have it all together that they won’t.”
Miss Amie, this is not the case in my home, and I would venture to say that it hasn’t been the case in many other “patriarchal” homes. At our church, our elders preach expositionally. I loved going through Ephesians 5 and Genesis 2, hearing husbands commanded to love their wives as their own flesh -not to dominate them; to lead them in the Word -not according to their own whims, and for wives to submit to their husbands -not because their husbands are worth more in God’s economy, for nothing could be further from the truth -but as unto the Lord. And the men in our church are held accountable for this. It’s a beautiful thing, and quite a shame to see it misrepresented in this way.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Jasmine, you are very articulate and do a good job of defending your viewpoint lovingly. I applaud you. I know that your Daddy is very proud of you. (I’ve read his own words, of course!) :)
But you know – I will also say that many of the men who preach the patriarchal view come across a lot less lovingly than you do. They preach patriarchy unyieldingly. They throw around some pretty harsh words in their blog posts. Your Dad’s own book “What He Must Be….If He Wants To Marry My Daughter” leaves no room for grace nor deviation from the principles. I’ve seen real live families within my homeschooling community be torn apart by these very principles. Their grown-up daughters were driven to rebellion because their father forbade their choice of a mate at age 21. In one instance, the young man had not met the complete financial stipulations. He fell short by a very slight margin – and the parents still forbade the marriage. The siblings could not speak to their sister, could not attend her wedding, could not be a part of her life. This large, close, homeschooling, patriarchal family chose to tear itself up and break their family’s soul based upon one small factor. So very very sad. I’ve seen wonderful, godly young men tossed aside by patriarchal families as suitors because they could not reach some imaginary level of perfection demanded for their daughters. This is devastating for young men, and they, too, will search elsewhere for a wife. Maybe for the Gospel, too.
Where do families get these ideas? From patriarchy. I won’t point fingers, to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings. But most of us know the leaders in these movements. I simply wish the leaders could see the ramifications of their philosophies as they are lived out across the nation. Yes, it can work well in a good and loving family. Does it usually work out? I don’t think so. It takes a very high performance level that many families are unable to maintain.
Lovingly -
November 17th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Sallie, ouch. I feel a bit attacked by your post #48. I am a home-staying, homeschooling, pants-wearing mother of 12 with 18 grandkids. One might define us as a Patriarchal family, especially since I belong to a couple of groups online, one of which has Patriarch in the name.
I would say that I enthusiastically support anyone that God brings into my life, no matter if they agree with our family’s choices. My goal in life is to glorify God by loving Him and loving my neighbour(I am leaving that “u” because I am proudly Canadian). It wouldn’t be very loving to shun brothers and sisters in Christ who make different choices.
I know that Amy was hurt by some women who disagreed with her choices, but she was also encouraged by others, including me.
Sallie wrote: a lot of people out there believe that there is only one acceptable way for men and women to behave and anything that strays from that ideal is wrong. To them, the ideal is the main thing, not the fact that they are a true brother or sister in Christ.
And I agree with you that some may fall into this error. There are those who forget to read Colossians 2.
Let No One Disqualify You
16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
The reason Paul had to warn them not to get caught up
in the regulations— 21 w “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” and other teachings is that the Colossians, like us, wanted to do well. They wanted a self-made religion; they wanted to have the appearance of wisdom.
I think you’ll want to make the point that the Patriarchalists do the same today – and some of them do. But some of them don’t.
In my opinion, your post seemed to condemn the lot of them, and that would include me and some of the others who have commented.
Instead of getting too worked up, perhaps a gentler approach could be used. After all, many of these weaker brethren who follow rules are your brothers and sisters in Christ. Kind and gentle admonishment and teaching would be far more welcomed than a broad and sweeping condemnation.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Amy, thank you for adding another good voice to this discussion. The entire patriocentric movement is full of legalism that belittles moms and discourages countless daughters, many who have been thrown out of their families because they didn’t agree with this paradigm. Where is the one anothering? Where is the emphasis on men and women as brothers and sisters in Christ, the primary relationship we will have as fellow believers for all eternity? Where is the passion for evangelism or for ministering to those who are outside of their prescribed “roles,” “roles” that are never taught in Scripture.
Yesterday someone called my attention to the latest Botkin family film called Homeschool Dropouts. If someone watches the trailer with a discerning eye, it is obvious that not raising a family as per the patriocentric agenda makes one “apostate.” I would encourage you take a long look at the latest agenda for homeschoolers which includes bringing an end to all public education, making sure all homeschooling families leave traditional churches and attend family integrated churches, etc. (http://www.thatmom.com/?p=2301)
I have hosted a discussion of this topic for several years on one of my blogs where there are currently over 20,000, many of them links to the various teachings. (www.truewomanhood.wordpress.com). I would encourage any serious student of the Word to become a Berean and study, study, study, holding all these teachings up to Scripture rather than any tenets of man.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Mrs. Holly,
Thank you very much for your sweet words. :) I think this will be my last comment, just because I don’t want to wear out my welcome here. Concerning “What He Must Be” :
Daddy has done what many women are complaining hasn’t been done by men like him: he is calling men to a high biblical standard, using God’s Word as the measuring stick. I am grateful for his lack of deviation. Please do not take my respectful tone to mean that I am not passionate about the very things my father teaches -I most certainly am. But I, being a bit younger than he is, have to temper that passion. ;) Please also know that any loving attitude you see from me has been nurtured by my parents, both of whom have set forth an example of that loving attitude for me.
About the young man who fell short on the financial margin; my dad said in his book (and in a radio interview with Family Life Today about his book) that the *principle* of provider did not necessarily mean an exact income, but the fact that a young man was a hardworking individual. The problem comes in when *practices* are elevated to the same level as principles. For instance, my dad doesn’t have a specific salary in mind for my future spouse to make; based on his understanding of the biblical principle for being able to provide for me, all that he requires is a good work ethic.
Legalism would be me taking my family’s practice and accusing other families who *do* set a certain sum as sin.
It may seem like a small difference, but it’s important. When a family misunderstands this difference, all manner of friction and fracturing will ensue. Our job isn’t to “keep up with the Joneses,” it’s to live our lives with convictions from the Word. I’m proud of my dad and men like him who teach the principles found in God’s Word; and I’m also proud of families that I know who take those principles and apply them to their own families in a way that works for them and brings glory to God in their specific situations.
Again, thank you very much for your kinds words, and please don’t take mine as argumentative. It’s obvious we disagree, but I appreciate your kind tone very much, and hope that the Lord blesses you abundantly.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Woops! That third paragraph from the bottom should read:
“Legalism would be me taking my family’s practice and accusing other families who *do* set a certain sum of sin.”
Thank you, Mrs. Amy, for the opportunity to share (though I admit that I am, indeed, biased on the subject :) )
November 17th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Sallie,
May I *gently* offer this food for thought regarding your comment:
“Would you enthusiastically support a sister in Christ who was egalitarian in her view and lived her life in such a way?…the reality is that a great many of them would not be supportive of a Christian sister making those choices.”
This is my personal expression, but I’m guessing it would be others as well:
Since I hold to a pretty simple interpretation of Scripture (I realize the egalitarians usually rely on interpretations that involve cultural implications as well as language barriers), it seems needful to establish “what does the Bible say”. If I believe the Bible teaches complementary roles (and I do), then anything outside of that may not be sin, but it would be considered unwise.
Much like financial principles. I don’t consider recreational debt to be sin, just dumb. I’ve done it myself. Can we not recognize that some principles are for our good, and when re-interpreted, are simply not the wisest choices we have?
The slippery slope of feminism into Christian egalitarianism seems to speak much more loudly of destruction than the handful abusing biblical roles in marriage. Seems as Christians we should be a lot more concerned about how feminist thought is damaging families, and a lot less willing to defend it.
Unlike what many claim to witness, most families I know that would be considered patriarchal, are greatly varying (pants/no pants/ different music, different standards about everything/homeschooling/maybe not/ etc.) but one thing is consistent–they’re joyful, the women are free and confident and the husbands are loving and serving.
Perhaps what I’ve seen is what makes some of these comments so confusing to me. I can’t imagine a happier home, a home where my husband thinks I’m the best thing since chocolate and we are a team, but still able to recognize God-ordained roles. He is nothing but humbled by any teaching that reminds him of his spiritual leadership. And I know a lot more homes like these.
And for the record, it is most definitely a sweeping judgment to say that “these families won’t associate with others who make different choices”. Spend lots of time with like-minded people? Yes, just like everyone does. But homeschooling doesn’t equal isolation. I know for a fact that this assertion doesn’t apply to the majority.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Jasmine, always…always, our conversations should be filled with God’s love and concern for other people. I have not always done that, and I do not always achieve that now…but I am trying to learn and also to allow God to teach me how to be consistently loving.
Thank you for your comments back to me. Of course we do not disagree – but we are allowing God’s grace to work in both of our hearts and lives. I wish you the absolute best. (())
November 17th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I am sorry if my comments came across harshly or sweeping. That was not in my heart or mind. If I had a low opinion of all homeschooling patriarchal families I would not have read Amy’s blog all these years when she promoted these very ideas. If you look back at my comments, I did go out of my way to use terms like “some” and “many” to clearly indicate that I do not believe every patriarchy practicing family is unhealthy. But I do believe the dysfunction is more pervasive than many people believe because a good deal of the dysfunction is hidden (as I believe Holly said).
A few closing thoughts and then I will bow out of the discussion…
Holly – Thank you for your excellent points in comment 52. Many women do not understand how critical these issues are for other sisters in Christ because they do not have the same giftings and need to practice those gifts. The story you shared is heartwrenching.
thatmom – Thank you for the link. Even with all I have read and experienced related to patriarchy, I was still stunned by the post on your blog.
Jasmine – I appreciated all your comments even though I am not going to take the time to respond to them specifically. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Kelly – I appreciate your thoughts in comment 59. Ours is a very happy home and my husband is thrilled to see me exercise my gifts. He has said more times than I can count that he is my biggest fan. :-) He loves sitting in classes when I teach and does not feel in the least like I am doing something unwise or unbiblical. I understand that you believe in your position and you believe to hold another position is unwise. We are also firmly convinced in our position of what the Bible says after many years of studying and prayer. For me to not use my gifts is something we believe would be unwise.
Thanks, Amy, for the opportunity to participate!
Warmly,
Sallie
November 17th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
I wonder what then would be the procedure for holding a husband/father accountable if they were not holding to the precepts of “servent leader” or “loving as Christ loves the church”? I have read quite a bit about this *way* of family life, including reading some of the books and listening to podcasts/radio interviews by the people involved in it, and I still can’t find anything about what to do when it doesn’t work, if you don’t do it right, which you can’t, because you a human, ya know, sinful and all……
(and just for the record, since I didn’t link my blog, I am a wife, and homeschooling mother of 4, well only one of them is homeschooling but you get the point, :) oh and I don’t use bc and I wear skirts most of the time and occasionaly bake bread, because somehow that is suppose to make me more legitamite, hehe, oh and I am reformed)
November 17th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
I apologize in advance for all my grammar and spelling mistakes……….
November 17th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
If I may, as a patriarch, or husband, or doormat, or apostate (you make the call) interject into this decidedly female discussion (shout out to my friend Eric)…
I don’t know what we are as a family or who approves of it. I don’t know what circles we are accepted in or not. I don’t know who likes or dislikes my wife and what she writes here.
Frankly, I don’t care.
I rejoice in the gifts that God has given to her, whether playing the piano or teaching our children or provoking thought on her blog. I know I am a better man because of her. I know our family is better off financially, emotionally, spiritually, physically because of her. Are we complementarian? Patriarchial? Egalitarian? Libertarian?
Doen’t matter to me.
I know we’re trying to glorify God in everything. I know we have a long way to go. I know that I wouldn’t want to make the journey with any other person on the face of this earth.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Ai-yi-yi.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
That was the sweetest thing I have read in quite awhile. How sweet!
November 17th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Jasmine,
What a delight to see you chime into the conversation! As I was reading and seeing some specific families brought up… including Jasmine’s… I was a little disheartened. I have the honor and privilege of knowing several of these families personally and their families are a sheer delight. These men love the Lord, they love their wives and they love their families. I don’t personally embrace the term “patriarchal” anymore or any kind of “movement” for that matter. The reason is that these labels are misunderstood and redefined regularly. In the way that Vision Forum defines it and in proper biblical context, multigenerational faithfulness is truly a blessing. It is a sharing of the Gospel and a walking out the Gospel all in one.
As I read, I was planning to jump on and explain that more thoroughly, but Jasmine did it for me. Jasmine, you are an able ambassador for your earthly father as well as your heavenly Father! It’s a pleasure to know you!
And, Greg… great, GREAT comment! You are a gem among husbands! Amy, you are truly blessed!
November 18th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Amy,
Going back and reading more thoroughly all the comments brings me to the question you brought up.
“Does Patriarchy glorify God?”
The answer is that it depends on the heart of the person “practicing” it. It all boils down to a heart issue. Anything can be distorted, abused and made ugly because of sin. Shopping for groceries can be done in sin or it can bring glory to God. It depends on the heart of the person doing it.
Also, one more point about the Bauchams. It smarted a little bit to hear you say the title of Voddie Baucham’s book, Family Driven Faith, “is symptomatic of the distorted theology.” I can speak for the Bauchams and a few other families that I know personally. Their theology is spot-on and I have yet to find any teaching from them that is contrary to the Word of God. The context of the book shows the reason for the title. But, don’t let the title fool you into thinking it’s not all about the Gospel. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Just wanted to make that point.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Ditto Lady Why…Dittoing LOUDLY!!!
November 18th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Lady Why, maybe this quote from Pastor Baucham might help you understand why there are so many questions about patriocentricity:
“A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who can give them that.”
November 18th, 2009 at 10:33 am
(That is, dittoing loudly in a happy, cheering kind of way ;-) I forget that tones can’t be transmitted over the net.)
November 18th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Friends,
This morning I was pointed to an article that should’ve been the primary link, as I find it spot on in its expression of my concerns.
Here it is in its entirety:
While I found the original article I linked a bit tenuous, I think the above article in blockquotes is fair, biblical, and wise. Test it and see if it aligns with the Word.
After reading through the comments onward from my post in comment #40, I want to take great care that talking about it doesn’t negate the very thing I find disheartening, that is, the disunity of the church. What some people probably don’t know is that Janet and Eric are some of my closest friends. We duke it out and then have a proverbial beer.
In a speech on Visionary Fathers at the recent Leadership Summit, Doug Phillips said, “We must be involved in godly, family-integrated, orthodox, sound churches. Without accountability, without the love of brethren, without the nurturing and the teaching of the Bible, we will fall apart, and the homeschool movement can no longer tolerate, it can no longer handle, unassociated Christian members that are simply not willing to be part of formal biblical associations.”
Statements like these and others are why conservative homeschooling men and women are questioning the wisdom of being associated with this movement. Watching the destruction inside my godly, sound, orthodox Presbyterian church (with a nursery) was not an aberration due to the some followers who didn’t “get” the patriarchy/FIC movement, but rather a net result of its very practice to be “biblical”.
—————————
Now just a note to Jasmine.
Jasmine,
You sound like a lovely lady, and I want to thank you for your comments. I received them in the spirit you intended.
My husband is one in a long line of McGregor Scotts. His father’s father raised nine children in the middle of the Great Depression. All nine children went on to serve the Lord as pastors, missionaries, elders, etc. Their children are raising godly children, and we have the privilege of also raising a large brood of faithful children.
As for me, I was plucked out of a line of divorces, jail, drugs, sexual deviations, abuse, and poverty. It is one reason that I am a Calvinist, as well.
When I said that we are theological complementarians, but probably more accurately could be described as egalitarians at home, it is because I would kick my husband’s ego into next week if he ever ordered me to do something. And that just sounded more like “one anothering” (because he’d deserve it) and less like submission.
I jest, but to appreciate my tone, you must know that a man and a women find their rhythm that is unique in each marriage. My own husband likes me to argue theology more than he likes me baking cookies in the kitchen. I appreciate that you seem to understand that it looks different in every family. Thank you for that.
Your dad wrote a book called What He Must Be If He Wants to Marry My Daughter in which he lays out the concerns of a loving father. Us? We have a shotgun. So you see how two faithful families reading the same Bible can have two entirely different approaches and still be Biblical.
Now, back to your wise observation about multi-generational faithfulness. My husband’s family is exhibit A and praise God that they followed the Bible in raising their children. As a middle-aged woman looking at 90+ years of faithfulness, I find it very difficult make a judgment their choices (of public schooling, for example) in the face of such wisdom. I find the “anti-biblical this”, and “biblical model that” rhetoric quite arrogant in shadow of their testimony.
We have 102 acres paid off in hopes that I can help my own children raise their families faithfully. (Economy imploding, notwithstanding.) It is my heart and I have made deep sacrifices in order to go against the cultural tide and raise my children for the Lord.
You describe my comments as “laughable” and I can only hope that you may understand my heart in time. Maybe you have not read my blog for five years in which I have encouraged women to do hard things, to let obedience follow our love for Christ.
I am a strong spicy woman as you are yourself. (It takes a real man to handle a woman like that. I suspect your Daddy will choose well.) I see myself in you. Unfortunately, my zeal needed temperance and the path the Lord used to do that was one of brokenness. (I suspect it is why I am the listening ear to many stories bred in the petri dish of patriarchy.) Know that my theological disagreement has nothing to do with my affection for my friends with this viewpoint.
I have no doubt the Lord has good things in store for your life. You are blessed girl.
In Christ, our righteousness,
Amy Scott
November 18th, 2009 at 10:41 am
thatmom,
I can’t put my hands on my book to be sure, but I’m almost certain your quote is missing words between “younger women” and “God”. I’m almost certain there should be ellipsis marks, which would radically change the context of the quote. If I’m right, this is another example of how easily the teachings get distorted by those desiring to destroy them.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Kelly, I didn’t read this in a book but would welcome a reference to it in a book.
I heard the quote and copied it verbatim from one of Voddie’s you tube presentations. You can see it here in his context as well as the context for my concern. As you will see from the comments, it is pretty difficult, no impossible, to explain this quote in a Biblical way. As I asked before, how is this supported in the Word of God?
http://www.thatmom.com/?p=2404
(Sorry I didn’t initially reference this. I thought that most if not all those who are familiar with Pastor Baucham’s teachings would have read/heard this. Thanks for holding me accountable, Amy.)
The exact quote is found at 2:08 to 2:21.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Amy, after reading your last comment and the link to the very good article by Andy, I was reminded of this very good little poem my mom taught me when I was a schoolgirl:
“He drew a circle that shut me out Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout But love and I had the wit to win; We drew a circle that took him in.” ~ Edwin Markham
These so-called leaders of patriocentricity have drawn a line in the sand that has gotten deeper and meaner in the past year and a half. I know I saw it before then but I think it was verbalized first by R. C. Sproul Jr. and then by James and Stacy McDonald when they drew a clear line between what Sproul calls “movement” homeschoolers and the rest of us who homeschool “so our children can excel. Many of these same people believe and teach that it is a sin to educate your children any way but through homeschooling. And most recently we are all apostate if we don’t go along with the agenda. Look what happened to John Holzmann and Sonlight. Swanson banished them from the Colorado Homeschool convention for not being “Christian enough.”
The orthodoxy circle drawn by the patriocentrists is smaller and tighter all the time and eventually everyone will be a heretic except for maybe Doug Phillips. :(
November 18th, 2009 at 11:15 am
“If I’m right, this is another example of how easily the teachings get distorted by those desiring to destroy them.”
Kelly, I don’t know anyone who speaks out against the patriocentrist teachings who desires to “destroy” anyone but rather there is a deep longing in our hearts to see God’s truth taught in an upright manner, void of esegisis and agenda. My greatest concern for homeschooling families who are caught up in this movement is that eventually their precious children will read and think for themselves and will discover that many of the things they have been taught were “Scriptural” aren’t anywhere to be found in the Word of God. And then what happens? Family relationships are severed, young people, burdened by the weight of years of spiritual abuse struggle to understand the genuine grace offered to them by Jesus. And for what? An idolatrous paradigm that will mean absolutely nothing on the Last Day!
November 18th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Lady Why,
Thank you very much for your kind words, and I have to echo Mrs. Kelly’s hearty “Amen!”
Mrs Amy,
I so appreciate your comment. I wanted to apologize, first, for using the word “laughable” to describe my concern. When I reread my comment, I realized what a poor word choice it was. I meant simply to express that the picture some have painted of a wife never being allowed to discuss things with her husband, or to hold him accountable in any area is not one that I’ve grown up seeing, or one that I hope for in my own marriage (I always say that I want a “John and Abigail” marriage, and fantasize about intellectual conversations, riotous moments of humor, and the beautiful moments of sensitivity I see displayed in their letters to one another ;) ). Please forgive the bad terminology, as I am convinced that you write out of a deep love for the gospel and a concern for hurting families.
I enjoyed reading about your home life, and your family’s godly legacy (especially the part about the shotgun; I have nightmares about my dad showing my future fiance his impressive gun collection :). I often wish -even though I fully embrace God’s sovereignty -that my parents weren’t starting from the ground up, but I rejoice in the fact that the Lord has saved us, and in the opportunity to be a link in the chain of multigenerational faithfulness. Somewhere down the line, some of my descendants may look back at some of the choices we made as a family, and may disagree with them; but I sincerely hope that the legacy I pass on isn’t so much of a specific lifestyle as it is a life’s choice to seek God’s will in every endeavor.
I’m sure you want to same for your children and your children’s children; in that sense, we’re much more aligned in our viewpoints than opposed, and I thank the Lord for your example. I know I have no right to tell you how to run your beautiful home (I’m sure you’re doing a lovely job; your husband’s comment brought tears to my eyes yesterday evening), and hope I haven’t come off as intending to do so. Thank you for letting me share my point of view.
I pray the Lord’s abundant blessing on you and your family, that the Lord will bless you as you endeavor, not to adopt a lifestyle that fits into a particular label or paradigm, but one that can simply be described and defined as biblical, and wholly pleasing to the Lord that you’re living it for.
If anyone has any questions regarding anything else I’ve said, please feel free to contact me through my blog (or feel free to drop by our church if you’re ever in the North Houston area; we’d love to have you :D )
Blessings in Christ,
Jasmine
November 18th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Amy, the letter you posted was great. If you are saying to tread carefully, examine closely and act prayerfully, then we are in full agreement. My main objection with many of the critics of patriarchy/complementarianism/FIC (not you, necessarily) was the sweeping generalizations, stereotypical statements, and the suggestion that the only solution is to toss the whole idea out. Ironically, this seems to be the same attitude they are accusing the patriarchy groups of.
I know you enjoy a good debate, as do I. I still feel obliged to say that I hope none of my comments came across as personal criticism. Whether I agree with you or not on any given issue, I hold you in high regard.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
With regards to my article under discussion here, and the negative assumptions that have been made about my possible intentions:
My post on Coffeetrader was in the context of a woman who was almost killed by her abusive husband. If it is possible for a woman to leave the Quiverfull lifestyle while not divorcing her Quiverfull husband, I’m all for it– but that would have to mean he’d be willing to repent if he’s lording it over her and abusing her emotionally or physically, and bear fruit in keeping with his repentence– as in getting counseling for his abusiveness, etc. In no way should she be required to stay with him if it means submitting to further abuse. In the Ephesians passage, it is Christ who is compared the husband, not the wife– why then, is she cast in the role of Christ in being expected to stay with him no matter what?
As for some people having to carry a “heavy” yoke — Jesus said His yoke wasn’t. It is my guess, then, that no matter what Paul and the others went through, the persecutions they endured, they had the grace and power of God carrying them through as they did His will. How much different if you’re bearing a man-made yoke that comes from Pharisaical interpretations of the Bible! “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,hypocrites! Because you bind up heavy burdens and put them on men’s backs, and do not lift a finger to carry them yourselves.”
If what I said made out the Bible to be full of error, then what are we to make of what Jesus said about His yoke being light? Was His teaching “full of error”?
Should what I wrote be read by Christians in the most negative possible light? Is that the way to treat a Christian sister?
Thank you for your time.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Yes, I am saying that, but I am also saying that we need to hold these men accountable for their words. The Bible requires us to test their teaching.
Kelly wrote, “I’m almost certain there should be ellipsis marks, which would radically change the context of the quote. If I’m right, this is another example of how easily the teachings get distorted by those desiring to destroy them.”
She was presented with a direct audio clip, and now we can’t talk about that?
I agree; we can’t generalize. That’s why I used a direct quote from Phillips and required That Mom to link her outrageous Voddie quote.
It’s right there. Either they believe it or they don’t. If Voddie and Doug Phillips don’t speak for the movement, who does? Women bloggers? You know I’d love the irony of that.
:)
November 18th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Amy,
Do you see the leaders in the Patriarchal Movement abusing their leadership, or is it others who may not be grounded in biblical teaching? I also wonder what other reformed leaders such Sproul Sr., Mohler, Ferguson and McArthur say about Patriarchy. You already commented that Piper hasn’t said anything (or at least hansn’t written a book about it : ).
Being redundant and going back to Eric’s original question: Is Patriarchy, or the concept, biblical? Not speaking exclusively of the Patriarchy Movement which may be frought with sin, as most of what is done by man; but patriarchy itself. I think it is. And that speaks of biblical headship along with mutual submission in a marriage to the Lord.
Amd although the Patriarchal Movement include both being quiverfull and homeschooling, I believe that not all quiverfull are patriarchal and definetely not all homeschooling are either.
And to Holly: What does it say about a woman who “needs” to lead men? A woman who cannot be satisfied teaching other women or children?
What is wonderful about this blog, Amy, is that you force us on many fronts to think for ourselves. Thank you.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Regarding Post 27:
My message on Coffeetrader was in the context of a wife who was almost killed by her abusive husband. If it’s possible for a woman to leave the Quiverfull lifestyle without leaving her husband, I’m all for it. But if he’s lording it over her and abusing her in any way, physically or emotionally, he needs to repent. Nor is she required to stay with him and submit to further abuse. Eph. 5 likens Christ to the husband, not the wife. Why, then, does the post put the burden on the wife to be like Christ in the marriage and stay with him no matter what?
As for my take on Jesus’ words showing the Bible as full of error– if by “My yoke is light” he didn’t mean “My yoke is light” — does that make His words full of error? When God is leading us into persecution or difficulty, His grace is also there. But when we’re following manmade formulas, how can we expect it to be?
As for following Peter’s words as if they were whole new laws imposed on Christians– I will not agree to that. The whole of the law is summed up in “love your neighbor as yourself.” “If we walk in the Spirit, we are not under law.” It was not the intention of the apostles to be writing a new Torah. Here I will stand, I can do no other.
But I will submit that reading my words in the most condemning light possible, is probably not the best way to walk in love.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Debbie, the women I know who have felt directly called to ministry do not feel a need to teach men. They feel called to a task, and feel they are sinning if they disobey.
I used to make the same assumption. I was very turned off by the concept of women preaching or attempting to take any authority, in any way. I thought that any woman who “sought” these things was surely seeking power, who at the very least was not content. I put a shameful blame upon them – as if they were demanding their RIGHTS.
I don’t see it in the same light any longer. I would be happy to discuss this in another forum, but I think that Amy would rather keep the topic on the one at hand. I probably shouldn’t have brought it up in the first place, and I apologize about that. In order to accomplish understanding, it is important to discuss the which the blog owner has brought before us. I’m itching to defend myself as a non-Calvinist – to point out that I think that Calvinism is a horrible representation of God, too – but out of respect for my friend Amy and a desire to honor her blog I will refrain. :)
November 18th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Correction: In order to accomplish understanding, it is important to discuss the topic which the blog owner has brought before us….
November 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Bad news. John Piper’s track record on speaking out for abused wives isn’t so great either, speaking of direct quotes.
http://eaandfaith.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-pipers-ignorance-is-killing.html
The very sad fact is that when a hierarchal power structure is set up in marriage, giving power to the man, wives married to abusers are in a bad way. I’m sure there are some churches and individuals who are different, but the vast majority (at least according to the many stories of abused women who tried to go to the church for help) seem to have a poor understanding of what spousal abuse is, much less what to do about it. In this clip, Piper shares with us that he is no exception.
I truly hope that the church repents of this and does the hard work of changing. When an abused Christian wife can only find help and healing in the world (and has to avoid the church’s advice and instructions in order to get that help and healing!) something is very wrong. :(
For those who espouse a hierarchal set up in relationships, know that in doing so, you are binding the hands and feet of wives married to abusive men and the daughters that are under their authority. If you are going to do this, believing it to be God’s will, then also know that it is not God’s will to support those who abuse their power (see Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc, for God’s opinion on abusers of authority).
Therefore, if you teach hierarchy of men over women, precaustions must be taken, caveats must be given, and some sort of accountability must be provided. As it stands right now, the family patriarchs are accountable to pretty much no one. They can control the lives and destinies of their women. A family patriarch can “hear from God” that his daughter can’t attend college. A family patriarch can “hear from God” that his wife must risk her life to have another baby even though she has health problems. A family patriarchy can “hear from God” that his wife must clean the toilets every day with her toothbrush, and there is no restraint, no accountability, no one telling his wife that he has gone too far, that it is not okay to treat a wife this way. He is the ruler.
That’s a lot of power without restraint to hand to a son of Adam.
It’s so nice for those of you who married kind men. But it’s so terribly wrong of you to forget the wives and children who do not have kind men as their “authority.” The Gospel requires us and compells us to think of the weakest, not to prop up the strongest. Listen to the stories of those broken by the “Biblical Patriarchy” teachings. What can the patriarchy camp do to help these people, to help the many families just like them who are on the breaking point, or who will be in five years? How can the patriarchy camp take a more responsible stance towards those who limp out maimed?
Saying, “Well, they just didn’t do patriarchy right,” just doesn’t cut it. Find out what is breaking them. Find out and fix it. Find out and make necessary changes. Simply saying, “Well, but I know nice families who do patriarchy, so that cancels out the bad families,” isn’t the way to handle these stories. And refusing to listen to the stories of the broken is not an acceptable answer, either.
We belong to a Christ who went straight to the broken. If the patriarchy camp runs from the broken, refuses to listen to their stories or loudly says, “But they did it wrong so they don’t count,” or, “Yeah, well, I know nice families who do patriarchy, so there,” what is that saying? Really. What is that saying?
November 18th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Three quick things, then I’ll leave y’all alone for the afternoon. :) These are ON TOPIC. :)
1) Kristen, I think you did a great job with the article.
2) What a HORRIBLE quote from Dr. B. Wow. WOW! I sure think there should be some ’splainin’ from the source himself.
3) I am so glad my father did not choose my spouse for me – per the patriarchal path, per Amy’s kind note to Jasmine. That’s another difficulty that I have with patriarchy – the lack of autonomy and individualism for the children.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
My apologies; it was not my intention to post twice. My computer told me the Internet had an error and lost my first post– and I didn’t find it when I looked. I guess I didn’t look hard enough. *blushes*
For the rest, I don’t think patriarchy is “biblical” as in “something we should still be doing” any more than I think slavery is “biblical” in that sense. Nor is “greeting one another with a holy kiss” something we still need to be doing, though it is worded as a direct command from the apostle Paul. I think many times the idea that we shouldn’t take the Bible’s cultural norms into consideration, is very inconsistently applied.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Amy,
Could you clarify your comment: “She was presented with a direct audio clip, and now we can’t talk about that?” I think I’m confused ;-) Did I miss the clip?
November 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Kelly,
http://www.thatmom.com/?p=2404
Gotta scroll down to the end of that article.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Former Patriarch’s Wife,
You said: “Therefore, if you teach hierarchy of men over women, precaustions must be taken, caveats must be given, and some sort of accountability must be provided. As it stands right now, the family patriarchs are accountable to pretty much no one.”
I see several misconceptions:
First, the ministries that have been referenced in this thread are not a unified “movement” at all. In fact, we shouldn’t even be using the term “movement”. These different men and their ministries independently teach marriage from a Scriptural standpoint. Call it hierarchy if you wish, they teach that husbands are to love their wives and wives are to respect/submit to their husbands. That wives are to complete their husbands and together they become one flesh. That a husband has a spiritual responsibility to lead his family toward godliness. It’s written in the Bible, and frankly it’s appalling that so many claiming to know the Lord Jesus have not only pretended it doesn’t say that, but are hostile to those who recognize that it does. If we hate this teaching, let’s take it up with the true Author, not the men who are repeating Him.
The “precautions, caveats, etc.” actually ARE given. They are in the Word of God too, that a husband is to love his wife as his own flesh–nurturing her as he would himself. That is what these different men are teaching, and when a man doesn’t follow that warning, he is not following true patriarchy, i.e. God’s Word.
Accountability? One of the things I’m sure the aforementioned conference will discuss is the need for churches to hold its members accountable to the Word of God, particularly in protection of wives. The elders in our church, for example, would be on our front door steps if there were any hint of abuse going on from my husband. He would most definitely be held accountable.
Women marrying abusive husbands? This is a very sad and heartbreaking thing. But can I point out, this is one more reason Dr. Baucham has written a book called “What He Must Be if He Wants to Marry My Daughter”? A loving father is responsible for helping his daughter find a godly husband. If there is so much concern of abuse in marriages, shouldn’t we be cheering for such encouragement as this instead of criticizing it?
November 18th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Here it is. The exact quote is found 2:08 – 2:21. In light of your certainty (comment #73) that she must be misquoting to write something so outrageous, I’m interested in hearing your thoughts.
Can we test this teaching against God’s word?
“A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who can give them that.”
November 18th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Former Patriarch’s Wife wrote: “We belong to a Christ who went straight to the broken. If the patriarchy camp runs from the broken, refuses to listen to their stories or loudly says, “But they did it wrong so they don’t count,” or, “Yeah, well, I know nice families who do patriarchy, so there,” what is that saying? Really. What is that saying?”
Yes, yes, yes!!! That is what my God looks like!! One who goes straight to the broken. Love this description. :-)
November 18th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Has anyone considered that because biblical patriarchy is an issue of our day, how easy it would be to distort the biblical view, give it a bad connectation, and kick it back in the cupboard where it was for the last few decades?
Some points on the NLQ site.
1. When we read these stories of how ‘patriarchy’ has brought harm, we ALWAYS see only one side of the story. Where is the husband’s side of the story? And NO witnesses? Does the Bible not call for 2 or 3 witnesses? So, these stories cannot be taken as true, because they lack those two points. We should then be careful to lend our ears to these stories. Does this not constitute slander? Are we participating in this slander? How would we know?
2. If one does not believe in Sola Scriptura, you are going to be in for a ride, and a wild one at that. If you add or take away from the Word of God, you are going to have a problem. The Bible is finished, no new revelation, nothing to take away because it doesn’t suit us. Add or take away, and I can most certainly promise you problems.
3. Why do these ladies expect perfect husbands? Do they not know that husbands are also sinners, as are they? Their husbands will fail, as will they.
3. “Ephesians 5:22-32 shows us that marriage is a representation of Christ and the church.”
This I also find common in these stories.
How can a marriage possibly represent Christ and the church? Are we perfect as Christ is perfect? If we say that, we are going to have to work hard at it. This will be a terribly works-based way on trying to be a good example. And fail we will.
It is actually the other way around. Christ and the church is OUR example. Understanding this correctly will make us humble and thankful. So, when (and it is a definite WHEN not an if) a husband/wife fails, we look to Christ and the Church as our example.
A husband should lay his life down for his wife. He will nourish and cherish his wife, loving her as Christ loves the Church. If he does not do this, please don’t call it patriarchy. He is doing WRONG! This is a terrible distortion of what the Bible says.
A husband should lead his family. Does he force his will on them? This is a distortion, as should NOT be associated with patriarchy.
If a wife is abused in a relationship, she should seek help. But don’t link it to biblical patriarchy. Sin is sin, see it as that.
Cor 13 and Gal 5:22 gives a good overview of how to love (as Christ loves the Church) If a husband leaves his wife to herself, or care only for his own rest, this is not love for his wife. He is not laying his life down for her, nor cherishing. He is failing. Don’t lable his failings as biblical patriarchy. It is NOT.
In a society of everything feminized, if we continue to paint biblical patriarchy in a bad light, we are going to leave a monster of a problem for our posterity to deal with.
Just my humble opinion.
Yours in Christ
November 18th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
“I truly hope that the church repents of this and does the hard work of changing. When an abused Christian wife can only find help and healing in the world (and has to avoid the church’s advice and instructions in order to get that help and healing!) something is very wrong.”
Yeah, that……….that situation most surely isn’t glorifying to God.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Amy,
First, remember my quote was “I’m almost certain”…not “certain”…there is a difference and I was careful to make it.
Then, regarding the comments that yes, was quoted exactly:
I don’t see this as outrageous or creepy at all. How many of us agree that often girls will seek the wrong kind of love (sex) from guys if their father didn’t show them the right kind of love? I’ve said that long before I’d read or heard of teachings like these. Dr. Baucham is using the same reasoning backwards. Why doesn’t that make sense to us?
The quote is still taken out of context by itself. Dr. Baucham is making an important observation that “love” itself has been perverted in our culture. He asks, “why” after that quote…his answer, “because we don’t know what love is”. It’s also important to note that he said men are looking for “attention” which is not to be confused with sex. HUGE difference. I think he is pointing out the whole perversion of what we have done to love and sex, and offering a logical and innocent explanation.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Hi Kelly,
Since you have the exact quote with no missing words or missing ellipses marks, could you shed some light on Baucham’s meaning of his words? It pretty much is a straight forward statement and the meaning is pretty straight forward, too. But, I could be missing something.
Kristen,
Excellent article and I agree with you that we have to take into account cultural issues in order to understand what we are reading. After all, even those in the patriarchy movement do the same thing with certain verses. If we don’t support slavery and uphold it as an institution then why are we upholding a cultural patriarchy?
Amy,
Thank you for sticking your neck out on this and for the gracious way you have handled this discussion. It needs to be talked about and discussed in an honest forthright manner.
Kelly,
No one is desiring to destroy anyone. If you want to ascribe motives, do you have exact quotes where someone has stated that their motive is to destroy people in the patriarchal movement? Or could it be that people are actually shedding light on false teaching, something the Bible highly encourages?
Jasmine,
I find nothing laughable about the reservations that many of these intelligent people have concerning the teachings and practices found within patriarchy. I am especially concerned with how these teachings are affecting the daughters within this movement and keeping even adult daughters in bondage when they feel led by God to be doing other things. As a mother of 6 daughters (and 4 sons, my oldest being 24) I have seen more than my fair share of disconcerting problems because of patriarchy.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
“First, the ministries that have been referenced in this thread are not a unified “movement” at all. In fact, we shouldn’t even be using the term “movement”.”
Movement is the term that the patriocentrists us themselves. Here is one example from R. C. Sproul Jr.
““There is, in evangelical homeschooling circles, a growing divide. On the one side there are those of us who might be called movement homeschoolers. We homeschool because we believe it to be the Biblical choice, not because we merely prefer it. We tend to adopt many of the secondary lifestyle issues related to homeschooling, lots of children, modest dress, husbands as the heads of their homes, courtship, denim jumpers. On the other side are a different bunch of folks. These typically are homes where moms see homeschooling as a choice, an arena wherein they can excel by helping their children excel. The former are driven by issues of conviction, the latter by more practical matters.”
November 18th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
“A loving father is responsible for helping his daughter find a godly husband.”
Case in point. This whole entire thing presupposes that dad is a good and kind man.
How nice for girls who have a good and kind man for a daddy. How absolutely horrifying for girls who don’t…because now, they not only have a rotten dad, but according to patriarchal teaching, *GOD* says they have to obey that rotten dad, even into their unmarried adulthood.
At least girls in the secular world can grow up and move away from their disfunctional home. But girls in patriarchy? Nope. Unless they want to leave God, too.
So some do. And we learn here that if they dare do that, we won’t listen to them, because we only listen to Christians.
Btw, most abusers don’t show their true colors until they have their victims “owned,” and behind closed doors. My abusive husband was loved and lauded. The idea that you can scope out an abuser before-hand isn’t always so, even if Dad has the best of intentions.
Again, though, where is the heart for the weak and the broken? What of the many families where Dad is a creep, an abuser, or just a testosterone-filled guy who is unable to handle that much power given to him without sinning?
All I’m hearing is a lot of, “Well, yeah, but…” What of the families who don’t have access to a church like yours? (Do you think that abusive men are going to stick around in a church where accountability is provided? Not hardly. So their obedient wives go with them, to churches where accountability would never be provided, or where the abuse is sanctioned, IF she even dared to speak about it in the first place, that is).
Patriarchy might be a great system for the pretty and perfect. But that doesn’t fit very well with a Christ who said He came to mend those who were broken. The world is a safer place for an abusive wife or daughter to get help than the patriarchy movement is. This is emphatically not a good sign.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Kelly, where does Scripture teach that men need the attention of younger women? Obviously Voddie is stating it is a God-given need since he claims God provided daughters to meet that need.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Hi Kelly,
He is pointing out that men yearn for the attentions of younger women and telling those men that God gave them daughters to meet that yearning for the attentions of younger women.
Is this true? Are daughters given to fathers to meet their yearnings for the attention of younger women? Is that a legitimate yearning for a married man to have? Why didn’t Voddie tell these men to stop yearning for the attentions of younger women and, instead, be satisfied with the wife of their youth? Why did he direct these men to find the longing in their daughters and not their wives?
It seems pretty creepy and disturbing to me.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Hi Amy,
This is a great blog post and a great dicussion! I am a fellow member of the Patriach’s e-group that you mentioned you are either a member or former member of. I have homeschooled my children for nine years in a father-led family that believes in and lives out Biblical patriarchy.
I think the confussion that can be seen among some of those commenting here is purely semantics. What is being taught in this “movement” we are discussing is not Biblical patriarchy. [Taunya, That is why I have asked us to stick directly to the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy and direct quotes from the teachings of the patriarch leaders.] It is extra-biblical. It takes the basics of Biblical patriarchy and adds to it. Therefore when I refer to this movement and it’s extra-Biblical teachings like family-integrated churches, stay-at-home daughters, quiverfull, homeschooling etc. I use the term coined by Karen (Thatmom) who has commented on this thread Patriocentric.
Use of this term helps to clarify that we are no longer talking about the Biblical concept of a father-led home but are talking about teaching that has come up in the last ten years or so, led by several men that seeks to add a bunch of rules and regulations thereby creating a hierarcy among Christians and in many cases dividing the body of Christ.
If we can understand that some of us are talking about patriarchy in terms of it’s basic definition a male-led family and others are talking about a whole bushel of teachings being marketed to the homeschool population we can have a more open and meaningful discussion.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
http://www.westernconservatory.com/products/homeschool-dropouts
The term movement is used by those in the patriarchal movement. They seem to understand that they are a movement.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Former Patriarch’s Wife,
Again, misconceptions all around. There is NO movement!!! These are teachings that have taken a look around at the brokenness that resides in families, and BECAUSE of the brokenness, are trying to point people back the Bible for the answers.
Honestly, we have gotten in such a mess that getting back to a biblical view is not easy. It requires a lot of undoing in the lives of people, in the way churches view their responsibilities and handle sin in their congregations, etc. I’m sure there are men who have abused their God-ordained roles. But the principles remains the same, and no, not just for the “pretty and perfect”. We are ALL broken and sinful.
How ironic that the very people who are trying so hard to restore health to families are being accused of hurting them? Let’s put blame where blame is due.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Hi Kelly,
Since you have the exact quote with no missing words or missing ellipses marks, could you shed some light on Baucham’s meaning of his words? It pretty much is a straight forward statement and the meaning is pretty straight forward, too. But, I could be missing something.
Kristen,
Excellent article and I agree with you that we have to take into account cultural issues in order to understand what we are reading. After all, even those in the patriarchy movement do the same thing with certain verses. If we don’t support slavery and uphold it as an institution then why are we upholding a cultural patriarchy?
Amy,
Thank you for sticking your neck out on this and for the gracious way you have handled this discussion. It needs to be talked about and discussed in an honest forthright manner.
Kelly,
No one is desiring to destroy anyone. If you want to ascribe motives, do you have exact quotes where someone has stated that their motive is to destroy people in the patriarchal movement? Or could it be that people are actually shedding light on false teaching, something the Bible highly encourages?
Jasmine,
I find nothing laughable about the reservations that many of these intelligent people have concerning the teachings and practices found within patriarchy. I am especially concerned with how these teachings are affecting the daughters within this movement and keeping even adult daughters in bondage when they feel led by God to be doing other things. As a mother of 6 daughters (and 4 sons, my oldest being 24) I have seen more than my fair share of disconcerting problems because of patriarchy.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
sorry–”principles remain”…typing in a hurry ;-)
November 18th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Hi Kelly,
He is pointing out that men yearn for the attentions of younger women and telling those men that God gave them daughters to meet that yearning for the attentions of younger women.
Is this true? Are daughters given to fathers to meet their yearnings for the attention of younger women? Is that a legitimate yearning for a married man to have? Why didn’t Voddie tell these men to stop yearning for the attentions of younger women and, instead, be satisfied with the wife of their youth? Why did he direct these men to find the longing in their daughters and not their wives?
It seems pretty creepy and disturbing to me.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Kelly,
I am putting the blame where the blame is due….on the false teachings in the patriarchal movement. Ideas/teachings have consequences and we see the destruction that these teaching produce in the lives of those who are faithful to put these false teachings into practice.
I would like to see health restored to families but it won’t be via patriarchy.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Corrie,
I commented on Baucham’s quote above your comment. Again I ask, if it’s normal for us to assume that often girls turn desired, innocent affection from their fathers into abnormal, sexual affection to other men, why is the same principle reversed not possible? Why is one creepy and not the other? I’ve never given it much thought, but I’m willing to be consistent.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Corrie,
“on the false teachings in the patriarchal movement.”
Patriarchy is biblical. False teachings are not biblical, because it is false.
“I would like to see health restored to families but it won’t be via patriarchy.”
We rely on the grace of God, not on any movement. Leave families that are not lead by Fathers out of the picture (as Scripture dictates, not man-made ideas), and you will have problems.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Kelly,
It is NORMAL for a girl to be sexually attracted to a man who is not her father.
It is ABNORMAL to replace normal sexual attractions with members of one’s family.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
What I find really sad here is that these patriocentric leaders can sure communicate with all of us when they want us to buy their latest, tape, DVD, cd, book or attend their latest conference but when it comes to answering questions they clam up, don’t answer emails or take comments on their blogs and belittle anyone who dares to seek clarification.
I think it is brave of Jasmine to comment here but we, the customers, need to hear from her father, Doug Phillips, Geoffrey Botkin and all others who seek financial gain by pushing the latest “book/concept” dujour on us all. Only Mr. Bauchaum can explain what he meant in that quote and I for one would like an explanation. I have attended two of his conferences own three of books and every DVD/CD he has marketed. I, the customer would like to know what Mr. Bauchaum meant by that comment.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Mrs. Corrie,
I intend for this to be my last comment on this thread, but please feel free to address me through my blog if I can offer you further clarification:
I apologized for using the word “laughable” to describe my reservations. It was inappropriate in light of the pain of many families who have suffered from what I believe is a misrepresentation and a misapplication of clear, biblical principles. While intelligent people may oppose so-called patriarchy, intelligent people also support it (although I’m sure the point of that segment of your comment wasn’t to insult my intelligence, or the intelligence of anyone else who holds a different view of biblical roles than you do).
I’m a daughter in a “patriarchal” home who is content and fulfilled, who embraces the protection of her father, and takes great joy in facing the day-to-day challenges that my home life provides. I’m 19, and I’m the only girl at my house, but I’m only in bondage to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I could leave my home whenever I wished -without condemnation from either of my parents. I’m here because I want to be. I’m here because I believe it’s where God has called me to be. And I am overwhelmingly blessed here. I have two parents who love me and nurture the gifts and passions that the Lord has given me.
No, it’s not always easy (less easy, still, when my choices are misrepresented by well-meaning Christians), and my household isn’t a utopian society where we never get angry at each other or say things we shouldn’t say or do things that hurt one another -but I am blessed to live in a safe, biblical environment, and I’m blessed to minister to others from my home, which is both a haven and a hub for ministry and discipleship.
I am younger than you are, ma’am, unmarried and, in a lot of ways, inexperienced. I still have a lot to learn, and it’s not my intent to teach you, simply to offer my point of view as one of “those” daughters, and to answer a comment that was addressed to me.
Oh, and Mrs. Holly, I won’t be walking into any arranged marriages. My parents and I will evaluate suitors together based on biblical principles, personal preferences, and personality differences. I do see courtship as a team effort, and while I do know godly Christian couples who have decided to take other routes towards marriage, I could not be more blessed by the opportunity to benefit from parental oversight in my future relationship.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Marita– I wonder one thing about what you said. If you were to substitute “patriarchy” for “slavery,” using the Biblical texts in “support” of slavery, wouldn’t you end up with the same arguments? That slavery, if practiced biblically, is good, and the problem is simply the distortion of it by masters who don’t act like good Christian masters should?
The Bible says masters should treat their slaves with respect. “Do not threaten them, since you know that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him.” So– if masters are disrespecting and threatening their slaves, it’s the masters who are the problem. Don’t blame biblical slavery. Slavery itself is of God.
I mean no offense– I don’t mean to equate you or anyone else with those who have supported slavery. But your arguments really are very similar to the arguments that used to be used to show that slavery was “biblical.”
November 18th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Hi Jasmine,
The term “laughable” could be more seen to be an insult of the intelligence of people who oppose the teachings of patriocentrists. In no way did I infer that patriocentrists were unintelligent but rather, your comment, could be as an insult to intelligent people who differ with you. Thanks for letting me clear that up.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Jasmine,
It is wonderful for you as a daughter to defend your family’s life and choices. Please understand I don’t think anyone here doubts that what you are saying is true. My husband and I have met your father and spoken to him several times and I am sure that you are portraying your home life in an accurate way. I have no problem with your decision to be a stay-at-home daughter. My oldest daughter who has corresponded with you via email and spoken with you on the phone is choosing a similar path.
The problem here is not your individual choice it is teaching that is being marketed to the homeschool population that either insinuates or out right states that choices like the one your family has made are the “biblical” choices. It would stand to reason that if that lifestyle was biblical than others are not. My husband started and pastored a family-integrated church along with another father but to state that non-FIC churces are not biblical is false and creates division among the body.
Please understand we are not attacking your choices or saying that your home is dysfunctional or that you are being brain-washed or held against you will. We are simply saying that the teaching in this movement has gone too far and is causes unrest among certain segments of the body of Christ. I hope that clarifies our point and most importantly I hope all of this is not causing you undue stress dear sister. We love you in Christ and I think we all respect you and want the best for you and your dear family.
Mrs. Henderson
November 18th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Jasmine,
Thank you for your response. It sounds as if you are truly blessed.
There are many girls in patriarchal homes that are desperate to leave and would and have been excommunicated from their families for leaving,even as adults…even when they did legitimate things like attending college or marrying another Christian (but the parents didn’t like him because he was not in their denomination). There are girls well into their twenties that have had to plan and secretly save and then enlisted the help of other Christian couples in order to escape their patriocentric homes.
This is what happens when one follows patriarchal teachings to their logical end and puts them into practice.
Patriarchalists teach that going to college is one and the same with the harlot who does not keep her feet at home (Botkins). Kevin Swanson teaches all sorts of things about girls who go to college and how they will supposedly end up if they leave the authority of their father. Girls are told that the only time they are to leave their home is when their father transfers them to the authority over their husband. They cannot even be a missionary because that would be against, allegedly, God’s word to women.
Some day, some of these girls’ stories will be brought to light. And these stories are not from nominal, unknown patriocentric homes but we will recognize the names of some well-known patriocentrists.
I have a hard time understanding the HUGE difference between these patriocentric teachings and how they are not being practiced by the teachers of this doctrine. But, they ARE being practiced by the followers.
There is a problem, to be sure. But, it is NOT with the followers of patriocentric teachers. They are not misunderstanding the teachings they are hearing and they are putting those teachings into practice.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I honestly can’t make out how does one connect the idea of a man lusting after a younger woman to transfer to a daughters affection for daddy. I want to give Voddie the benefit of the doubt that he meant it this way but it really does turn my stomach to hear it. I would have liked to hear how he connects the two because I sure can’t.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
KristenRosser, I am not quite sure if I follow you, so please correct if I miss your point.
Slavery is not commanded. You don’t have to become a slave, nor a slave-master.
You are commanded to love your neighbour.
Husbands are commanded to love & cherish their wives, and wives to love & obey. If one doesn’t do their end of the deal, does not mean the other is free to break their part. If you think they are, please provide scriptural references.
Each partner should look after his/her own part, forgiving and being forgiven when they fall short.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
“I am so glad my father did not choose my spouse for me – per the patriarchal path, per Amy’s kind note to Jasmine. That’s another difficulty that I have with patriarchy – the lack of autonomy and individualism for the children.”
I honestly think that this was one of the things that started my path away from Patriarchy. When I looked at my oldest child I asked myself why can’t she be who she wants to be? After my slow evolution to where we are (wherever that is???) I have come to realize all I care about is that my children love the LORD. I still have things that I hang on to like I don’t want my girls to go to college but if they decide to then it is not the end of the world. At what point do I know what is best for my child even if she believes that God is telling her to do something else? I am not willing to fight my children on God speaking to their heart. My Momma heart could prevent them from doing Gods will!
November 18th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Corrie,
Mr. Pearl of No Greater Joy has brought out many of these stories already and while I do not agree with the majority of his or his wife’s teaching I do applaud him for this.
I have many friends whose daughters are now suffering because of these teachings. One family that our family has been very close to has two teen-age daughters who are not being taught math beyond long division because they believe that the Botkin teaching is correct and girls should not go to college so why go beyond basic math. This is abuse pure and simple, every child in America has the right to an edcuation. It is not okay for homeschooling moms and dads to limit a daughter’s education because she is not to go to college. The decision to attend college should be left up to the individual.
I know that Jasmine was in the video and I know that unlike some in the video Jasmine is getting a degree via College Plus. But if one reads the Botkin book and watches the Return of the Daughter’s video it states clearly that daughters do not need nor should they seek a college education. This teaching when taken to heart is devestating to the future of any young woman. I am so glad that Voddie has given Jasmine some leeway and she can attend College Plus. My concern is for my friend’s daughters and others like them who are now following the Botkin teaching to the letter and whose daughter’s are denied the education that Jasmine, myself and so many other women enjoy?
November 18th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
For the sake of putting Voddie Baucham’s questionable quote in context, I’ve gone ahead and transcribed the two minutes preceding and the two minutes following. I don’t think it vindicates him. Here is the transcript:
“We don’t think like that. Why do we ask questions like that? Because we don’t know what love is. We think it’s a random, overwhelming, uncontrollable, sensual force. Let me give you a third example, I said I’d give you two, let me give you one more. And this is with fathers and daughters.
“A lot of daughters dress the way that they do because they yearn for male affection. Because a lot of fathers, as soon as their daughters develop into women, become uncomfortable being affectionate toward them. Because of a wrong definition of what love is. We define love as sensual. Therefore, love is inherently inappropriate between a man and his daughter of a certain age.
“Do we mean that? No, we don’t mean that. But if you buy the definition, you also have to buy the limitations. And there’s a lot of you girls in this room, and your first boyfriend coincided with your dad not letting you sit on his lap anymore. You yearn for some male to show you the kind of physical attention and affection that you used to get from your father.
And you went and found it. Because God created you to yearn for it. But then the world lied to your daddy and told him that he couldn’t give you that which you needed anymore. And instead let you run off into the arms of some irresponsible, sinful, lustful boy.
“My daughter is seventeen years old. Five-ten, whatever. She still climbs up in my lap. I have to balance a little more than I used to (laughing), you know, part of her is way over there, part of her is way up here. And she absolutely loves it. So do I.
“A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who could give them that. And instead, they go find a substitute daughter. You’ve seen it! We’ve all seen it! These OLD GUYS! Going and finding substitute daughters! Why? Why? We don’t understand what love is, folks.
“So what is love? For the second time, let me just give you this, okay? Biblical definition of love. And this is derived, and those of you who got Family Driven Faith, you’ve probably already looked at this, it’s derived from Deuteronomy chapter 6, Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind. You know it’s interesting, you exegete those words, and by the way Jesus repeats this in the New Testament, Matthew 22. Love is, when you exegete these words, here’s the definition that I use: love is an act of the will accompanied by emotion that leads to action on behalf of its object. Let me say that again, love is an act of the will accompanied by emotion that leads to action on behalf of its object.
“The problem with the Greco-Roman myth of love that we operate from in our culture is that it is too fickle for family life. It won’t work. Why? A woman’s not going to be overwhelmed toward her husband and her children all the time. And that’s why. What do women talk about all the time? “I just, I feel like we’ve fallen out of love with each other.” Why? Because the Greco-Roman myth is wearing off.
“This is why young women have to be taught how to love biblically, not just culturally and emotionally but biblically. Teach young women how to love biblically, not just culturally and emotionally! Teach them how to do this! Because, contrary to popular belief, they don’t know how to do it intuitively. This is a work of sanctification. And one of the problems that we have, women think that whatever this intuitive emotional thing is that women have going on is actually enough to sustain what God intends to be sustained on the part of biblical womanhood in the context of the marriage relationship. It’s not enough. It’s not enough.”
November 18th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Marita,
Marriage is not commanded, either. And the word “obey” is used nowhere in the New Testament as a command to wives– only to slaves.
Nor does the word “head” in the koine Greek convey the meaning “leader,” any more than the word “body” means “follower” in either koine Greek or English.
As for “you don’t have to become a slave” — sorry, but the majority of people in the ancient Greek culture were slaves. It would have been hard to tell them they had a choice in the matter.
I think we’re arguing at cross-purposes. The point I’m making is “was slavery biblical” as in “endorsed and promoted by God”? And if it wasn’t– if God was only working within the existing structure– then why is patriarchy “biblical” in that sense?
November 18th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
So, God gave men a desire to receive attention from younger women.
Wow.
Where exactly IS that in the Bible? Or does that come from intuition into human behavior?
Where does that leave a man who does not have any daughters? What is he to do? Should he adopt a daughter? Borrow a friend’s daughter?
How does this make a wife feel, to know that she is not really “enough” for her husband, that he has desires for attention from younger women that she can not and apparently is not supposed to fulfill? I understand that this premise is under the “umbrella” of pure and proper love – but it still makes some pretty outrageous claims as to the inner workings and desires of a man. Even if nothing is perverted in the worldly sense, even in a warm and familial sense, it still says something creepy about men.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
I’m bowing out of this discussion after this comment and leave respectfully, feeling that it’s fruitless to debate an issue where distortions keep arising. Just one example:
“But if one reads the Botkin book and watches the Return of the Daughter’s video it states clearly that daughters do not need nor should they seek a college education.”
I’ve both read the books, watched the videos and know some of these ladies personally and have talked with them and it is a FACT that they hold a high regard for college-level education (can you read the Bokins’ book and assume they have not received a higher education?). It should be distinguished that they are merely questioning the wisdom of the traditional model of girl leaving the home and pursing a secular college education as opposed to all sort of options now available for us, many of which simply offer an improved method of academics.
I cannot answer for Dr. Baucham, but I will say that he never insinuated a father has sexual attraction for his daughter. Also, often when speaking, it is easy to say something when your intent is clearer than your words. I think it’s unfair to take a sound byte without considering his underlying message. I personally find Dr. Baucham’s teaching to be solid as a rock, biblical, looking to no man for his wisdom, and attempting to right so much wrong in our culture and the modern church. I hurt for him and his family that in all his courage to stand for truth he is being persecuted.
Where commenters have said we need to make sure that we are not following a man’s paradigm but the Lord’s, I say a hearty “Amen”. I applaud a Berean approach to any teaching. We fall in grave danger when it’s not applied.
But I beg you all to be very careful to avoid attempts to extrapolate words (I’ve seen it happen a lot–not referring to this post specifically) and distort or pervert the message, or make sweeping assumptions. While you may not agree whole-heartedly with a particular thing, I believe the men discussed here have the sincerest desire to help families pursue God. I believe there was a need in a culture where the church has taken on many harmful practices, resulting in broken homes, for someone to step up and point us in the direction of biblical wisdom. I truly believe this is their heart’s desire, even I ever disagree with them.
Through my comments I intended no disrespect or antagonism, and I too, have the sincerest desire to see God’s principles and designs lived out through His people. I believe that can vary from family to family but I applaud attempts to help families flesh it out too. There is much confusion in our culture, so I would expect as a church we can easily get confused.
I pray for all our clarity, wisdom and honor toward the Lord and toward each other.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
“Because a lot of fathers, as soon as their daughters develop into women, become uncomfortable being affectionate toward them. Because of a wrong definition of what love is. We define love as sensual. Therefore, love is inherently inappropriate between a man and his daughter of a certain age.
Do we mean that? No, we don’t mean that. But if you buy the definition, you also have to buy the limitations.”
Can I just say something about these statements? There is, and should be, “limitations” that come gradually between a healthy father-daughter relationship. I have a wonderful, healthy, godly father. As a little girl, there came a time when I didn’t want my daddy to see me naked anymore. He freely let me put that boudary in place. Because he recognized that with maturity, comes boundaries. At 12, I remember when it became awkward for me to kiss my dad on the lips when saying good-night so I’d turn my cheek for a good-night peck instead. He never said anything about the change, just let me decide what I was comfortable with. At this point I didn’t even know what sexual anything was…it just seemed like a natural part of growing up to start drawing my own lines. In this way, I made the transition from daddy’s little girl to a young woman naturally and without any awkwardness on anybody’s part. This is good and right. What is being said in the above quote seems really…off to me. I didn’t “long for male attention” when I got too old to kiss my dad. I didn’t feel like I was missing anything at all. I just thought it was a natural part of growing up. But then, I wasn’t being fed stuff like this, either.
As a mother of toddler daughters, I realize there will be a time when they decide that they don’t want daddy to dress or bath them. There will come a time when they don’t want to kiss him good-night or sit on his lap anymore. That in no way means they’re going to go off looking for that from other men. Because there’s so much more to being fulfilled by a father’s love then physical affection. Mr. B here says that we don’t understand love. I don’t think he does either.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
A hearty ditto and amen to what Kelly said.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Jasmine,
I do hope this sort of discussion about your father does not cause you too much distress. I am one of the many people who wishes he would clarify what he meant, as I do believe your dad is a godly man and does a great job with his family. But, even though your family seems to be a very healthy one, MANY families out there are not and that sort of statement can lead to all sorts of dangerous thinking. I hope someday he takes some time to pray about this issue which seems to be a major stumbling block for so many and issue a clarification. However, I will not ask you to be a go-between for us as that would be unfair to put you in a position like that.
I do enjoy reading your blog and think it would be fun to meet you someday (I am about your age).
“Some points on the NLQ site.
1. When we read these stories of how ‘patriarchy’ has brought harm, we ALWAYS see only one side of the story. Where is the husband’s side of the story? And NO witnesses? Does the Bible not call for 2 or 3 witnesses? So, these stories cannot be taken as true, because they lack those two points. We should then be careful to lend our ears to these stories. Does this not constitute slander? Are we participating in this slander? How would we know?”
Vicky Garrison’s daughter has published several articles in her own words. If you want more witnesses, I believe it would be simple to contact most of these people and ask them for contact info for other people who were involved.
2. “If one does not believe in Sola Scriptura, you are going to be in for a ride, and a wild one at that. If you add or take away from the Word of God, you are going to have a problem. The Bible is finished, no new revelation, nothing to take away because it doesn’t suit us. Add or take away, and I can most certainly promise you problems.”
Not sure what your point was here.
3. “Why do these ladies expect perfect husbands? Do they not know that husbands are also sinners, as are they? Their husbands will fail, as will they.”
I am sorry but this makes me mad. When have ANY of these ‘ex-QFers’ EVER said they were surprised their husbands sinned. I cannot think of one blog where the woman does not seem to have bent over backwards for YEARS to submit to and love a very, very imperfect human. Abuse is a whole different ballgame than ‘imperfection’ and to minimize the seriousness of abuse as merely a ‘failing’ is to take away from the many passages in the Bible that tell Christians to set the captive free, bind up the broken hearted, give aid to the oppressed widows and orphans, etc. etc.
3. “Ephesians 5:22-32 shows us that marriage is a representation of Christ and the church.”
This I also find common in these stories.
How can a marriage possibly represent Christ and the church? Are we perfect as Christ is perfect? If we say that, we are going to have to work hard at it. This will be a terribly works-based way on trying to be a good example. And fail we will.
It is actually the other way around. Christ and the church is OUR example. Understanding this correctly will make us humble and thankful. So, when (and it is a definite WHEN not an if) a husband/wife fails, we look to Christ and the Church as our example.
A husband should lay his life down for his wife. He will nourish and cherish his wife, loving her as Christ loves the Church. If he does not do this, please don’t call it patriarchy. He is doing WRONG! This is a terrible distortion of what the Bible says.
A husband should lead his family. Does he force his will on them? This is a distortion, as should NOT be associated with patriarchy.
If a wife is abused in a relationship, she should seek help. But don’t link it to biblical patriarchy. Sin is sin, see it as that.”
I would agree that sin is sin, but please realize that what is so commonly being taught now as “biblical patriarchy” gives a TOOL or ENCOURAGEMENT or JUSTIFICATION to imperfect humans to take more and more power over other humans, thus encouraging larger and larger amounts of sin. Patriarch as it is being taught is directly responsible for some sins and abuses that otherwise would not have happened.
“Cor 13 and Gal 5:22 gives a good overview of how to love (as Christ loves the Church) If a husband leaves his wife to herself, or care only for his own rest, this is not love for his wife. He is not laying his life down for her, nor cherishing. He is failing. Don’t lable his failings as biblical patriarchy. It is NOT.”
I don’t label patriarchy as biblical, period.
“In a society of everything feminized, if we continue to paint biblical patriarchy in a bad light, we are going to leave a monster of a problem for our posterity to deal with.
Just my humble opinion.
Yours in Christ
Comment by Marita (November 18, 2009 @ 2:31 pm )”
Marita, I would agree that boys and men nowadays need help and love and not the denigration and damage that the world so often inflicts on them… But the way to help right that wrong, IMO, does not lay in giving them the power inherent in patriarchy. I think that will just lead to worse things that even the world’s ways of doing things.
Thus ends my long comment and I hope everyone is able to have a happy evening. It’s cold here, I need to go start a fire, ahh.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
I spent several years in the “movement” and about one year hard core in patriarchy. I will tell you now that I am about 2 years out of it that it is an evil, corrupt movement that the devil has made look awfully pretty and attractive to families who want to do the right thing.
If you look at patrio materials closely (ie-vision forum) you will notice that the focus is ALWAYS on the family, family setup, family heirarchy, etc. It is never focused on CHRIST. Bells, whistles, and red flags people.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
“I cannot answer for Dr. Baucham, but I will say that he never insinuated a father has sexual attraction for his daughter.”
Kelly, I certainly hope I never implied such. My issue is with the notion that men “need” the attention of younger women and that it is somehow a God-given need that is met by daughters. I am disappointed that you chose not to explain HOW you believe that is “biblical” and “rock solid.” I am also disappointed that you have chosen not to answer the specific questions directed toward you.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
[Kirsten, please stay away from saying "I get the feeling" and other unsupported statements, like "if a stranger wandered up to BCA or some of these other churches and wanted to worship, I get the distinct feeling they would be shown the door." We were all, in fact, just welcomed from Jasmine to her church. I am asking again to only deal in factual statements/teachings. Thanks, All.]
The question posed by this post is “Does Patriarchy Glorify God?”. In my opinion, it does not. It violates the commandment to “have no other Gods besides me”. Patriarchy makes husbands into Gods. That’s not just extraBiblical, it’s unbiblical. Also, If you read some of these homeschooling, patriarchy blogs, they never mention Jesus Christ. It’s all Old Testament. I get the feeling that the teachings of Jesus makes these folks decidedly nervous. Further, there is an aspect of cultic behavior to this patriarchy movement or lifestyle whatever that does not glorify God. It shuts folks out and makes prisoners out of others. If Doug Phillips announced at BCA that he’d whipped up a batch of kool-aid and he wanted everyone to drink it…the congregation would line up to do it. More seriously, though, if a stranger wandered up to BCA or some of these other churches and wanted to worship, I get the distinct feeling they would be shown the door. You have to be vetted out to worship with some of these congregations. UnBiblical. What did Jesus say, “What you do for the least of these, you do for me”. Finally, I find Voddie Bauchman’s comments to be quite disturbing and detrimental to the parent-child relationship. He’s referring to emotional incest. That’s why all of our creep-ometers just went off the charts. He wants adults daughters to fill certain emotional needs of their dads and it’s not appropriate or healthy.Certainly not biblical. I think Jesus Christ expected his followers to act like adults, not needy emotional leeches sucking the lives of their daughters.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
I read the transcript of the larger context of Baucham’s teaching (in 121, thanks Rick) and the first I think is in II Corinthians 5 where Paul scolds them for being “proud” of accepting the man who “has his own mother”. Isn’t the idea of a daughter being a new “affection” to replace the Mom the same idea?
So if a man’s wife is not “it” anymore, just look across the room and take “God’s provision” in the newer model? I’m sorry if that’s crass, but I can’t read the larger context any other way.
A man has one wife, and it’s to be “the wife of his youth”…not the youth of his wife.
If the “two shall become one” and “let no man separate”, then where in any scripture is there any hint of this being appropriate?
There isn’t any. I would never want that kind of relationship with my daughter. I’m married to her mama, and my responsibility is to prepare my daughter who will eventually leave her father and mother for her husband where those two “will become one”. And I can find scripture for that concept. Easily.
I’ve read too many times of Christian groups trying to create some perfect system/Utopia, and it astounds me how their good intentions eventually wind up into some distortion of sin that eventually destroys them. I grieve for this. And all because they’re trying to be “more holy”.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
thatmom,
In all fairness, on a personal note, not only do I have 8 children and a household to run, but I’ve had 3 sets of company today ;-) I thinking this discussion is too time-consuming, not very fruitful, and it wouldn’t matter if I answered anyway. I’d have to go back and re-read several comments to see which questions I didn’t answer. It’s not that I chose to ignore them.
I guess my quibble regarding Dr. Baucham’s specific comment is that first, I don’t think he meant it at all as some are taking it. I think if given the opportunity, he would be glad to clarify it and it would give you ease.
Secondly, with the mountain of EXCELLENT teaching Dr. Baucham has, I find it quite telling that his opponents have grabbed one snippet to the exclusion of all else. He is fallible, so even if this comment were off-based, it certainly doesn’t nullify the rest of his teaching. Why isn’t anyone devoting posts and threads to the incredible good he is teaching with maybe a caveat to one comment, instead of ditching the whole thing? Unwise to me.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Kelly,
…Maybe because the point of this post is concerning the patriarchy movement and the destruction it has caused to both individuals, families, and the gospel message. Please don’t deflect from what is a very valid question. I see four specific lines of thought coming from Baucham’s teaching here (well, one of which comes from the Botkin’s, not Baucham):
1. Fathers are being taught that their “need for admiration from young women” is God-given, and
2. that that admiration is to be supplied by their young-adult daughters, including physical affection,
3. (daughters who the Botkin’s teach are to be “help-meets in training” to their fathers, which along with dressing in a way that pleases their father, also includes allowing their father’s to “cast the vision” for their lives, including whether or not the daughter will pursue higher education, marry a man, etc).
4. Daughters are being taught that their need for male attention is supposed to come through their father, including their father’s touch.
This isn’t some little quibble. This teaching is symptomatic of a much larger problem. If you and others are concerned about whether or not a message is truly Biblical, it would seem like now would be a good time to evaluate the Biblical foundation for Baucham’s teaching here.
Just a few questions: Where are the specific verses used to support such a teaching? Can you see how this teaching might be applied when preached to a sinful man, a mentally ill man, an abusive man, and/or a man with a high sex drive? Lastly, who is most at jeopardy when this teaching is heard by fathers who are less than perfect?
November 18th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Former P.W.,
Fair questions and I’m pretty sure what I would answer but give me a little time to think (and hang out with my family for our “fireplace party” ;-) I’ll answer tomorrow.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
(Hey, Amy, I managed to stay out of the fray for about 24 hours!)
Kelly – I think he has been asked numerous times to explain this comment. Many of the leaders in this movement (and it is an organized, synchronized, meticulously planned movement) have been asked time and time and time again to explain different comments they have made either on tape or at conferences. But it doesn’t happen.
Perhaps this is the first you have heard about this, but Vision Forum and the patriarchy movement in general has been analyzed, written about, and critiqued at length the past two plus years. There are copious amounts of material out there for anyone willing to really dig in. It is not just one comment by Mr. Baucham perhaps spoken out of turn. It is about many, many aspects of this movement that send up serious red flags if people take the time to look into it.
Unfortunately, any critique of these men is passed off as internet gossip and the women as sinful gossipers. It is seriously disturbing that when these men meet and critique other believers they are seen as godly, theologically sound leaders, but when women try to seek Biblical truth to help others around them who are desperately hurting and in bondage they are written off as gossips and slanderers. And even when other solid Christian men write about their concerns with these teachings, they are basically ignored. These patriarchal men simply refuse to respond to these questions. (Unless some of them have and I missed it. Then please point me to it.)
I’m guessing you probably aren’t familiar with some of us who have commented, but we are not Bible bashing ultraliberals, out to destroy conservative, God-fearing Christians. We are followers of Christ (many of us fairly conservative) who have spent a lot of time – weeks, months and years – dealing with these issues. We’re not spouting off the top of our heads. In fact, when these kinds of things come up I suspect we don’t even know where to start sometimes in addressing the issues because there is so much we have learned and experienced and dealt with.
In many ways, my original question in comment #48 was answered during the course of the discussion. It was:
“The question I would ask those who support a patriarchal view… Would you enthusiastically support a sister in Christ who was egalitarian in her view and lived her life in such a way? If she was seeking Christ faithfully, sharing the Gospel, and doing her best to walk blamelessly before the Lord, would you support her choices if that included teaching a mixed Sunday School class or not homeschooling or even having a career if that is what she believed God was leading her to do? Would you rejoice that her calling and freedom in Christ led her to do things in secondary matters that were not in line with Vision Forum’s tenants of patriarchy?”
Here are some of the answers I believe I’ve received indirectly through the course of the dicussion:
from comment #81 – “What does it say about a woman who “needs” to lead men? A woman who cannot be satisfied teaching other women or children?”
Maybe I’m not hearing the correct tone of voice, but what I am reading here is that there is something wrong with a Christian woman who believes she is called to do more than teach other women and children.
from comment #90: “First, the ministries that have been referenced in this thread are not a unified “movement” at all. In fact, we shouldn’t even be using the term “movement”. These different men and their ministries independently teach marriage from a Scriptural standpoint. Call it hierarchy if you wish, they teach that husbands are to love their wives and wives are to respect/submit to their husbands. That wives are to complete their husbands and together they become one flesh. That a husband has a spiritual responsibility to lead his family toward godliness. It’s written in the Bible, and frankly it’s appalling that so many claiming to know the Lord Jesus have not only pretended it doesn’t say that, but are hostile to those who recognize that it does. If we hate this teaching, let’s take it up with the true Author, not the men who are repeating Him.”
The words “appalling”, “hostile” and “hate” are strong words, especially used in the way they were. Those who view these passages differently aren’t pretending it doesn’t say that. We’ve been convinced through study and prayer that it is quite possible to understand these verses differently and still love and serve Jesus.
Both of these statements seem to prove my point that there are some/many/a number of people who hold to the teachings of patriarchy who simply cannot or will not fathom that a godly woman or couple could hold a different view of how men and women relate in a marriage and in the church.
Re: the comments from yesterday about my needing to be gentler in my comments. I mentioned it to my husband and his response was that my answers are passionate because this topic matters to me. A lot. The combination of my personality and spiritual gifts makes me this way. There is no anger in what I’m saying, but there is a ton of passion and sometimes righteous indignation behind it.
Warmly,
Sallie
November 18th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Kristen:
As to the context of your post on Coffeetrader: I don’t know the details of the physically abusive husband, but we have authorities that deal with criminal behavior. I have personally counseled someone to use the police for this kind of behavior; the end result is that the behavior ended. If the women is having an otherwise hard time in her marriage, we have a Heavenly Father to plead with for help and aid. I want the Bible to be my guide, and I find no Scripture that allows divorce because our marriage is hard to bear. There is no Biblical requirement that a husband repent and bear fruit (as you stated) in order to keep his wife and marriage. Perhaps I wasn’t clear about the Ephesians passage. Just as Christ doesn’t sever the believer when he sins, marriage (as a picture of the relationship of Christ and the church) is not to be severed.
When I study the passage in Matthew regarding the yoke, I interpret it differently. We can bring our burdens to Jesus, we can learn from him, and we can find rest. The passage doesn’t indicate that our burdens will be totally gone or that we alone are in charge of deciding to get rid of them. If we aren’t expected to have trials and troubles, there would be no point to all of the Scripture passages teaching us how to live in this present world and handle those trials, whether we consider them to be manmade or not.
You stated, “As for following Peter’s words as if they were whole new laws imposed on Christians– I will not agree to that.” “The whole of the law is summed up in “love your neighbor as yourself.” “If we walk in the Spirit, we are not under law.” It was not the intention of the apostles to be writing a new Torah.” You are correct; we are no longer under the law. However, we show that we love God by obeying His commands.
One of your other posts here states that no where in the Bible are women commanded to obey their husbands. One passage that stands out to me where women are instructed to obey their husbands is in Titus 2.
You suggest that I treated you poorly and without love. I tried to be very careful not to say unkind words about you personally. If I failed, I apologize. I commented on your essay with Scripture and pointed out what I believed was error. Is this anything different than what you did with my post? Should I now suggest that you have treated me without love? I wouldn’t do that—first of all, because I don’t believe that you have treated me without love and secondly, because it would look like a straw man.
To All:
I agree that the patriarchy movement, along with the associated other movements, have their errors. Last night, my husband happened to give me a magazine we receive that had a great, Biblicaly based study on this movement. You can read it here if you are interested: http://www.wayoflife.org/files/09b8f3c2a2b56353a9da96479de20ccb-451.html
November 18th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Whoa!!
Yesterday I tried to follow the discussion throughout the day (you know, while my kids were getting into the brand new roll of 100 stamps and using them like stickers…). I think it was around comment #35 at last check. After a busy day today I thought I’d see if anyone else had commented. 100 plus more comments?!
Number 40 is the only one really worth reading, with the exception, perhaps, of Greg’s “rah-rah” for Amy.
So here’s my belated “YES!” to your comment-slash-post at #40. We must to go back to Jesus, to the Gospel, to the heart of a God who pursues us with Grace when there is nothing we could ever do to deserve His love.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Sallie,
Actually, yes, unfortunately I’m very aware of the discussions that have been going on about VF the last few years. I know more than you could imagine. I know about personal attacks, attorneys that have been hired, deceptive websites built and made to look like a huge “watch dog” site but only run by one woman who was biblically removed from Doug’s church and became vehemently angry and bent on destroying Doug and his ministry.
I know of some wives whose definition of abuse is “he doesn’t allow us to have a television”.
And before you get angry at that…I KNOW there are real abused women and children. My parents have run a children’s home all my life, and it was a very real part of my life to see abuse and suffering women and children. I don’t make light of that. I also know that the term “abuse” can be thrown around lightly and we need to be careful that just because someone uses that word doesn’t necessarily mean that real abuse is going on.
If a man is abusive, it matters none what teaching he is under. Those families I saw growing up…guess what? No one told them they were “in charge”.
So to blame a teaching for a man’s sin and mishandling of God’s word is erroneous.
I think the gaping problem that will never be resolved in these discussions is the completely different interpretation of Scripture. When I read “Wives, submit to your own husbands” I interpret that to mean, “Wives submit to your own husbands.” I also agree that pure interpretation should be applied to “husbands ought to love your wives as your own body”.
I’ve read all the egalitarian arguments, reinterpretations and disagree with them. The truth is, I can rationalize any Scripture to read the way I want it to if I try hard enough. I think it’s best to let Scripture speak clearly for itself and not depend on a degree in Theology to be able to interpret it.
This, from an article:
“There is no egalitarian relation between Christ and the church. Christ leads the church; the husband leads the wife. The two relationships are analogous to one another. Christ is the servant who leads.” (http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?ID=230) and I’m not Baptist, but I agree.
Where a husband and wife are seeking to obey the Lord, there is unity, equality and love (not without problems, mind you). A marriage where there is real abuse is not a marriage involving a man who seeks to honor the Lord. His abuse has nothing to do with the Scriptural principles of marriage. That distinction MUST be made.
I realize why it would be easy to want to view Scripture differently, especially if I were the wife of an abuser under the guise of “being my head”. But to redefine God’s Word is deadly. I have GREAT concern for abused women and children. Yes, there needs to be an answer and men must be held accountable. But the ministries being discussed here go to great lengths to emphasize a man’s responsibility to lay down his life for his family.
I too, am passionate about this topic. I write to a “mixed crowd”, I suppose, and don’t think that violates Scripture. I believe God wants women to use their gifts and so many areas are suffering now because women are using their gifts wrongly. I believe women should be highly educated.
Random thoughts now, being thrown out there because there are so many presuppositions to answer. God’s Word must be pure, or we are tossed about by every wind of doctrine.
I plan to answer FPW’s questions tomorrow.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:16 am
Hello Amy,
I have been reading your blog for a couple of years now but have never commented until now. (I love your wit and candor by the way!)
I am a 30 year old married mother of 1 and am a follower of Christ. I work in a male dominated industry (I am a pilot) but am currently taking time off to raise our son. (This decision was a joint one) I must admitt, this is the first time in my life I am hesitent to tell a group of people what I “do” for fear of judgement.
I realize that as Canadians some of us can tend to be quite liberal compared to our southern neighbours but I must admitt, this discussion has totally SHOCKED me.
It seems strange to me that as soon as my son becomes a man it is not permitted he be instructed by a woman any longer (least of all his mother). – Deep breath….I’m getting worked up here -. I don’t even know where to start with how I feel about daughters being encouraged to pass on a college education if they so desire.
I do not believe God created us to all fit into the same small legalistic box. We are all unique and gifted in different ways and I deeply believe if we do not explore and utilize our individual giftings from God we are not living in line with His teachings.
So if I am not to work outside the home, what am I to do with this spatial acuity I have that serves me so well in the world of aviation? Rearrange the furniture? Teach my son so that HE can grow up to fly the airplanes I am only “encouraged” to gaze up at with my feet firmly planted on the ground?
With tounge in cheek,
Jamie
ps Amy, I love your blog…. you truly are “born to write”.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Jean, regarding “obedient to their own husbands” in Titus 2:5 — the word there in the Greek is “hupotasso,” which is the SAME word translated “submit” in Ephesians 5:21, “submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of God.” The word used for “obey” in Ephesians 6:5 (“slaves be obedient to your masters”) is “hupokoete,” which is a different word altogether. I have no idea why translators would translate “hupotasso” as “obey,” because that’s not what it means. “Hupotasso” means to defer or yield to.
(As a side note on another poster’s comment that they read “wives submit to your husbands” as “wives submit to your husbands”– egalitarians do not contest that wives should submit to their husbands. What they assert is that when Ephesians 5:21 says “submitting to one another in the fear of God,” it means “submitting to one another in the fear of God.” That means ALL Christians, not just wives.)
Anyway, Jean, my negative response to your post was that you seemed determined to see my words as the words of someone who encouraged divorce and wanted to read the Scriptures in a way that sets them out as “full of error.” I do nothing of the kind. You claim you were not attacking me personally. I did not say you were. I said you were viewing my words in the most negative possible light, rather than taking into account the different contexts I was speaking in.
I never said that if we were obeying God, we would have no problems or difficulties. I never said that’s what Jesus’ words meant. You have to take what I said in the whole context of what I wrote. I was talking about women who are crying out for grace to bear a heavy load, but no grace or relief comes. So they fall back on “though He slay me, yet shall I trust Him,” when the problem may very well be that she’s not carrying His yoke at all, but a hard, heavy yoke tied upon her by Pharisees.
No, I don’t think the Bible teaches that women are bound to abusive husbands without any possibility of escape. No, I don’t think we should view the New Testament as a whole new set of commands to obey. If you disagree, fine. But I’ve been under Pharisaical yokes before, and I’m not taking one on again, for anyone.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:30 am
PS. This program seems to interpret a parenthesis followed by a comma as a wink smilie. No wink was intended.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Funny, Kristen. I thought that was a wink. Glad you explained. :)
I am struck throughout this conversation by the concept that we can adhere to LAW all the livelong day, yet have no heart of compassion for those who are wounded. We strain for the law, yet miss the heart of Jesus.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:32 am
Kelly, that was all well said.
” A marriage where there is real abuse is not a marriage involving a man who seeks to honor the Lord. His abuse has nothing to do with the Scriptural principles of marriage. That distinction MUST be made.”
This is key. Well stated.
November 19th, 2009 at 6:01 am
“I am struck throughout this conversation by the concept that we can adhere to LAW all the livelong day, yet have no heart of compassion for those who are wounded. We strain for the law, yet miss the heart of Jesus.”
Now, Holly, I think perhaps that sums up the patriocentric movement better than just about anything else. The purpose of the law is to bring us to Jesus and we live by His grace alone.
When I first realized how enmeshed I was becoming in this movement, the Lord used the correct picture of the person of Jesus and His earthly ministry to shake me loose from the paradigm, a paradigm that was so appealing to my flesh but so poisonous to my soul.
A friend of ours suggested we go back to the Gospels and read as though we were reading for the first time. As I read, I began to make notes about how Jesus related to other people and amazingly, so often His response and His words were completely the opposite of what the patriocentrists were teaching!
~ Where they were saying that it blasphemes God’s name for a woman to work outside the home, Jesus took women with Him on His journeys to financially support the ministry.
~ Where the patriocentrists were claiming my sacred calling was to concentrate on my household duties and to leave the theology to the men, Jesus was telling Martha to quit fretting about housework and to see that Mary had chosen the better part because she wanted to learn from Him. W
~ Where the patriocentrists were saying that evangelism is having babies, Jesus was saying to go into all the world. And on and on it went. My eyes were opened when I opened my heart to the pure milk of the Word of God.
Holly, you are correct. Jesus is missing from so much of this movement (He isn’t mentioned a single time in the Vision Forum Mission statement!) yet we are told in Colossians that ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in Him!
November 19th, 2009 at 6:51 am
I’m not a patriarchy follower at all- in the sense that I find Christian movements distracting from the real issue of living life for God’s glory and making disciples. I also think that more often than not, the balance between adhering to sound doctrine and the guidance of the Holy Spirit is lost.
The dynamic in our home is very similar to the dynamic that Amy described in her own.
I think that Voddie Baucham, overall, is an excellent Bible teacher even though we have no intentions of requiring our daughters to remain at home until marriage if God calls them in a different direction. And they will be college educated as well.
I think the transcript where he made the remarks about men desiring attention from younger women was a mistake that he would most certainly clariffy if he could. it underscore what happens when, in our zeal to make apoint, we add to or defer from, the Bible’s message. It is not right or godly for a man to desire attention from younger women.
And if a man doesn’t HAVE a daughter? just asking because my husband was raised in a family of all boys. I have yet to meet a man who complained about having all sons.
I think Bro. Baucham’s points about the nature of love and how it has been perverted is a great point. I just think he didn’t think his statements through to their logical conclusion.
The Bible says a man is to delight in the wife of HIS youth.
November 19th, 2009 at 7:21 am
“I think the transcript where he made the remarks about men desiring attention from younger women was a mistake that he would most certainly clarify if he could…I just think he didn’t think his statements through to their logical conclusion.”
Terry, I think it is important to realize a couple things. First, this was on a video presentation that has had a wide audience and been marketed by Vision Forum. It was a formal presentation not an off the cuff statement. There was an opportunity to edit the material prior to presenting it to a wider audience.
I know from my own experience how easy it is to edit. When I interview someone for a podcast, my husband explains to the guest that if he/she says something that he isn’t comfortable with, the guest just needs to say “take two,” the guest makes a new statement, and my husband edits out the misstatement. We want to be absolutely certain that we give our guests the opportunity to be accurately presented.
Pastor Baucham is a dynamic speaker and a professional; he makes his living by public speaking. This sort of a “misstatement” is inexcusable if it isn’t what he meant to say. Also, there has been ample opportunity for him to correct this statement. I first heard it and blogged about it months ago. It had been brought to my attention by others. People have written to him and received no response. Look at the response here of his supporters, initially claiming it had to have been a misquote, then defending it, then minimizing the consequences of it. It is the typical pattern of response when trying to defend the indefensible.
I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to support Pastor Baucham’s assertion about man’s need for younger women with Scripture. That is really what this all boils down to. The only Bible reference that comes to my mind that remotely resembles this was when King David was really old and they brought him a young virgin to keep him warm at night. Hopefully no one will suggest this.
November 19th, 2009 at 7:30 am
“Where they were saying that it blasphemes God’s name for a woman to work outside the home,”
You will need to reference this.
” Jesus took women with Him on His journeys to financially support the ministry.”
Please provide scriptural reference. My Bible says no such thing.
” and to leave the theology to the men”
None of the ladies who are debating for patriarchy are empty headed, no idea on theology people. Your statement sounds insulting.
“Where the patriocentrists were saying that evangelism is having babies”
References are needed again. In context please.
November 19th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Thank you, thatmom!
And when we miss the heart of Jesus, we miss the Gospel.
This is why how we interpret the Scriptures is such a big deal! Do we look at God, at Jesus, at their words, and by our exposition find the harshest underpinning that there is? Do we choose to ignore the true and full meanings of “head,” and “helpmeet” and “submit” and “obey” because any other rendering or understanding makes us feel compromised or weak? We think we have to accept the rendering that fits into our world, our paradigm? At what cost?
I bought into this stuff, my friends. I really did, for a time. It sounded good. It sounded like if I lived according to a bunch of rules I could produce great kids. But it all didn’t fit together. Jesus kept prodding me back, further and further. I took my concept of God ALLLLL the way back to the beginning and said, “Okay. What is God really like?” And I thought, “What motivated Him to create?” I knew that God is a balance of love AND justice – but when he sat out to create the cosmos and humanity, did he say, “I will create all of this so that I can judge them?” or did He say, “I will create man to glorify me, to fellowship with me, because I love them.” (That of course is very speculative….I won’t put words in God’s mouth…but the entire story of the Scriptures tells me of God’s love for mankind.) Once I had settled that, I began to see that I had been assigning harsh and false motives to the character of God. God is love. Justice is the counterbalance needed by humanity, and often that judgement is not reserved not for unbelievers but for Believers who show no mercy, no love, and no compassion! Everything that I know and learn and read about God now must be filtered through and compelled by love.
I hope you will allow this, Amy, because it is on topic. (Even though my rambling might not make it seem so.) :) How we read God’s Word, which original words we accept and which we deny makes all of the difference in the world. It matters that we not see the Scriptures as flat, simply appearing in our time and space. The Scriptures were written in a different culture and a different time, and while true today, we still need to take into consideration the timeframe in which they were written. We need to know the history and social framework of the day in which they were written. We need to know the genre. We need to know the original intent. It matters in issues of the home and in our relationships between men and women, between parents and children.
God bless you, you all. I’m away for the day. :)
November 19th, 2009 at 7:46 am
I know a man who was living with his girlfriend for 15yrs before they got married. They were married for 3yrs when they got divorced. His conclusion is that marriage ruined his relationship.
Any christian should think his statement absurd.
One can view patriarchy in the same way. Just because some abuse the term, doesn’t make the term bad.
Patriarchy is in the Bible. It runs as a thread right through the Bible. It is an old concept, not a new invention.
November 19th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Marita, I will pull these Scripture references for you today. I was just wondering if you could give me your definition of “patriarchy.” I agree that the word “patriarchy” is in the Bible. But is there a command for men to be “patriarchs” today? There are lots of things that are in the Bible but it doesn’t make them commands for us.
November 19th, 2009 at 8:10 am
Kristen:
“No, I don’t think the Bible teaches that women are bound to abusive husbands without any possibility of escape. No, I don’t think we should view the New Testament as a whole new set of commands to obey. If you disagree, fine. But I’ve been under Pharisaical yokes before, and I’m not taking one on again, for anyone.”
Yokes can be hard to bear if one isn’t born again, as I believe the lady who has the “no longer qivering” website seems to testify. And lest anyone think I am judging her, for years I was a homeschooling, church pianist, denim jumper-wearing mom that wasn’t saved. I did those things for a variety of reasons, but none of them to please God. After realizing how lost I was and finally believing on Jesus Christ for my salvation from sin, I found a new reason for schooling my children at home, for using my talents, and for being modest—to glorify God which is “my reasonable service.” (Rom. 12)
As to your thoughts on the New Testament, personal experience cannot be the basis for our interpretation of Scripture. This is why following your viewpoint, my viewpoint, or anyone’s viewpoint on the New Testament teachings without using Scripture to back it up is a mistake.
Thank you for reading my comments. I am going to be bowing out of our discourse, but I will be glad to read any follow up comments that you have.
November 19th, 2009 at 8:25 am
The term “patriarch” is in the Bible but it is only used in reference to the fathers of the Israelites…..Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.
The term “patriarch” is not used to describe every man that has ever lived.
Men who are married are called “husbands”. Love and service are the duties outlined for men. A man is never told to lead or rule over his wife. He is told to love and serve her. And by service I don’t mean lip service as in using his “authority” to tell her what she is to do (i.e. leading the servant). He is to serve her as Christ served….on his knees with a towel wrapped around his waist.
Christ isn’t impressed with people who put themselves in positions of authority. He is not impressed with people who take seats of honor.
The emphasis is NOT on being a patriarch, whatever that word has come to mean to patriocentrists. The emphasis is on SERVING and LOVING and one-anothering. Being a patriarch is not a thread that runs through Scripture.
November 19th, 2009 at 8:33 am
“Yokes can be hard to bear if one isn’t born again, as I believe the lady who has the “no longer qivering” website seems to testify. And lest anyone think I am judging her, for years I was a homeschooling, church pianist, denim jumper-wearing mom that wasn’t saved.”
:( I am grieved that someone would put themselves in the Lord’s position of judging the heart. Jesus promised hardship and persecution. He didn’t promise that the Christian life would be easy. Just because some may walk away doesn’t mean their commitment Wasn’t real in the first place. Instead of insinuating that this woman wasn’t really saved to begin with, pray for her and offer words of encouragement because frankly, words such as what I’ve quoted are not exactly ones to lure one back. If I was in her position, I would want nothing to do with a faith such as demonstrated by someone with so little compassion for the weary and burdened.
November 19th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Here you go, Marita:
““Where they were saying that it blasphemes God’s name for a woman to work outside the home,”
You will need to reference this.”
This is just one of MANY places where this is taught:
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/jennie_chancey_responds_to_tit.aspx
“” Jesus took women with Him on His journeys to financially support the ministry.”
Please provide scriptural reference. My Bible says no such thing.”
Really? You have never heard of this?
“After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household: Susanna: and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means. (Luke 8:1-3)”
November 19th, 2009 at 8:52 am
This is for Marita: (Corrie, you beat me to the first two…)
“Where they were saying that it blasphemes God’s name for a woman to work outside the home?”
Here is Jennie Chancey’s statement about women sinning by working outside the home:
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/jennie_chancey_responds_to_tit.aspx
Here is a similar statement from Stacy McDonald in Desperate Housewives (page 33): “The text of Scripture is straightforward and unequivocal: a woman’s duties are to be home-centered and if we spurn this directive we cause God’s Word to be blasphemed (Titus 2:5) and risk bringing reproach upon the body of Christ (1 Timothy 5:14).” The “floating” word in this statement is “home-centered” but the bulk of her writings explain what “home-centered” means to her.
”Jesus took women with Him on His journeys to financially support the ministry.” Please provide scriptural reference. My Bible says no such thing.”
Luke 8:1-3: “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, and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities—Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who provided for Him from their substance.”
““and to leave the theology to the men” None of the ladies who are debating for patriarchy are empty headed, no idea on theology people. Your statement sounds insulting.”
Well, since I don’t agree that women aren’t to study theology, it is’t me that is insulting, but rather, those who contend women are to be “kitchen wives” rather than students and teachers of theology:
http://www.baylyblog.com/carolyn_custis_james/
It was also on the Bayly blog where Pastor Phil Henry was lauded for his ridiculous statement “The ture Marys are the Marthas.”
And note that Jennie Chancey and Stacy McDonald credit Tim Bayly as their “wise counselor” on the “roles” of women. (page x in Passionate Housewives)
“Where the patriocentrists were saying that evangelism is having babies.” References are needed again. In context please.
Have you not heard of the militant fecundity aspect of patriocentricity? Here is the best context I can give you for my statement: http://www.thatmom.com/?page_id=2663 “Militant fecundity vs seeing children as a blessing.” Probably a lot more information than you wanted to know but I would encourage you to listen. Lots of research went into those podcasts and aspects that are never mentioned by the key patriocentrists, such as orphan ministry, are examined.
Also,where is evangelism mentioned in the Tenets of Patriarchy or the VF Mission Statement?
November 19th, 2009 at 8:59 am
“I think the transcript where he made the remarks about men desiring attention from younger women was a mistake that he would most certainly clariffy if he could.”
He has had more than an ample opportunity to clarify this “mistake”. People have written him asking him to clarify his position. This has been discussed on public blogs for months. But, he has not responded to any attempts to clarify his statement.
I think his whole premise about the confusion of sexual love and filial love and his opinion that fathers withhold proper affection from their daughters because they are developing to be faulty. By and large that is NOT the case even amongst those who are not Christians.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Darcy,
#125 Excellent post! Yes! There is a natural progression in how physical affection is expressed and it is usually the daughter who leads that process.
I see fathers ALL of the time expressing appropriate physical affection to their adult daughters. My own step-father does. There has been no awkwardness at all in kissing him on the cheek or giving him a hug good-bye.
I think it is NORMAL for a teenage girl to NOT want to sit on her father’s lap. That is healthy. Boundaries are healthy.
And, this isn’t about meeting a father’s need for the affection of younger women because if it is then some of these daughters will feel under compulsion and will go against normal, healthy, natural feelings to make sure their father’s “needs” are taken care of.
I am worried about the breaking down of boundaries. I am worried about the over-emphasis on fathers and daughters in the patriocentric movement. This is a recipe for disaster, imho.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Why does it seem that the patriocentrists always concentrate on these alleged desires of men and ignore that women might have these same desires? Where do the patriocentrists encourage a woman to date her son? Where do they tell sons to sit on their mother’s laps well into late teenage years because this will keep them from having sexual desires towards the opposite sex? Where do the patriocentrists tell a woman that if she has yearnings for the attentions of younger men that her son was given to her for that yearning? After all, Cougar trend is HUGE right now. Women are leaving their marriages for younger men all of the time! Or when do they have mother/son outings where the son dresses his mother? Shaves his mother? Combs his mother’s hair?
Or do they just think that women don’t have these desires? That men are the only ones who desire things? Or that sons don’t need the physical affection of their mother to “keep them pure” and to keep them from seeking illicit affection from other women?
You see, if we turn around their teachings to fathers and daughters and place them on mothers and sons it sounds off, doesn’t it? Well, it is just as “off” when it is applied to fathers/daughters.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:04 am
I came back this morning fully intending to attempt answering questions directed at me and defending some of the presuppositions made here.
I am convinced, though, that this discussion goes way beyond the need to defend a man or a ministry or a movement. This is about defending the purity of Scripture and the gospel.
As I read through the comments, one after another contain subtle (the worst kind), misconstrued statements and blind assertions formed by the commenter’s opinion, unfounded by truth.
(And yes, I’ve read extensively, both the originals writings of those mentioned here, their opponents, their basis for reinterpretation of Scripture, their arguments—I’ve studied it all at length…I didn’t just happen to pop into this discussion.)
Just one example (and there are too many to list):
“I am struck throughout this conversation by the concept that we can adhere to LAW all the livelong day, yet have no heart of compassion for those who are wounded. We strain for the law, yet miss the heart of Jesus.”
I’m confused about how this conversation supports this assertion. There isn’t one here or elsewhere that I’ve seen demonstrate a lack of compassion for the wounded. Why isn’t anyone talking about how often the churches under scrutiny here have fulfilled the biblical command, showing compassion and taking abandoned women into their care, supporting her and her children? I know specifically about these.
No one here has up held “law”. We’re talking about the importance of following God’s Word, which includes compassion and I specifically said that abused women and children need answers and pointed out one of the. May I point out that one of the very objectives in the FIC conferences is to discuss the need of churches to be advocates for the wounded. If we really cared about them, we wouldn’t beat up the very people trying to develop real, biblical solutions!
To wield comments like the above is to slander. It is to cast doubts in the mind of people reading here who take the comments to be founded in some way.
I am really going to try to walk away this time ;-) Where Scripture is not handled as truth, there is no common ground for discussion.
I urge all reading to take careful heed. Read from the sources themselves, if you have concerns over teachings. That’s an obligation we have. But be aware that false doctrines creep in unaware, and it is paramount that we consider everything only in the light of Scripture. Solo Scriptura!
November 19th, 2009 at 10:13 am
“I am convinced, though, that this discussion goes way beyond the need to defend a man or a ministry or a movement. This is about defending the purity of Scripture and the gospel.”
Kelly, you are absolutely correct. And this is why I have repeatedly asked for Scriptural support for assertions made. You still have not answered where Scripture supports the notion that men need daughters to fulfill their God-given need for younger women.
And then there is the notion that Numbers 30 teaches that daughters are to stay home with their fathers until they are given in marriage. Or what about the notion that daughters are to be the “helpmeets” of their dads? Or what about teaching that only fathers have a calling from the Lord and that everyone in the family is to work toward that calling? Simply tossing out a passage of Scripture or wedding unrelated passages to each other to “support” some doctrine of man is what is truly blasphemous. I pray that those who are so deeply entrenched in patriocentricity will set aside these teachers and will look at Scripture because it ALONE is sufficient.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:15 am
“As I read through the comments, one after another contain subtle (the worst kind), misconstrued statements and blind assertions formed by the commenter’s opinion, unfounded by truth.”
Kelly, if I have done this, in all sincerity, I would ask that you show me exactly where I did it. I am well aware that I am not infallible and truly want to be certain I have accurately represented Scripture or the writings of others.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Ellen,
Your comment regarding my statement on the “no longer qivering” website: “I am grieved that someone would put themselves in the Lord’s position of judging the heart.”
Your comment about me: “…I would want nothing to do with a faith such as demonstrated by someone with so little compassion for the weary and burdened.”
Plain and simple, you said you were grieved that I was judging someone (when I was only stating what the person themself states), then you yourself judged my heart.
I have much compassion for the weary and burdened. Following God’s word and trusting in Him is the answer. Choosing to disregard His Word so that our own wills may be satisfied is disobedience and results in a harder yoke in the long run.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Holly: I would love to debate calvinism or anything else with you, along with hearing your side of the story. Maybe you can get my email from Amy, or should I go to your blog?
Sallie: I don’t think my statement in #81 proves your point at all. Your original question lumps some things together: Women teaching mixed audiences, choosing not to h.s., and women working outside the home. Just for the record I am not in line with the V.F. view of patriarchy. I stopped reading any of their publications a few years ago because as another poster has already said, “they have just gone too far”. But I still believe in biblical headship and submitting to one another because this is in the Bible. I am not even quiverfull as some define it. I do homeschool, but not because of any “movement”. And I do have many friends who Christian school and public school their children. I even have friends who are *gasp* non Christians. I would support a womans working outside the home, as long as the decision was made jointly with her husband. This is a personal family decision. The area we differ is women teaching men. How is this biblical? I can only remember the instance of Deborah in Judges where she was a judge and a prophetess. She went into battle with Barak because *he asked her to*. Do you know of anywhere else in the Bible where God has given this type of authority to women? Even the popular women leaders of our day direct their teaching to women. Not saying there haven’t been some exceptions in recent years, but when you think of Beth Moore or Kay Arthur, even they know to direct their teaching to other women, and these are *extremely biblical women*. So again, my question to Holly was and is now to you, “What does that say about a woman who “needs” to lead men?” Is this desire really coming from our Lord, or somewhere else?
Warmly submitted.
November 19th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Hi Jean,
I am sorry if you feel I am judging your heart; I was going by your words which indicated that you believed that the woman wasn’t really saved all those times she lived this conservative life and claimed to be ~ which you then illustrated that because you had done the same thing, it was possible to do this and not be really saved. That is what I am referring to. You can’t see her heart back when she was doing all this. It is possible that she really was a true Christian. Not perfect, because who of us are? But still having authentic faith. I believe the Bible indicates this is possible because it refers to those who fall away. How can you fall away from something you never had in the first place?
November 19th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Debbie,
My very brief answer (because I’m supposed to be working – I work at home)…
I think it does prove my point because there are many people who define a Christian woman by whether or not she adheres to certain beliefs or practices that are either secondary matters or there is enough vagueness in Scripture (especially taken in their cultural context) that it is possible to interpret things differently. People who hold to the complementarian view frequently are unwilling to accept that a godly Christian woman or couple could come to a different conclusion about some of these topics. And that was my point.
There will be women in heaven who taught men on earth and there will be women who thought they could not utter a word in the gathering of the church. Just like there will be both Calvinists and Armenians, baby sprinklers and believer baptisers, etc.
Re: women teaching men. People will point to “I do not permit a woman to speak or have authority over a man” but they also do not deal with women prophesying and speaking in the gathering of the church in other epistles. And I think you have to look at these letters in their cultural contexts to understand them. (For the sake of time, I’m not looking up references.)
For what it is worth… I believe Beth Moore does teach men. I think she teaches men in her Sunday School class because they wanted to come and hear her teach. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember it was an issue at her church a while back.
One of the other big problems I have with complementarianism and the whole women should not teach/speak/have authority over a man is that it is often/usually not consistently practiced by those who espouse it. Why is it a woman can go abroad and be a missionary and teach men elsewhere, but not at her home church? Why is it that a woman missionary can speak from the pulpit to give a missionary report, but not preach a sermon? What if she uses Scripture in her report? Is she teaching a man? Why do women teach boys in Sunday School?
I realize I have barely glossed over these issues and have not done them justice. I’m not interested in getting into a debate over this topic on Amy’s blog or in email. Maybe Holly would like to add to what I have said.
But, again, I think it proves my point. If I say I have been called and used by God numerous times to teach/speak in a mixed setting, there are people who think I can’t possibly be following Christ in doing so. And those who follow the hard core patriarchy teachings certainly fall into that category.
Warmly,
Sallie
November 19th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Voddie Baucham has just addressed his words concerning men desiring the attention of younger women on his blog. I applaud him for doing so as so many others in this movement simply ignore the concerns of customers, I know because my husband and I have contacted a few with some concerns. I have not had a chance to read the entire post so I am not saying I agree with Mr. Baucham I am simply stating that I appreciated his willingness to address this issue.
http://www.voddiebaucham.org
November 19th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Here is a better link to Voddie’s post.
http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2009/11/19_November_Question_of_the_MOnth_(Update_Edition).html
November 19th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Well, I don’t know what to say to his response. I am sitting here in amazement.
He links death threats and libel with reasonable confusion about something he said???????
Also, I think it seems as if he is the one confused because his explanation just made it worse, imho.
I am just in awe over some of the things he said and many of them were off-base. He has not been accused of incest or being a caveman. This way way far too knee-jerk and emotionally driven than it was an example of a scholar giving an explanation to clarify a teaching.
I don’t know even how to begin to address his assertions concerning why an older man wants sex with a younger woman. It is not about finding a daughter. It is about their own egos and it is about wanting to make themselves feel like they still have “it”. It makes them feel young.
He is the one confusing the different types of love.
November 19th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Didn’t clear *anything* up for me. It just solidified my concerns.
:(
November 19th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Corrie,
Your comment is case in point of the constant misconstruing of someone’s words to use against them.
“He links death threats and libel with reasonable confusion about something he said?”
He is not saying death threats were made here; he said there are “people out there”…He is beginning with a general statement about the number of opposing voices and why he usually doesn’t answer. I’ve heard him say that he receives death threats from time to time (long before this blog post).
Your comments continues to prove the points that your only desire is to destroy a man and his ministry (and make him look like a liar), not to shed light on truth.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
“continue”
November 19th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Jamie,
Yes! It has amplified my concerns about his original statement.
“My point here has nothing to do with the role of a daughter in a father’s sexual life. ”
Then why does he continue to link the role of a daughter in a father’s sexual life?
“On the contrary, I am talking about our misunderstanding of the nature of love that leads to the erroneous belief that true love is about sex! In the broader context, I am arguing for embracing a biblical definition of love that will allow fathers to overcome the awkwardness they often experience when their daughters become young women. Is this dangerous?”
I think that the VAST majority of fathers understand the difference between sexual love and proper fatherly affection and love for their own daughters. I think that the VAST majority of men are not confused and they do not confuse showing affection to their daughters with yearning for sex with a younger woman.
“Listen to the message in context and it is clear that I am talking about a very particular kind of man with a very particular kind of problem, and using him as an illustration of the worst expression of the error I am condemning in the message. I am in fact calling men to embrace a biblical relationship with their daughters, and reject the practice that we have all seen of chasing young women who (though used for sex) become substitute daughters for these “Old Guys”. ”
Huh? How is having an affair with a younger woman even an illustration for a father/daughter relationship? Men don’t chase younger women because they want substitute daughters. They chase younger women because they want sex and they want the excitement that comes with being with a younger woman and all the benefits of having a younger woman’s body.
“If you’ve seen this phenomenon before, you know exactly what I’m talking about.”
No, I do not.
“You also know that it creates incredible awkwardness for their daughters because they feel like they’ve been replaced by these younger women. Does that mean they desire sex from their fathers? ABSOLUTELY NOT! On the contrary, it means they understand the very principle I was trying to elucidate in this illustration (yes… this is all about an illustration). Daughters in this situation understand that their fathers are giving fatherly attention and affection to someone else, and they have been brushed aside. The sexual aspect of this kind of affair is sickening precisely because of the fatherly aspects. The man is seen as taking advantage of a woman looking for a father figure, and the young woman is seen as giving her body to (and wasting her time with) an old man simply because she wants the same. ”
Doesn’t make sense at all. My father married a MUCH younger woman and I didn’t feel as if he was giving fatherly affection to her at all! Yuck. The daughters are mostly reacting to their fathers ABANDONING THEIR MOTHERS for another woman! That is why these daughters are angry! Not because their father is giving attention to a younger woman when it should be towards them. It is because he is giving attention to a woman OTHER than their OWN mother. Do daughters have a problem when they see their fathers giving attention to their mothers? No. Is the mother seen as taking away attention from the daughter? No. Not in a healthy household.
This is about men breaking their vows and lusting after women not their wife. It is about husbands and wives and has NOTHING to do with daughters.
He should be telling me to put THOSE attentions towards their wives not towards their daughters.
“When and if you see this attack on the net, please know that the attackers are not seeking to correct me, or advance the gospel. These women are seeking to discredit me because of their hatred of what I represent. They hate the fact that a respected, mainstream, orthodox teacher espouses a clear distinction on the matter of manhood, womanhood, headship and submission. They would prefer I pastored a church that was not growing; that I did not have a reputation for clear exegetical teaching; that I required my wife (and other women) to wear head coverings; that I refused to preach from anything but the King James Bible; that I required my daughter to be ignorant and uneducated; that I came across as an ignorant, oppressive neanderthal instead of a man who loves and respects his wife and daughter (darn that Voddie Baucham for being a man who changes diapers, shares the homeschooling load, and loves to cook the occasional gourmet meal for his family). ”
Ridiculous! Talk about libel and slander.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
“Your comments continues to prove the points that your only desire is to destroy a man and his ministry (and make him look like a liar), not to shed light on truth.
”
Kelly,
Really? I am surprised that you say this since you have accused others of slander on this very blog for MUCH lesser things.
There was NO reason to be so overly dramatic in answering the “November Question of the Month”. He specifically accuses those who have brought up this question of leveling a “libelous charge”. That is completely FALSE. He has made many false accusations (ie charges of incest) that are groundless.
Are you saying he didn’t link libel, slander, gossip, death threats and hatred with those female bloggers who are asking for clarification concerning his statement that men yearn for the attention of younger women and that God gave them daughters for that yearning?
He even intimated that many of us claim to be Christians but actually few of us will ever come to Him.
I stand by what I said. ““He links death threats and libel with reasonable confusion about something he said?”” He did exactly that. If someone asked me to clarify something I said I wouldn’t talk about death threats, libel and slander and then name the question and talk about “they” and “them”…the people who ASKED the question!
There was absolutely NO reason for him to answer that question with such over the top rhetoric, drama and slanderous statements about the people who were asking him the question.
If he received death threats in the PAST that should not have been thrown into his answer but it was. What does that have to do with those of us who are concerned about what he stated on that video clip? It is a red herring for the sake of drama and to evoke sympathy and to smear those who ask the question.
And since death threats was right in there with libel, slander, hatred and gossip…all charges he levels throughout his “response”, it gives a completely false impression of those who have asked the question.
“NOVEMBER QUESTION OF THE MONTH (UPDATE EDITION)
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2009
This may come as a surprise to some of you, but there are people out there who hate what I say, how I live, and what I stand for. Some of them will stop at nothing in their efforts to discredit me. They stoop to gossip, slander, libel, and sometimes death threats. Most of these people claim to be Christians. However, few of them actually come to me (Matthew 18:15; Luke 17:3; 2 Thess 3:15; Titus 3:10; James 5:19; Lev. 19:17), instead opting to use the internet to invent, and advance their charges.
As most of you know, my position on this has been to keep silent and allow my name, reputation, and body of work speak for me. This has been very effective, for the most part, since libelous remarks made on the websites in question (I hope you’ll forgive me for not linking to them) have almost always been answered by clear-thinking, honest people who can easily refute the lies.
Nevertheless, this time, I feel the need to respond, and I will do so for two reasons. First, because the libelous charge in this case has been raised and answered on a number of occasions, but continues to rear it’s head due to the use of a soundbite taken from segment of a section of a message I preached several years ago. Second, this soundbite, taken from a segment, taken from a section of a message I preached years ago has led some well-meaning people to ask for an explanation. Therefore, allow me to explain:
Question Of the Month:
In watching your Biblical Womanhood (5 of 8) video on Youtube, you said that many men have affairs because they need the attention of younger women and are not getting that attention from their daughters. What do you mean? That seems like a very untrue and dangerous statement. Could you clarify that for me?
“
November 19th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
And, Kelly, you have falsely accused me (as you have done to Karen and many others) when you say that my “only desire is to destroy a man and his ministry, not to shed light on the truth”.
That is not my only desire. That is not even ONE of my many desires. I have many desires and that isn’t one of them. One of my desires IS to shed light on the truth and to deliver daughters who are held in bondage by false and extrabiblical teachings because I am sick and tired of hearing the stories of how destructive this brand of patriocentricity has become.
So, that would make you guilty of the very thing you are accusing me of but for the fact that I have basis for saying what I did and you have absolutely NO basis for saying what you did.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Kelly,
Then why didn’t he just say “I don’t normally respond to comments made about me on the internet. But a question has been raised several times in recent months about something I said that I definitely want to clear up and leave no doubt in anyone’s mind.”
Then he could have answered the question.
But couching it with generous uses of the words such as “hate” and “libelous” is not helpful.
And instead of supporting what he is saying with Scripture, he used movie references and Psych 101? The only Scripture he used was to say why it is wrong that anyone discusses his teachings online without coming to him first.
I’m with Jamie. This was not helpful.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
“He even intimated that many of us claim to be Christians but actually few of us will ever come to Him.” He means come to him, Baucham, in the spirit of Matthew 18 and the other verses he referenced.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
QFP at 12:38 EST:
This may come as a surprise to some of you, but there are people out there who hate what I say, how I live, and what I stand for. Some of them will stop at nothing in their efforts to discredit me. They stoop to gossip, slander, libel, and sometimes death threats. Most of these people claim to be Christians. However, few of them actually come to me (Matthew 18:15; Luke 17:3; 2 Thess 3:15; Titus 3:10; James 5:19; Lev. 19:17), instead opting to use the internet to invent, and advance their charges.
As most of you know, my position on this has been to keep silent and allow my name, reputation, and body of work speak for me. This has been very effective, for the most part, since libelous remarks made on the websites in question (I hope you’ll forgive me for not linking to them) have almost always been answered by clear-thinking, honest people who can easily refute the lies.
Nevertheless, this time, I feel the need to respond, and I will do so for two reasons. First, because the libelous charge in this case has been raised and answered on a number of occasions, but continues to rear it’s head due to the use of a soundbite taken from segment of a section of a message I preached several years ago. Second, this soundbite, taken from a segment, taken from a section of a message I preached years ago has led some well-meaning people to ask for an explanation. Therefore, allow me to explain:
Question Of the Month:
In watching your Biblical Womanhood (5 of 8) video on Youtube, you said that many men have affairs because they need the attention of younger women and are not getting that attention from their daughters. What do you mean? That seems like a very untrue and dangerous statement. Could you clarify that for me?
A Word of Clarification
First, I’d like to point out that this question, as specific as it is, has been repeated almost verbatim by a number of people. It is as though it were a template given to them by someone else. Second, notice that the statement completely ignores the context. Here is the actual statement (without the context)
“A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who can give them that.”
It is easy to see how someone could be worried about that quote. However, if they knew me, knew my teaching, knew my life, and listened to the rest of the statement, it would be a little less likely that they would jump to the conclusion that I am advocating incest (as some are actually doing on the web)!
Here is the statement in a larger context:
“A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who can give them that. And instead, they go find a substitute daughter, You’ve seen it! We’ve all seen it! These OLD GUYS! Going and finding substitute daughters. Why? Why? We don’t understand what love is, folks.”
And then I go on to give the definition of love, never touching the subject again. My point here has nothing to do with the role of a daughter in a father’s sexual life. On the contrary, I am talking about our misunderstanding of the nature of love that leads to the erroneous belief that true love is about sex! In the broader context, I am arguing for embracing a biblical definition of love that will allow fathers to overcome the awkwardness they often experience when their daughters become young women. Is this dangerous?
If this statement was “dangerous,” then why did Northpoint Church (where I preached the message) reproduce it and sell it? If I was talking about incest, then why was I invited back the next year? Moreover, why is it that it has taken the patriarchy hunters over three years to uncover this blatant, sinful, egregious heresy? If I am promoting incest, then why have these women failed to contact me, my church, my family, or the authorities?
I’ll tell you why; because no honest human being who knows me, my teaching, my life, and listens to these messages in context would come away with such nonsense. Listen to the message in context and it is clear that I am talking about a very particular kind of man with a very particular kind of problem, and using him as an illustration of the worst expression of the error I am condemning in the message. I am in fact calling men to embrace a biblical relationship with their daughters, and reject the practice that we have all seen of chasing young women who (though used for sex) become substitute daughters for these “Old Guys”.
If you’ve seen this phenomenon before, you know exactly what I’m talking about. You also know that it creates incredible awkwardness for their daughters because they feel like they’ve been replaced by these younger women. Does that mean they desire sex from their fathers? ABSOLUTELY NOT! On the contrary, it means they understand the very principle I was trying to elucidate in this illustration (yes… this is all about an illustration). Daughters in this situation understand that their fathers are giving fatherly attention and affection to someone else, and they have been brushed aside. The sexual aspect of this kind of affair is sickening precisely because of the fatherly aspects. The man is seen as taking advantage of a woman looking for a father figure, and the young woman is seen as giving her body to (and wasting her time with) an old man simply because she wants the same.
I am not the first person to point this out. This is Psych 101 stuff (no, Virginia, I don’t endorse Freudian psychology… it’s just a well-known cultural catchphrase… no need for another blog crusade). The concept is so ubiquitous that Alfred Hitchcock alluded to it in his classic 1960 film, Psycho (early in the film when the “Old man” flirts with Janet Leigh’s character after telling her that he has a daughter her age that just left the nest), and the theme runs through Nancy Meyers 2003 film (starring the consummate dirty old man, Jack Nicholson), Something’s Gotta Give (no, Virginia, I do not offer my blanket endorsement here; I’m just furthering my point) where Amanda Peet’s character, upon discovering that her father is marrying a woman two years older than she, actually utters the words, “I feel like dad’s replacing me.” In other words, my assertion is neither novel, nor strange.
When and if you see this attack on the net, please know that the attackers are not seeking to correct me, or advance the gospel. These women are seeking to discredit me because of their hatred of what I represent. They hate the fact that a respected, mainstream, orthodox teacher espouses a clear distinction on the matter of manhood, womanhood, headship and submission. They would prefer I pastored a church that was not growing; that I did not have a reputation for clear exegetical teaching; that I required my wife (and other women) to wear head coverings; that I refused to preach from anything but the King James Bible; that I required my daughter to be ignorant and uneducated; that I came across as an ignorant, oppressive neanderthal instead of a man who loves and respects his wife and daughter (darn that Voddie Baucham for being a man who changes diapers, shares the homeschooling load, and loves to cook the occasional gourmet meal for his family).
Unfortunately, I am none of those things. Therefore, these women must take ten-second segments of sermons and parse the words in order to find things that “sound dangerous”, and “could be misunderstood” by my “followers”. How sad! I don’t hate these people; I pity them. On the other hand, I am grateful for those of you who continue to fight the good fight on my behalf in the blogosphere, and hope this answer helps. Of course, it will only help temporarily as the detractors cannot concede.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Sorry if someone doesn’t know QFP… Quoted for Posterity… In other words, to keep an accurate copy of what was written.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“He is not saying death threats were made here; he said there are “people out there”…”
Kelly,
Funny, didn’t he link death threats with libel, slander, gossip and hatred and people wanting to destroy his ministry as if anyone who asks him to clarify the question is just part of a big machine that is out to get him? He maligned the people who have a problem with his statement and did nothing but disparage them, even to the point of accusing them of not being Christians.
“Some of them will stop at nothing in their efforts to discredit me. They stoop to gossip, slander, libel, and sometimes death threats.”
Who is “them”? “Them” are those who dared to find a problem with what he said about men yearning for the attention of younger women and that the solution for that yearning is getting that attention from one’s daughter.
He is accusing “them” of gossip, libel and slander, right? You do understand that to be true from the article? He is accusing “them” of stooping at NOTHING in their efforts to discredit him. Right? You get that from that article, too, right?
So, why “death threats”? I will tell you why. Because it is a red herring and evokes sympathy. It makes people feel sorry for him and it causes people to look at anyone who asks him a question as The Enemy who is out to get him and will stop at NOTHING….even death threats.
Also, commas usually are used to link things together, right? He did link “them” with a bunch of things and one of them was “death threats”.
It gives the impression that he wants it to have and that is why he linked that in with this “explanation”. People who ask questions are really only out to get him and will stop at nothing, even death threats, in order to destroy him.
If a reporter did the same thing to patriocentrists, you would be screaming bloody murder.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
““He even intimated that many of us claim to be Christians but actually few of us will ever come to Him.” He means come to him, Baucham, in the spirit of Matthew 18 and the other verses he referenced.”
Ellen,
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I appreciate that.
I understand the inference, though, to “most of these people claim to be Christians”, though. :-) I also take issue with the accusation of inventing and advancing charges.
I have a good friend that went to great lengths to discuss an issue with him to no avail. I saw the email exchange.
When you take an exact quote and you listen to its context and it still doesn’t change anything, asking for clarification is not inventing or advancing charges.
“This may come as a surprise to some of you, but there are people out there who hate what I say, how I live, and what I stand for. Some of them will stop at nothing in their efforts to discredit me. They stoop to gossip, slander, libel, and sometimes death threats. Most of these people claim to be Christians. However, few of them actually come to me (Matthew 18:15; Luke 17:3; 2 Thess 3:15; Titus 3:10; James 5:19; Lev. 19:17), instead opting to use the internet to invent, and advance their charges.”
November 19th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Wow, if nothing else this comment thread has made me so grateful for my *husband’s leadership* in keeping us from getting deeply involved in any one set movement. Ironic, that. ;)
Both of us believe deeply that hubandly leadership/wifely submission has a Biblical basis. Both of us refuse birth control because of Biblical convictions about children, God’s design for marriage, and his sovreignty and authority.
Both of us feel that my husband’s best place according to the way God has ordained things is earning a living, and my best place is caring for the children God has given us and maintaining our home.
On none of these points to we differ with “patriocentrists” (if that’s the word we’re using nowadays), and I’m sure some would derisively call my husband a “patriarch” and me an “oppressed woman” (or “quivering wife”?).
I suppose we have just never gotten deeply enough into any particular church or ministry to hear that women must *never* work, that husband’s can do whatever they want with no repurcussions, that higher education is a complete no-no for girls, and that there is never a situation in which a wife should call out her husband on his sin. Mostly what I was hearing from the “patriarchal movement” was a direct and strong reaction to leftist man-hating feminism, careerism, materialism taking the place of childrearing, and a sort of all around rising up against the mockery of home-centered, homeschooling, many-children-having, complementarian style families. Perhaps they’ve shifted in the years I’ve been too busy with my own family to do more than listen to their teachings in the background of my life. Or maybe I was just hearing them in a different way than many here seem to.
Maybe we wouldn’t fit in with patriocentrists any more than we fit in with “normal” evangelicals. My husband being someone who had to struggle to get an education, values it highly. He admires my sister who is working towards multiple degrees in the sciences and grieves at thought of my other sister quitting college due to a pregnancy outside of marriage. I have no fear that he will demand our daughters stay home and clean toilets and never get an education (though I wonder if that’s a misunderstanding of “patriarchal” beliefs, in the first place). I am sure when it comes to academics he will push them harder and farther than I do, in fact. At the same time, my husband wholeheartedly values my efforts with the children and at home, and even the bare fact that I am an American woman who is *willing* to bear more than two children and raise them at home. Although he leads our family and I do follow him, I am not left out of decisions or kept bound up by some law of “proper roles”. He’s encouraged my writing. He trusts me so much that when he had to leave the country for what may be as long as a year, he handed me the management of the rentals we have, and all our finances (I personally think his confidence is somewhat misplaced, but I am doing my level best to make sure we are as well off when he returns as when he left, or better :) )
Though both of us have longed for fellowship with people who do not think us slightly crazy, perhaps it is for the best that my husband has thought it wise to keep “floating” on the outskirts and never settling into a particular place. If these organiations are cultish (some may be, I am sure others are not), I had quite enough of cults in my childhood. But if they are not cults then I can imagine it would be incredibly painful to go through being picked to tiny little pieces year after year because of the wrong behavior of others that reflected on our church. :(
November 19th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
As long as groups and movements continues to be “cults of personality” there will be these kinds of issues. Every evangelical fad seems to be a reaction to a failed evangelical fad or a failed cultural fad and seems to need to reinvent the wheel. In this case, the fad of women working outside the home and fathers abandoning their families caused people to go so strongly in the opposite direction that we have extremes. At one local homeschool conference someone actually taught that women should call their husbands and consider their husbands “lord”! This only furthere pushes people until they’ve had enough and then many throw out the baby (Christianity)with the bathwater (bad teaching, new fads, extreme lifestyles)
My husband and I became tired of it and became Greek Orthodox Christians. There are no new ideas. Change happens slowly. Justice is pursued. There is a belief that God is guiding the church and not just one man or woman. Scripture is supreme, but there is not this emphasis to be continually finding something new. There is only an emphasis on remembering the basics, the core doctrines, the practices of prayer and Bible reading.
There are many evangelicals (homeschoolers too) who are moving to the Eastern Orthodox Church for this reason. Some who have attended Bible school and read the church fathers, some who have learned it through studying history. The Orthodox Church has been there all along, but many American evangelicals (I was one!) aren’t even aware of it.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Oops just noticed typos. Well, I’m sitting here trying to type with my two year old dearie pie… so please ignore typos!!
November 19th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Okay I did read Voddie’s post in detail and here is what I believe. I believe if a man is desiring the attention of younger women it is due to a break down in his relationship with his wife not his daughter. Men who have solid, loving relationships with the wife of their youth do not desire attention from other women, that need is satisfied by their wives.
Futhermore a man who finds himself yearning for a attention outside of his marriage is having some type of a breakdown in his relationship with the Lord. Any man having these desires needs to get pastoral counseling and needs to immediately work to repair his relationship with his wife. His daughter has nothing to do with this.
I fear for the man listening to this speech who has a desire such as this and cultivates a strong, healthy relationship with his daughter only to have the daughter marry and move hundreds of miles away. What does the father do then? What if he has no more daughters? The fact of the matter is that our children are not our own, they belong to the Lord. They will grow up, marry or not and go on to live the life that God has planned for them. Patriocentrics seem to attempt to blur this. I am thinking of Botkin and his 200 year plan. We are not in control of what our children choose for their adult lives nor should we attempt to plan their lives. Talk of where they will live, whether they will homeschool etc. is futile. Our goal should be that they love the Lord, period! If they do He will be sure to guide them in the way that He would have them go. We can trust God in this!
Any thought that our children will or should meet any need of ours be we men or women is heading down the wrong path. They are not given to us by God for this purpose. If we are lonely or have unmet needs we should turn to our Lord and our spouses.
Now perhaps I am reaading more into this than Voddie meant and if so I apologize. I do respect him and agree with the majority of what he teaches but in this instance I just can not see where what he is saying goes along with Scripture.
That said I will not comment on this further. Every teacher at times makes mistakes or says something that not everyone can agree on. He has addressed this issue, stated what he believes and that is that. I can now choose to agree or disagree.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
” Jesus took women with Him on His journeys to *financially support the ministry*.”
Is very different to
“And certain women……. which ministered to him *out of their substance*”
I.o.w. they supplied to Him out of what they had.
Sorry, you still lack Biblical reference . Please provide a Biblical reference that women were taken to financially support the ministry.
“and to leave the theology to the men”
“Well, since I don’t agree that women aren’t to study theology, it is’t me that is insulting, but rather, those who contend women are to be “kitchen wives” rather than students and teachers of theology”
Off course we are to study the Word of God. What you reference does not say that we are not to study the word of God. It is against women teaching men. (1Tim 2:12) not against women learning.
So again, you will need to support your statement.
“Where the patriocentrists were saying that evangelism is having babies.”
“Have you not heard of the militant fecundity aspect of patriocentricity? Here is the best context I can give you for my statement:”
If I ask for references, it should be quoted from it’s original source. You have still to do this.
“Also,where is evangelism mentioned in the Tenets of Patriarchy or the VF Mission Statement?”
One should not confuse salvation with sanctification. Because one issue is addressed does not mean the other doesn’t exist.
Thatmom, I am completely for husband rule, male governed society. I do however realise that these are not salvation issues. But at the same time, I realise how badly we need to return to God’s Word and what some of the consequences are if we fail to do so.
If we, at any stage, say God’s word is irrelevant because it was a cultural issue, or whatever, we are taking away from God’s Word. Then we say God’s Word is incomplete and we need to re-interpret what that Word exactly is. Is God’s Word then sufficient or not? Do you believe in Sola Scriptura? If not, we have no basis for debating these issues.
Humbly
November 19th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Baucham is following in the footsteps of Phillips as he responds to legitimate questions and concerns with the roaring of someone who is fending off an attack by an enemy.
A patient, kind and gracious response would have served him well. Instead, he blamed, shamed and condemned.
I don’t care how many moving sermons a man preaches with his lips. It is reactions like this that tell me what I need to know.
Saddened,
FPW
November 19th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“Is God’s Word then sufficient or not? Do you believe in Sola Scriptura?”
Absolutely and that is exactly why I reject these extra-biblical teachings. BTW, Marita, I have given you plenty of references and context if you have an ear to hear. There is no reason for me to try to distill the body of research into a soundbite.
BTW, where did these women who traveled with Jesus get their substance? Did they all have large inheritances to spend? Is that likely?
November 19th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
“I am convinced, though, that this discussion goes way beyond the need to defend a man or a ministry or a movement. This is about defending the purity of Scripture and the gospel.”
Yes, it’s very easy to claim that one’s own position is about the “purity of Scripture” and that those who take another position are on some lower moral ground. But if defending the purity of Scripture means you have to read everything according to it’s plain-sense meaning, then why has no one answered my question about slavery? Is it biblical, or isn’t it? Should America have forced slaveholders to free their slaves, or not?
What about greeting one another with a holy kiss? Why are we not doing that in our churches today?
Why do we insist that a woman cannot teach a man according to 1 Tim 2:12, but do not insist that men raise their hands when they pray? That verse comes immediately before, in 1 Tim 2:8. Why do we claim women are not saved by having children, which is the plain-sense meaning of 1 Tim 2:15?
If it is those who teach the subordination of women who are preserving “the purity of Scripture,” then why do I read treatices by some patriarchalists that insist that Deborah wasn’t a “real” judge? Or explanations of why in Rom 16:7, Junia is either not a man or not an apostle? Why is a certain Greek word translated “minister” when it refers to a man, and “servant” when it refers to a woman?
Why do patriarchalists, and even complementarians, fault egalitarians for doing exegesis, when they do it themselves whenever they don’t like the “plain sense” of a passage?
The fact is that if any of us thinks we consistently follow the exact, plain-sense meaning of the Scriptures, we are fooling ourselves. We all pick and choose which Scriptures we’re going to take at face value, and which we’re not. It’s just that we use different criteria with which to do so.
As an egalitarian, I try to keep my criteria consistent. I try always to take cultural assumptions into account, and then find the timeless or underlying principle/teaching of the Scripture. To take the cultural assumptions into account only sometimes, when long-standing church traditions or current pastoral teachings say so, is not in my opinion preserving the purity of the Scriptures.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Thank you, Kelly, and others who have worked these past couple of days to defend the honor and integrity of the Phillipses, Botkins and Bauchams. Kelly has done a fine job responding to many readers here whose comments have ranged from thoughtful questions to genuine concerns to complete fabrications to outright attacks.
Due to my responsibilities here in my home, I don’t have a lot of time to write and have even less time to scroll through 170+ responses to find the quotes and tidbits that need refuting. Despite this, I feel a sense of duty to stand with Kelly in supporting the godly efforts of these men and their families. They are precious Christians and when I occasionally come across conversations like these, I cannot and will not turn a blind eye when a friend is being slandered.
The insinuation by Holly that there is lack of compassion for the poor and needy (the widow, single mother and fatherless in particular) by those of us who espouse biblical principles and orthopraxy of patriarchy is — and I can’t think of a more gentle word right now; forgive me — ludicrous.
One of my favorite resources from Vision Forum is Doug Phillips’ CD, “Defending the Fatherless”.
http://www.visionforum.com/search/productdetail.aspx?search=defending+the+fatherless&productid=68211
He teaches with clarity and passion what Scripture teaches about true religion and how the responsibility of caring for widows, single mothers and the fatherless rests squarely on the shoulders of the Church of Jesus Christ if and when immediate family cannot (or refuses to) support these least of these. Obviously, there will be those who will not be happy with his teaching that these single mothers should be helped to home educate their children and be provided for so they do not have to join the outside-the-home workforce but there is simply no way it can be said that Doug Phillips himself does not have compassion for these women in crisis situations. He desires to see the Church fully functioning as it should to aid and protect them.
Four years ago, my own “patriarchal” (in quotes only because the only label I prefer to wear is that of “Christian”) husband executed the rescue of a woman in a dangerous marriage, along with her four children. He drove a total of six hours one day to rescue the family straight from their doorstep, then bring them safely to our home, where they lived with us for three months while the situation was being remedied and the couple was receiving intensive biblical counseling. (The woman’s husband eventually completely abandoned his family and my husband offered to house the woman and her children in their own mobile home {temporarily, with the intention of building them a small cottage} on our land so they could continue to be helped and protected.)
My husband has also been directly involved with many other efforts, large and small, to help hurting families and the poor and needy but he would be uncomfortable with me specifying them in a public forum as this.
The Bauchams themselves have adopted children who were at risk of being aborted. The Botkins have been involved with efforts to stop human trafficking in Bangkok, to get young ladies permanently off the streets and out of the clubs — to safety and to hear the message of Salvation through Jesus. And these are only my own husband, Doug Phillips, Voddie Baucham and Geoffrey Botkin I am mentioning. There are so many more patriarchy-espousing families and family-integrated fellowships out there working to make a difference in the lives of the least of these, with the love and message of salvation through Jesus at the heart of it all.
May no one imply there is a shortage of compassion among those in the patriarchy “movement”. That is false and is a gross mischaracterization.
Someone in the comments here also planted the seed that if person who did not necessarily embrace patriarchal thinking visited Boerne Christian Assembly, that they would be “shown the door”. How wrong. I’ve seen the people of BCA go above and beyond to show hospitality to visitors. At the very least, all guests who are there to genuinely visit and fellowship (and not to cause some kind of physical harm or blatant disruption — in which cases I cannot speak for how the elders there would handle those situations) are sweetly welcomed, well attended to and given first preference in the luncheon line. The people of Boerne Christian Assembly are some of the most gracious and genuine Believers I’ve ever met and known.
Some will say it’s not necessary for me to comment on this and that I’m wasting my time but my conscience does not allow me to be silent while God-fearing Christians are being maligned.
I need to run. My normal responsibilities beckon.
(Blessings to you, Amy.)
Humbly and with a heavy heart,
Ruthanne
November 19th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“If we, at any stage, say God’s word is irrelevant because it was a cultural issue, or whatever, we are taking away from God’s Word.”
No one is saying it is irrelevant. It is important to understand the intended meaning, however.
For example, when we do not practice the holy kiss today, though it is commanded in the NT five or six times, we are not making God’s word irrelevent. We are accurately understanding that the literal application was meant for those in a specific culture (and yet the broader meeting—greet eachother warmly—still applies to all Christians today).
In the same way, it seems like it would be disrespectful to the Scriptures to demand that all believers give each other a holy kiss upon meeting, because “the Bible says so.” To demand such would mean that we were not treating the word of God respectfully, in that we were not taking pains to accurately interpret it according to the context it was written in.
We must treat the word of God with respect. This includes seeking to interpret it as best as we can.
Since Paul was writing to a culture that (literally, in their legal code) commanded the subjection of wives to their husbands, it seems like it is a respectful question to ask when we wonder whether or not all-wives-in-all-times-and-cultures were being commanded to be under their husband’s authority, or if Paul was writing to the wives who were *already* commanded to be under their husband’s authority, and modifying that earthly legal authority with a specific command that was NOT in the legal code: that is, husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church.
To the people reading the original letter, wifely submission was already the practice. It wasn’t an option—it was the law. But reading that husbands were to love their wives as their own selves???? That was some radical stuff.
What man, if he loves himself, would want to put himself in total subjection to another human being?
Very very few men would willingly and actively choose to do that. So if husbnads were commanded to love their wives as their own selves, I’m thinking Paul didn’t have in mind for Christian husbands to be ruling over their wives. In fact, the example Paul gave us, Christ, pulled his lower-ranked wife up *with* Him, to rule and reign with Him, just a few chapters earlier (see Ephesians 2, where we are told that Christ lifted us up and seated us in heavenly places *with* Him, to rule over all the other things–end of Eph. 1, *with* Him).
So, yes, wives are supposed to be in subjection to their husbands, just as slaves were supposed to obey their masters. This was the law of the land. But if we refrain from taking into account that these “Scriptural commands” were literally the legal code of the day, we miss out, bigtime, when it comes to interpreting Christ’s will for us.
I believe that in order to respect and honor the Scriptures, we HAVE to take into account who they were written to and what the cultural backdrop was.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
In my comment (#189), there was not supposed to be a winking face after the word “Christian”.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
“Absolutely and that is exactly why I reject these extra-biblical teachings. BTW, Marita, I have given you plenty of references and context if you have an ear to hear.
I have an ear. But not out of context.
“There is no reason for me to try to distill the body of research into a soundbite.”
If you are willing to accuse people, you will have to back it up. If you don’t, it equates to slander and we cannot believe you.
BTW, where did these women who traveled with Jesus get their substance? Did they all have large inheritances to spend? Is that likely?”
The Bible does not say, but neither does it state anything *financially*. Be careful to add to God’s Word.
Respectfully
November 19th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
“Absolutely and that is exactly why I reject these extra-biblical teachings. BTW, Marita, I have given you plenty of references and context if you have an ear to hear.
I have an ear. But not out of context.
“There is no reason for me to try to distill the body of research into a soundbite.”
If you are willing to accuse people, you will have to back it up. If you don’t, it equates to slander and cannot be believed.
BTW, where did these women who traveled with Jesus get their substance? Did they all have large inheritances to spend? Is that likely?”
The Bible does not say, but neither does it state anything *financially*. Be careful to add to God’s Word.
Respectfully
November 19th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
#186 – there is truth there. I for one enjoyed listening to Voddie in the past. I owned a couple of his books and read his blog when I saw something of interest. I have read Jasmine’s blog once in awhile as well. For him to classify me as those who wish him harm is ludicrous. If you put something out in the world whether by book, tape, DVD or blog then you better expect people to have questions for you. To say because I was concerned with the wording of one of his sermons that I am a gossip mongering and committing sin tells me something about his character. The Bible says to test all things according to the Word of God. That is all my intention was.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Margaret,
Dear sister….your comment is exactly why conversations like this won’t let me turn away. The subtlety of misinformation and exaggeration leave some women “confused” at best and doubting where there is no reason. Go to the source!!!
You said:
“I suppose we have just never gotten deeply enough into any particular church or ministry to hear that women must *never* work, that husband’s can do whatever they want with no repurcussions, that higher education is a complete no-no for girls, and that there is never a situation in which a wife should call out her husband on his sin.”
These are exaggerated claims that either have been taken out of context or are outright wrong.
The men “on the stand” here would be outraged (thus Baucham’s “emotional” response) that it was assumed they taught that women must stay with husbands that “can do whatever they want”. For one, most of these churches are one of the FEW that have a safety net built into church membership that actually protects women from such a thing, where so many other churches have to look away.
They all also espouse that higher education for girls is VERY important! (There is a whole chapter devoted to it in the Botkins book). The suggestion is that college is not the only way (and perhaps not the best way) for anyone to achieve it. There are far easier, cheaper and more superior forms of learning. That’s their point.
Anyone discussing women working outside the home hold to a solid interpretation of Titus 2. And in order to uphold that teaching, these ministries are actively seeking ways to make it as easy as possible for women–abandoned, widowed, any station–not to have the burden of working outside the home. An honest look at Scripture reveals the burden and it is nothing short of admirable that someone is trying to restore the home from the wreckage of feminism.
Please don’t get your cues from these kinds of discussions. They are subtly deceiving.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Oh – I meant to ask as a question as well. How does Timothy’s mother and grandmother know how to raise in with God’s Word if they didn’t study it for themselves? I don’t even pretend to know the Bible as well as some of you do. Were they raised under parents who loved God therefore they were taught it as children? Or did they have to learn it on their own? It is a honest question I had while reading some of the comments here.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Correction: I meant “explanations in Rom 16:7 of why Junia either isn’t a woman or isn’t an apostle.”
November 19th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I was just responding to the comment about Beth Moore. I haven’t attended her studies or Sunday School Class since I got married 6 years ago and switched to my husband’s church, but at the time I attended, men did attend her class. She never set out to teach men, but they’d come. She didn’t refuse to teach them. I think she figured it was between them and God. It would be authoritative to say she wouldn’t allow them to listen, I suppose. The church was Southern Baptist and I don’t remember them having many firm stances against such things.
Humerously, I once invited my now husband to attend the class with me to just once hear a woman who was influential in my walk. He couldn’t stand it. It was too emotional and not organized enough for his type A, orderly, very masculine mind.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Marita,
Any respected Bible scholar understands it to mean that these women were supporting Jesus’ ministry.
Also, a very quick and simple look at the Greek word would tell you that these women were the financial backing behind His ministry and that is exactly what this verse was saying.
The Greek word for means/substance is hyparchonta. It means possessions, goods, wealth, property. That took me two seconds to look up probably shorter than it did for you to accuse Karen of slander and adding to God’s word.
And, since the Bible states that they were ministered unto Jesus with their wealth, then it is possible. The Bible also tells us to be careful not to subtract from God’s Word.
Mt. 19:21, Mt 24:47, Mt 25:47, Luke 11:21, etc ALL use this Greek word and they all refer to money, wealth, goods, etc.
And, the Bible tells us that they supported Jesus “out of their OWN means”. You see the word “their”? Well, that means it BELONGED to them. You see the word “own”? That means it BELONGED to them.
Also, where did the Proverbs 31 woman get her own means? From considering a field and buying it!!! She also was industrious and sold her products. Why is it such a stretch to think that there were not women who had their own wealth, even when the Bible tells us of many such women?
Taking the Word at face value, it seems that you are being purposefully argumentative with Karen. You didn’t know of such a verse until it was shown to you and said that it was not in your Bible. Now that you are shown that it is in the Bible you are continuing to argue with the plain meaning of what it says.
Women, single and married, traveled with Jesus and gave Him money in order to support His ministry.
They were not there to work on the chuck-wagon or to wash their clothes, that was not the main thing they were doing. They were the financial backbone. Not saying they didn’t do those things but why is it so hard to believe that women have their own means and they travel and that they decide how their money is spent? I suppose if it said that women baked pies and did laundry for the disciples it would sit better with some people and that statement would have went unchallenged and people would have assumed it WAS in the Bible.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Ruthanne Shepherd,
I apologize for not keeping us better focused. The comments are coming faster than I can read them.
You didn’t see it, but I pointed out earlier that Jasmine warmly invited us to her church.
I would agree with you on the two points you mentioned, and I’m going to ask everyone –again– that we stick to direct quotes and teachings and avoid inferring motive. Patriarchs will welcome that sort of dissection. It will stand if it is the truth.
Ruthanne, I asked Doug Phillips for clarification on something he said that concerned me many years ago (as member of the movement, not as one looking to destroy him), but my letter was left unanswered. I can say that because I’m not an internet assassin. You know that. People are asking questions because they are not getting answers from the source.
I applaud Dr. B for responding, even if we disagree. (If a man were looking for attention, he’d go to the old folks’ home. Old ladies give lots of attention. Daughters have no business meeting the needs of their fathers. But to be fair, I think this is a theological disagreement I have with Dr. B, not a personal one. He is raising a lovely daughter. I also disagree with his book title, Family Driven Faith, as opposed to Gospel Driven Faith and wonder if he’d be comfortable with Church Driven Faith since it, too, is a biblical institution? I think this is a gross theological error, even if the content is generally agreeable.)
I’m a liberal when it comes to internet comments, because I think truth speaks for itself. However, I will try to do a better job in keeping us focused, however, avoiding the game of trump the story/example.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
“The men “on the stand” here would be outraged (thus Baucham’s “emotional” response) that it was assumed they taught that women must stay with husbands that “can do whatever they want”. ”
Uh, Kelly, he wasn’t responding to Margaret’s statement, he was responding to a very simple and reasonable and rational question to clarify his statement that men who yearn for younger women should understand that this is why God gave them daughters in order to receive that attention.
His emotional response and vitriolic rhetoric is not understandable at all and it is highly unscholarly and completely out of line.
A calm, rational explanation would have sufficed but red herrings and emotional appeals for sympathy and accusing others of gossip, slander and libel do wonders for those who have a large following.
The message is: Don’t question my teachings or you are and belong to a group of people who are a bunch of gossiping, libelous, hateful, slanderous people who would stop at nothing, not even death threats, to ruin my ministry and discredit me, a righteous person who only has the purest of motives.
To ask a question is to impugn one’s self with all sorts of nasty motives.
Right from the playbook.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Amy, I decided to respond to Mr. Baucham’s statement on my own blog since it is way too long for a comment here. I am sure you are grateful! :)
http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3413
November 19th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
“Ruthanne, I asked Doug Phillips for clarification on something he said that concerned me many years ago (as member of the movement, not as one looking to destroy him), but my letter was left unanswered. I can say that because I’m not an internet assassin. You know that. People are asking questions because they are not getting answers from the source.”
My husband wrote a long letter to Doug Phillips asking for clarification on some things last year. At the time my husband was pastoring our family-integrated church. He sent a copy of the letter to Voddie Baucham and Voddie responded promptly. Doug had an assistant respond saying Doug would get back to us and then Doug never did. We followed up again and heard nothing.
That is why I applaud Voddie for being willing to keep communication open with those whom he seeks to teach through the material he sells. I may not always agree with him and I may not like the tone of his response but I am grateful that he does not ignore the hard questions.
As for Botkin and Phillips I call on them to step up to the plate as Voddie has and speak with those to whom they market their material. Respond to letters from honest, God-fearing Christians like my husband. My husband’s letter was respectful and praised Doug for some of the things he has accomplished. Doug chose to ignore it. If anyone would like to see a copy of the letter please feel free to email me at hendersonfamily4@yahoo.com or go to my blog http://www.old-fashionedmusings.blogspot.com.
Again I applaud Voddie both for responding to this issue on his blog today and for answering my husband’s letter last year eventhough it was directed at Doug. I don’t agree with Mr. Baucham in this one area but he has my respect for responding.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
(for the record, after the first 135 comments I only skimmed, so I apologize if I’m being repetative here)
Regarding Dr. Bauchum –
1.It appears to be in a clip that is not the whole speach, so we seem to be missing some context.
2. He appears to be speaking about a “Lot of men,” and not all men.
3. He appears to be speaking of men with daughters (re: Terry #141, Holly #123) who have begun to (literally!) push away said daughters based on a misunderstanding of what love is (limited to sex and sentuality).
- I can understand people asking “where does it say this in the scripture?” It is a wise question. But NOT being in scripture dosen’t automatically make it false. A pastor can also observe that “A lot of men” like to drive really fast, and because they do so in the wrong environment, a lot of people get hurt. That is not in the Bible, it is an observation, but it may very well be a truth that some men need to hear.
- I also do not think he says a father and daughter (when a father has a daughter – he appears to be speaking about fathers with daughters) must physically show affection (though I personally think that is biblical, a “holy kiss” at least). But that they shouldn’t be pushing her away. So while Darcy (#125)was allowed to make her physical limitations on physical affection, some daughters are not allowed that. Some are pushed away from their fathers much too early.
-To David (#131), I don’t think Baucham is saying that a man should long for his daughter’s attentions over her mother’s attentions. He appears to be saying that a man with a daughter should be willing to express love with some physical affection (a hug, a peck on the cheek, what the two both find encouraging – in his particular family that means still cuddling). And that father should want attention from his daughter. We could describe that attention as honor, kindness, etc. A lot of men who have pushed away their daughter’s need for some physical affection, and those men who do not get (godly) attention from their daughter might stray (I’m imagining a man who has begun to get perfectly normal, moral attention from a young lady, who then proceeds to seek out her attention, then becomes imorally attracted to her in a sexual way because she in fact is not his daughter, she is a pretty little thing not related to him, who has come to think of him in flattering ways). Of course Bauchum’s dealing with men who are weaker in a certain way, not all men (“a lot of men” in his opinion). I suspect the other men will get a talk geared toward them another time.
I’m not saying that I’m in agreement with him. I’ve honestly not thought about that angle of the family paradigm very much. It seems both reasonable and far-fetched to me at this time (the straying part). I’m just trying to clear up some of what he didn’t say. He seems to be an upright man, and I hate that an honorable man’s words should be so misconstrued (Corrie #110).
November 19th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
We just received our VF catalog, and alarm bells went off in my head when one of the listed roles of a patriarch in one of their product blurbs was “home manager.” Seems likes that’s a pretty obvious error that shouldn’t have made it past the editing process. The Bible expressly says the wife is the home manager.
Also, it was interesting looking at it after reading comments here; they definitely do use the word “movement” to describe themselves multiple times throughout the catalog.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Ah, I’m back from using my financial means to procure sustenance for my family. :)
Don’t be too quick to throw the word “slander” around, ladies. I mentioned no names, I was simply referring to the concept that Dr. Baucham’s theology was “spot on,” and the quickness with which we say that “some women think they are abused if they are not allowed to have television.” Someone MAY be theologically “spot on,” but we not able to hear the distress cry of women who have been in abusive marriages. Maybe we are too quick to ignore or downplay the abuse. My father physically abused my mother, and she never told a soul. He was a pastor. Who could she have told? Who would have helped her? She would have been told to go back home, and she knew that. That was a woman’s place. Rather, she stayed in an abusive marriage and is still there. She, without hope, raised her children in abuse – with deep scars. My mother is not alone. My inbox has received many letters over the years from women who had husbands with perfect theology, who were treating their wives horribly. My comments were broad, to churches in general, not to patriarchs in particular. Get the theology wrong, but miss God’s heart, and your theology really does you no good. That’s all I was saying.
One other thing I have noticed amongst we who are Christians. Please take note that I said “Christians,” not “Patriarchs.” We tend to view any discussion, any questions, as PERSECUTION. I think that is an overblown view. Maybe we are being questioned because our statements make people very cautious and concerned. That’s not persecution. That’s a call for us to re-examine our beliefs.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Okay. After thinking for, oh, about two minutes, I just want to come back and say that I don’t really want or like discord. I love and care for all of you – I think that is what we are supposed to do and be as believers. I jumped into this conversation because I see some really bad things coming about through hard patriarchy. I have had several women tell me, too, that they are truly repelled from Christ because of these hard-core rules and doctrines. I think that hard patriarchy is extra-biblical. I think patriocentrism is damaging to the gospel. It is concern, born out of love for men, women and children, that compels me to speak up.
For the longest time, I said nothing. My opinion was that, “Hey, they support the family. Let’s just leave ‘em alone.” And I did. But now I see the very real damage. It needs to be addressed.
The bottom line here is that I care about you. I will pray for you. I think there is plenty of information here for men and women to consider regarding patriarchy, to make their own choices (where they are able.) Most decisions are not made because someone “badgered” another into the choice. Most decisions, I think, come about because God begins to work in our hearts – to call us to a different way of loving and living.
So – there you go. Best wishes – and love and prayers to you all, on both sides of the aisle. Let God work in your hearts!
November 19th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Oh no! B-A-U-C-H-A-M! I’m so sorry for misspelling his name!
November 19th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I’m in full accord with that, Holly. There are so many areas of Christian thought that are “agree to disagree” areas, in my book. I think that giving each other the space to find our own path is generally a GOOD thing, because as long as the general parameters are kept (love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, etc) we can smile on each other with warmth as we seek to know and show Christ, even if one of us worships in a Baptist church, one in a Presbyterian, and one in a home-church. “Let’s keep the main thing, the main thing,” and “Don’t major on the minors,” are generally great pieces of advice. :)
However, there are some areas where it’s not okay to “agree to disagree.” For example, Paul spoke very strongly in the book of Galatians about what happens to the Gospel when something is added to it (see Gal. 4 and 5).
Just a little bit of the Law, just a little bit of “righteousness-by-works” is emphatically NOT okay. To be a Christian, you put your faith in Christ *and* you get circumcised? Nope, not okay. To be a Christian, you put your faith in Christ *and* you become a stay-at-home daughter? Nope, not okay. To be a Christian, you put your faith in Christ *and* you homeschool your children? Nope, not okay.
Just as we err when we fall off the side of fleshly and carnal sin (which many here have aptly pointed out is dangerous), we equally err when we fall off the other side of the path, into legalism, law-keeping and rule-making.
The problem is that the carnal side is much easier to spot. The rule-keeping side, on the other hand, almost blends right in… Plus, it FEELS so good to be so holy, so devoted, to have such strong standards, to be “Right!”
When we deviate from a pure and simple devotion to Christ, we LOSE. When we add things to what should be a pure and simple devotion to Christ, we lose. And when we tell others that they must add things to that pure and simple devotion to Christ, we are, in effect, asking for a millstone to be put around our neck, because we are causing our brothers and sisters to stumble, and that’s a BIG DEAL.
There was little mercy offered to those who put cause the young to stumble. The millstone was considered merciful (“Better for them to have a millstone put around their neck than to offend one of these little ones…”)! Adding burdens to the liberating Gospel of Christ…BIG no-no.
For my part, I have repented of my role in giving chains to Christians that Christ died to liberate. I was wrong. My counsel and advice, as a biblical patriarchy advocate, hurt others. I wish there was some way I could go back and undo the harm I helped cause by teaching and promoting the bibical patriarchy worldview. It hurt others. Such teachings helped destroy my own family, too.
Was my (spiritually and psychologically) abusive husband treating me as Christ loved the church? No. But what did biblical patriarchy do for me, the wife married to an abuser? It chained me to the abuser.
It taught me that the way I viewed my husband was the way I viewed God, the way I obeyed my husband was the way I obeyed God (see Debi Pearl, CTBHH). It taught me that I had one appeal, and after that, must submit (The Excellent Wife, Martha Peace)…to a control freak, which is exactly what I did. It taught me that I was as a field to my husband, that he was the farmer who would decide what my field grew, and how, and when (Reforming Marriage, Douglas Wilson), so in that sense, how could I even know that my husband was abusive? Didn’t he have the right to control all aspects of my life? The books called that godly, not abusive.
It told me that my husband would sometimes have to be firm with me and that my role was to submit, even if I didn’t want to, that he was godly when he was firm and demanded obedience, and that I was to trust that he was hearing from God and/or obey even if he wasn’t, so that he could have the opportunity to better learn how to hear from God next time(Family Man, Family Leader, P. Lancaster).
It taught me that, when in doubt, trust my husband’s thoughts over myself, because I am a woman and the fall made me have “extra” rebellion in my heart and made me less trustworthy than he was (CBMW’s Handbook for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood). In fact, it said that a woman making a choice without first asking her husband’s permission was what brought down the entire human race (CBMW’s handbook, again)! It taught me that checking my daily schedule with my husband and asking for his approval and permission for all my duties and activities was GODLY (Managers of Their Homes), so how was I to know it was abuse for my husband to want to know my daily activities and grant permission (or not) for each one of them, when it was touted as a wise and godly action?
It taught me that submission will change a man’s heart, and that if I am being abused but am a woman of faith, I will stay and I will obey all manner of outrageous requests, cheerfully and joyfully (Debi Pearl, CTBHH, and so many more books like that) and my husband will likely be changed. Shall I go on?
Much has been made here about how abusive husband’s aren’t obeying the dictates of Biblical Patriarchy. The point is, *I* was. And so were the other wives married to abusers. What help did biblical patriarchy give us? Nothing. Negative help. It helped us make our situations even WORSE. Behavioral Psychology has amply proven that when you reward a behavior, it increases. When you reward abusive behavior, it increases. Biblical patriarchy also took away MY right to have a brain, to use my brain, to consider that my thoughts and emotions about the insanity in my home might be VALID, that I had a right NOT to have my adult life controlled by a control freak, etc. In essence, the teachings of biblical patriarchy stripped me of my God-given power to not be destroyed. (And that’s not even getting into the effect on the quiver-full of children)… :(
In general, I think it’s wise and good to respect and appreciate our differences as we each pursue Christ. But there are some things that are not okay to ignore. Biblical patriarchy has a very destructive side with a fall-out that Christians simply cannot turn their heads to. I am so grateful for this conversation, one of many that have been happening already and that I pray will continue to happen.
The biblical patriarchy movement wants to hush this kind of thing up, and uses “fight” language to try and do so. For all of us, that should be a telling response. No one is trying to denegrate Christ here. On the contrary, we want to better understand who and what He wants of us, and how we can best live in His Spirit and represent Him to the world. When a theological paradigm has a fall-out like this one, it behooves us all to pay attention. I am also grateful for you, Amy, opening your blog to something like this. (((Thanks)))
November 19th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Oh, FPW, I agree with YOU! :) My comments should not be construed to mean a “agree to disagree” type of thing. Patriocentrism is damaging to a family. I think it is damaging to a man, because it sets him up and embues him with great power and no oversight. It’s damaging to women and their children.
What I meant was this: The reason so many of us are concerned is actually out a love for families, a love for the Gospel. It devastates us to so see the Gospel misconstrued in such (surface) pretty looking ways. But what drives me is love, not a desire to harm individuals. If they perceive my motives as slander or persecution, what can I do about that? Goodness. I don’t know.
The information about patriarchy is out there. It is available. It is available – via your words and the words of other brave women. There are options. There are choices. No family truly has to live like that. Christ brings freedom, not bondage. Freedom brings such joy and love, I wish that for everyone. That’s what I was hoping, that by saying the information is available, that some woman UNWILLINGLY trapped in patriocentrism might read my words, search it out,learn for herself, and begin to experience joy and freedom. That’s all.
I do believe it is up to those who have experienced the detriments of patriocentricity to continue to call the leaders of the movement to accountability for their words and for the ramifications of their philosophies. I believe that churches and peers of these men need to hold them accountable, to keep them from the mainstream, to warn their congregations such as the letter Amy linked to above. Continue to tell your stories, continue to make the information available. Continue to offer hope and a future with Christ as the only Lord and Master.
I feel helpless to do anything myself, rather than to love and to pray for Christ to bring truth to the forefront.
November 19th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
“The information about patriarchy is out there. It is available. It is available – via your words and the words of other brave women.”
Not just women take a look at http://www.patriarchy.org to see what a lot of Christian men, some pastors, are saying about this movement.
November 19th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
(((Holly))) I meant my comment to be in support of your comment. Sorry for the confusion. I totally hear ya and agree. :)
November 19th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Lori @204 -
I’ve read Voddie’s post and I understand that he’s also talking about secular men who chase after young women, but the statement still concerns me:
“A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who could give them that.”
Even so, even with the wider context of the whole sermon beyond what Rick transcribed in 121, there’s still the confusion of what he means by “God gave them a daughter who could give them that.” If it’s just attention as in “conversation and respect”, fine. But his statement is attached to the concept of a man leaving his >wife< for a younger woman. That can only be taken as infidelity, and for a daughter to somehow fulfill part of that for her daddy is not Biblical. In fact it should be unnamed among you (I Cor 5:1).
If Voddie misspoke, then he should humbly clarify it. Clearly. But in my view he did not clarify what he spoke. Words have meaning, and I can't get beyond the basic structure of those words.
I do agree that fathers and daughters are to have an appropriate amount of affection, and I couldn't agree with you more.
But these two consecutive sentences spoken by Voddie seem to imply more. I'm sure Voddie has many good things he shares with people, but this one has me puzzled, and his explanation seems lacking in clarification. And there's no scripture to be found. But there's plenty of psychology being mentioned.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
FPW, I know! :) I just didn’t want anyone to think that I think this is a casual issue. I think it tampers with the furtherance of the Gospel. It takes a good thing (family,) and makes it into the main thing. That’s what makes it so difficult to see through. We all love our family and we want our families to turn out well – and maybe, just maybe, if we control it all well enough they will. Most of us seek a formula at some point. Formulas don’t work forever, though, when it comes to relationships.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Amy, I had one more thought that I wanted to share here regarding the teachings within patriocentricity.
One of the common notions we continue to hear about from this movement and that Voddie included in his blog article yesterday is the idea that whenever a public figure has his teachings questioned or challenged, it must begin with a Matthew 18 process. That idea has been picked up and written about on dozens of blogs with little understanding of what a Matthew 18 process actually involves, when it is to be used, and what the final outcome will be. It all sounds so spiritual but, in reality, has nothing whatsoever to do with publicly challenging public teachings.
I wrote an article about this a couple years ago after being admonished by someone whose public teachings I had challenged on my blog. I thought it might offer some food for thought for your readers who might be tempted to accept Voddie’s statement on applying Matthew 18 without thinking it through themselves.
http://www.thatmom.com/?page_id=2677
November 20th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Well, Karen, there are some of “these women” (aka “Patriarch Hunters”) who have written him directly and asked him and received no answer. And this was well BEFORE the discussion came up on Amy’s blog. So, his comment was, imho, smoke and mirrors.
These people may claim MT 18 but they have been written, privately, and they do not respond. The only response I have gotten for writing some of these teachers (not VB but others in his circle), PRIVATELY, was threats of legal action.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:08 am
It’s not really such a hard question, is it? “What is your scriptural support for men having a need for attention from younger women?”
Scripture tells us, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” Sadly, Mr. Baucham has not only refused to answer such a simple request, but has gone on the attack instead.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:26 am
The writer of the article raises some excellent questions for discussion. Like, why do some believe that you can take novice believers, give them all the power and expect good things to come from it? The church is warned about doing that when it comes to elders and deacons, why do they not think about it with families, especially, when they see each family as its own unit and not part of the whole church in many cases. Which brings up another question. Why all the isolation? Why do they think this is a good thing that these men have NO accountability whatsoever? Most have a big problem with government intrusion, so what do they say to Gen. 20 where a foreign king rebukes Abraham for his sin?
I do believe some, out of the best intentions, embrace patriarchy because they are trying to protect their families and live godly lives. But these are probably also the men who realize that with power comes great responsibility and they are humble and servant like. The problem comes when you treat every situation as a one size fits all, and take a general principle and a interprete it to mean very, very specific things. Bondage comes in, not the freedom that is in Christ.
Our family dynamic sounds a lot like Amy’s. We believe that a wife submits. But we have the freedom in Christ to decide how to best reach decision, how to divy up responsibilities. I always have a voice. It is always listened to and valued. It is very often followed. Mostly, I don’t have to use it because the heart of my husband safely trust in me, so I make most of the decisions. The women described in the article had no voice, they were told it was Biblical to have no voice, they were told it was rebellious and sinful for them use their voice and that they were not to be trusted.
November 20th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
For the record, dearest, I would like you to debate theology WHILE making me cookies.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
#218 — I think that’s a comment that will bring a smile to all of our faces. : )
November 20th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
http://www.boundless.org/2005/answers/a0001982.cfm
The teachings that effectively tie the hands and feet of God-fearing women married to abusive controlling men are not only taught to them by the “biblical patriarchy” movement. The complementarian camp is just as bad, in many ways (at least the strict comp side is). The article above, from a focus on the family site, is an example. I am a wife who’s husband made all the decisions that this article above said he had the right to make, which were essentially every major and minor decision involving my life and my health and my activities and the way I looked and…
Him making all those decisions for me (in some cases, at the risk of my life, and in one instance, I did almost die, but for a miracle in surgery) was NOT ever considered wrong or sinful, but his biblical prerogative. Whether he wanted to include me in those decisions or not, that was up to him. Most of the time, he did not.
The teachings of biblical patriarchy and complementarianism stripped me of my power to say no. The only way I could say no was if I wanted to leave God and join Satan (they said)….and because I loved God, I stayed…and was deeply damaged in the process.
How was I to know I was being abused, with teachings like the above? How was anyone in our camp to know that his behavior was abuse, with mainstream groups like focus on the family advocating the above? No wonder, the one time I went for help in the church (to a wise and mature older couple who espoused Piper’s views on gender roles) and “told all,” no one helped me. I was counseled to think of marriage as a means of holiness, not happiness, and “keep on keeping on,” and my husband was encouraged to keep on leading the home. I didn’t tell anyone anything else for another couple years. Why. What would have been the point?
The teachings of this camp effectively blinded those who should have been the first to tell me that something was very sick in my marriage and that we needed SERIOUS help. We later got help, from the world. My husband spent some time in a mental hospital. I spent some time realizing it was past “that bad.” The counselors were furious that it had been THAT bad for that long and that the church counselors hadn’t realized it. They were angry, and yet they said they’d seen it before and sadly weren’t surprised. I wasn’t the only woman slowly destroyed by a patriarchal belief system that they’d seen… :(
It was so hard to hear…so shocking. It was bad…As I began healing and learning how to think again, I slowly began realizing that it was past “bad.” Yet if it was that bad, how come the church didn’t see it before? Why wasn’t the church able to help us? Why did the church’s “help” only harm us?
I know why. Because the comp/patriarchy teachings like those espoused in the article above blinded their eyes. Did they have good intentions? Yes. Destructive results, all the same. Good intentions only go so far. In the end, when your good intentions leave a trail of broken and bleeding bodies, it doesn’t really matter if you say your intentions were good and you were “right.” Apparently, you weren’t as “right” as you thought you were.
The person Jesus lauded wasn’t the one hurrying along the road intent on his agenda. The person Jesus lauded was the one who stopped, who laid aside his agenda to pick up the bloody beaten man and bring him back to health. That’s what matters in the end. If you love the people who are messy and bleeding, or if you just love your righteous agenda.
Now…I’ll take some of Amy’s cookies, please. :)
November 20th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
FPW said:
“I was counseled to think of marriage as a means of holiness, not happiness, and “keep on keeping on,” and my husband was encouraged to keep on leading the home. I didn’t tell anyone anything else for another couple years. Why. What would have been the point?”
May I just say that when I read this I simultaneously felt my heart break and my stomach turn? I am so, so sorry for what you went through. It literally brings tears to my eyes.
From the article you linked to (and I’m not addressing these to you, FPW, but the general discussion)… I simply cannot imagine making any of those decisions listed in the article without being in complete agreement with my husband. If we were not in agreement about one of those issues, we just would not make a decision until we were. I simply don’t get the whole “man gets the deciding vote” view of marriage.
I think the author makes some excellent points later in the article about it being more an issue of spiritual maturity if a couple is not able to be in agreement when making decisions. If a couple is in a healthy marriage and loving one another and building a life together in Christ, I just don’t see why there should be constant friction when making choices.
For what it is worth… there has only been one time my husband and I were in total, complete disagreement about what to do in a situation and we could not agree. (Well, actually we were engaged at the time.) I “submitted” and we did it his way. He was wrong and he will tell you so. He trusts my intuition and I trust his desire to protect me. We bend over backwards to give each other the benefit of the doubt. And it works without needing any deciding votes.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
http://skfcounseling.com
By the way (hope this is okay, Amy), on a more proactive tangent, this is an address to a highly recommended Christian counseling program (distance counseling is available) for women in spiritually (and otherwise) abusive situations, a program where the counselor has a very thorough understanding of the patriarchy teachings and how they are used in the hands of an abusive leader…and more importantly, how to help the abused person heal and recover and be able to stand again.
Sallie,
thanks for your understanding.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
“I “submitted” and we did it his way. He was wrong and he will tell you so. He trusts my intuition and I trust his desire to protect me.”
And this is what has happened in our family too at times, even though I have no need to reject submission or insist on a perfectly equal balance of decision-making. Because I chose to submit instead of fight him on the issue, my husband was open to seeing that he *was* wrong, and he had to take *full* responsibility for it. :) He didn’t learn to trust my intuition by me fighting him and insisting that he was wrong, wrong, wrong.
My husband has led our family in directions that I would not have chosen on my own. Sometimes, his “deciding vote” has been wrong, and he’s acknowledged it, and sought my input more and more as the years go by and youthful enthusiasm is replaced by wisdom. Most times, although we end up in a different place than I would have directed myself too, it has been good leading. And though we may have differences in preference and opinion on some things, the fact is my husband has *never* led us in a sinful direction (and never asked me to sin or used his authority as an excuse to sin), and *never* made a decision without considering it’s impact on our family, and has always taken full responsibility for his mistakes and shared with me the credit for his successes.
I will give an example: My husband wanted to move towards a goal of being financially independant, and having a home business that would provide for us and allow his sons to work with him. I fought him for months on it. Cried and moaned and complained and wailed. Why not just seek out a job that would be boring but steady work for the next 30 years? Why not look for something that’s an easy 9-5 schedule for me to work around? Why did he “need to be free”? Didn’t he care about my feelings (boo-hoo, break out the violins!) I totally didn’t get it and spent a lot of time trying to get him to understand how crazy and irresponsible he was for even considering the investment we were about to make. He tried, and tried and tried to explain to me why this would be a benefit to our family in the long run, and why a small risk now would pay off in the future. He held off as long as he could, hoping I would come around. All I could see was my “ideal” cozy white-picket fence dream being crushed by his stupid maleness. I’m not sounding very good am I? Well, I wasn’t pleasant to live with.
He did “make the final decision” and move ahead with that investment. He *also* continued working a full-time job to provide me with the security I insisted I needed. He did not “veto” my feelings even though he probably thought I was a little nutty at that point. Although he led and I submitted, he sacrificed himself *greatly* to make sure that his leadership was not a hardship for me. There were ups and downs along the way with the business, but he never laid any of the stress on me, took it all on himself, did all the work himself, and then handed me his paychecks and his hard earned second income. The result of his leadership is an income we can live on while he is a student this year, without me having to leave my babies. Because he is out of the country I have the ultimate responsibility for the business but he again sacrificed (a percentage of income which we didn’t need but he *really* wanted) to put the day to day workings in the hands of someone else, again so that I would not be burdened or distracted and taken away from my children by it.
Perhaps the difference between my husband and abusers of any stripe is that my husband actually fears God and understands that he is accountable to Judge of all judges for everything he says and does. No matter how holy an abuser thinks he is, his very actions tell the world that he has no fear of God in his heart. Absolutely the Church should call him out for such an attitude, and assist his wife. But that he takes wrongly what God has said, and twists it and uses it for his own sinful purposes does not mean that what God has said should be cut out of the Bible and thrown away.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Margaret said, “Perhaps the difference between my husband and abusers of any stripe is that my husband actually fears God and understands that he is accountable to Judge of all judges for everything he says and does. No matter how holy an abuser thinks he is, his very actions tell the world that he has no fear of God in his heart.”
Actually I know lots of controlling people and a few abusive types who are very devoted to God. In fact, sometimes I think the excessive fear of God can lead people to be more extreme.
The people who controlled me in my life all knew the Bible backwards and forwards and took it *very* literally. To me, that kind of abuse is the worst and quite frankly, I fear that the extreme patriarchal types can be far more damaging to families than your average run of the mill non-Christian abuser. These people kill the idea of God for their children. They taint what God is all about and what Jesus thinks of us. In my life, I had a father who “wisely” considered his punishments and set out to mete out those punishments with calmness and consideration. He was so extreme in his discipline and yet it was done with perfect calm and assurance that God approved. He would tell us that the Bible said to stone teenagers who didn’t respect parents. This kind of control is very dangerous. He’s repented of it now and has sought to reconcile with his children, but much of the damage has been done. And currently only 2 of his 5 children want to have anything to do with God.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
“Actually I know lots of controlling people and a few abusive types who are very devoted to God. In fact, sometimes I think the excessive fear of God can lead people to be more extreme.”
Being “devoted” to God (or religion, more accurately) is an entirely different thing from a healthy and righteous fear of God. Fearing hell is different from the kind of fear of God which the Bible calls the beginning of wisdom.
I, too, know lots of devoutly religious people who justified or hid abuse. My family went through years with a cult. I’m not unfamiliar with religious abuse.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Re: Margret in #223…
Maybe it is our older ages when we married (33 and 29), maybe our personalities, or something else. I don’t know what it is, but we just don’t have the need to “fight” about things. We may disagree initially when something comes up and we have to make a decision, but we talk about it, we pray about it, we discuss the pros and cons, and we communicate. Then we make a decision together. If we make a mistake, it is OUR mistake, made together as a couple.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
FPW, I have BIG issues with those in the church who refuse to see that there is any such thing as mental illness or imbalance. I have relatives who were told that their OCD is a result of sin and a lack of trust in God and that medication is not an option on the table for a believer. Yes, let’s kick them while they are down. Sin and the fall affected everything. For physical problems they will run to a doctor, but for brain/mental problems only the Bible will do. Now, I believe Scripture is sufficent, but I don’t believe it is a textbook for how to deal with all mental problems. We have accounts of depressed saints in the Bible, and there are many Scriptures that are a comfort, but why do we deny that there is anything medical, chemical, etc. going on there.
Sorry, just a point of frustration for me.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Sallie, it’s true, maybe we were just dumb young people. Entirely possible. :p
Or maybe you never ran into a situation where you were *completely* at odds and there was no coming to agreement without someone giving up their “right” to be right?
I don’t know. Probably, we were just stupid. ;)
November 21st, 2009 at 1:00 am
WHOA, Amy! I saw this when you first posted and had just a couple of comments. I made a mental note to come back and read later when I had time. 228 comments… I can’t believe it. I haven’t read them… got to overwhelmed, but I will have to later!
Interesting subject. I am sure my thoughts are simplistic. I just think God cares about the heart and the hearts of man and wife toward him and one another. I have many “partiarchal family” friends. Most of them are so sweet and have such sweet families that nothing in this article applies. I do know of one situation that I consider not very healthy… simply because the lifestyle of the couple seems very legalistic.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. If he leads us to have more than our 6 precious children, we will. We will be prayerful. I will respect and love my husband and pray daily to be his helpmeet. I praise him that He leads our family through our Spiritual head. I praise him that my husband trusts me and asks me my opinion about nearly everything. I am thankful that the Lord is showing me to let my strong willed self die on the rare occasion that we don’t agree. I thank him for Biblical guidelines He’s laid out in the Word and pray for wisdom to not be deceived.
November 21st, 2009 at 6:53 am
Margaret,
I never said anyone else was stupid so please don’t read something into my comment that wasn’t there. Getting married when we were older allowed the Lord to work on our spiritual maturity and such for a long time before we ever met and married. We were so thrilled to find each other and be married (FINALLY!!!) so all that preparation could be used in a real life situation. I do think the being older has been a great asset in our marriage. While some people marry younger and have the joy of experiencing growing together from their youth, my husband and I had the joy of being very ready for each other and marriage. Neither one is right or wrong. Just different ways that God works in bringing people together in marriage. But I can say with all confidence that David was much better off marrying the 29 year old me than he would have if he had married the 23 or 26 year old me. God changed me a lot in those years and I was a much better, more prepared wife and friend because of it.
Re: the right to be “right”… Our focus isn’t on the right to be right. Our focus is trying to make the best decision before the Lord given the knowledge we have of Him and His Word, our history with how He works in our lives (individually and as a couple), counsel from others (when helpful) and our individual preferences. That isn’t to say we don’t have very strong individual opinions at times. But we choose to work through the different aspects of the decision until we are ready to make a decision as a couple.
I hope that explains it a little better. :-)
November 21st, 2009 at 9:12 am
Sallie, that sounds like much the same that our marriage works! Thank you for sharing from your life. In my own marriage, there’s no power structure, no “need” to be right, no demanding, I’ve never had to stuff myself down and I’ve never had to make an appeal. We married at age 20, so I know that it was just God’s graciousness and goodness the put us together.
You know, WITHOUT the whole power structure (hierarchy)and authority and headship and such and WITH an assumption of mutuality and each person consistently thinking about “how can I love him better, or how can I serve him better,” things like rights and demands and self don’t even enter the picture. We are both just free to be whomever God calls us to be and we are allowed to flourish and build each other up. Our minds are free from concepts of submission and “stuffing down” and instead are filled with “how to build each other up.” That translates to our children, I find. They are only under authority for a short time. We long to build them up and encourage them so that they too can follow God fully WHEREVER He leads them. This is just how it works for us – and I love it. I can not imagine trying to deal with a power struggle with the man that I love!
I also want to state it is also entirely possible to build multigenerational faithfulness in an egalitarian marriage. It’s less about boundaries and rules and more about creating a loving home.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:14 am
FPW,
I am thinking about what you are saying.
I think complementarianism is the best way to describe what the Bible teaches, but I also realize that I may be viewing it through the experience of my own marriage.
My husband has never ordered me to do something, pulled out the trump card/cast the deciding vote, or required me to go along with something I didn’t support. Perhaps if he did, I’d tell him that I’d be happy to consent ….right after he started loving me and treating me as a sister in Christ. (But that sort of immaturity doesn’t make a marriage glorify God, of course.) I just can’t imagine a woman submitting to her husband’s orders, as that has a parent/child connotation, not a husband/wife.
I’ve always viewed my husband’s head-of-the-woman-is-man thing, as a man’s positional responsibility before God and not as a thing for him to wield against me. Sort of a “man up” thing that God requires. (And what woman wouldn’t want that?!)
If, say, my kids are in rebellion, then my husband needs to “own” that, not shirk responsibility, and generally, do a good job leading, protecting, and caring for his family as the person with the God-given testosterone. These things are the God-given use of the chemical. It is an observation from nature.
Greg thinks this all means I can never drive while he is riding in the passenger seat. “It’s a man thing.” He hates that, won’t allow it, and thinks I hug the side of the road too much. I’m happy to acquiesce, just so I don’t have to deal with the drama of him griping the dashboard.
In seriousness, I am thinking about this.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:15 am
“Re: the right to be “right”… Our focus isn’t on the right to be right. ”
It isn’t for us anymore, either.
But early in our marriage, I was *very* focused on making sure he didn’t “lord it over me”. He wasn’t, but I had been convinced that men are dangerous if you give them any leeway (in large part because of discussions like this), and saw any difference of opinion as him trying to push his own agenda. I didn’t consider that there could be any possibility of me not being right on any given issue.
I know you didn’t call me stupid. That’d be a term I’d apply to myself. ;)
Is it not possible to have a loving, God-honoring marriage where the husband leads and the wife submits, or are all such marriages abuser/abused relationships, in your opinion?
November 21st, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I’ve been reading the comments with interest over the past few days but haven’t responded. I don’t have much to add to the biblical analysis. But something has puzzled me for years about the common reasoning for wifely submission–that a home and marriage will dissolve into chaos and confusion if one person isn’t the ultimate authority.
I’ve been married for five years, which isn’t much in the grand scheme of things, but I’ve discussed this with my mother, who has been married for more than thirty years. I look up to my parents’ marriage as a great example of a Christian marriage. Both my mom and I agree that there hasn’t been one time in our marriages where we couldn’t come to an agreement with our spouses on a major (or lesser) decision.
This isn’t to say my marriage is perfect by any means (or my parents’, I’m sure), but my point is that not looking to my husband as the authority in decision-making has not led to confusion and chaos. Sure, some decisions are harder than others, and sometimes I let him take the lead whereas other times he lets me, with varying degrees of compromise, but always we come to agreement and support.
November 21st, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Margaret said:
“Is it not possible to have a loving, God-honoring marriage where the husband leads and the wife submits, or are all such marriages abuser/abused relationships, in your opinion?”
Absolutely it is possible! I have many friends who are in happy marriages like this and they believe they are doing what the Bible teaches. Notice I haven’t told anyone they are wrong to be complementarians or tried to convince anyone to change their convictions. I’ve simply tried to offer a different perspective.
Holly said:
“I also want to state it is also entirely possible to build multigenerational faithfulness in an egalitarian marriage. It’s less about boundaries and rules and more about creating a loving home.”
THANK YOU for making this point. I don’t understand why the hard core patriarchy folks think that somehow they have the corner on the market when it comes to desiring a godly legacy. It’s not like the desire to raise a godly lineage is some new thought. Pulease. How many millions of parents and grandparents have been praying this for centuries?
What does seem to be the new thought is thinking you can meticulously plan it out for 200 years. I wonder for ***some*** of the hard line multigenerational faithfulness people if it is more about feeling powerful and important that they can have this phenomenal lineage that will all trace back to ***them*** (because, of course, we all know that your children and grandchildren and so on will do exactly what you want them to do).
Since I only have one child (and one in heaven), there is a part of me that hopes she marries young and has babies right away so I can have time with my grandchildren. Being an older mom (by God’s plan, not mine), I wonder if I will ever have the opportunity to get to know my grandchildren. But God may have a completely different plan for her life. She may have no children in God’s plan for her life. But I believe my reward in heaven is not simply based on how many children and faithful descendants I have. My reward will be based on many, many more things such as people I’ve impacted for Christ throughout my life.
November 22nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Ok, so I read through ALL of Vyckie’s story- all 34 parts of it. It really disturbed me. As in, cannot sleep, feel weird, need to get out of the house with the kids kind of awful. So I read the original link in context with her whole story (and some more on her website).
I am sickened for he by what she went through as a child, what her kids went through growing up and her loss of faith at present. Not sickened as in disapprove, but that I am sorrowful for her and her kids and ex husbands. I liked her writing, and I like her analysis of her situation over the years. But I came away with two glaring themes: Vyckie was in control of everything, yet she didn’t think so. I’ve done this as well, so I am not trashing her here. She had to do so much, and it was always a matter of her thinking harder or working harder, or manipulating something or someone (namely her spouse) to get her family or herself in a better place. It’s sort of like no one else was responsible for much of anything (save Angel per her account). I cannot understand how that is Biblical. Yet she was convinced of God’s favor on her and was adamant God expressed this to her. So I don’t know how to explain that at present since she seems to not believe God at all.
Number two: This sweet family never stayed in one church long enough to get any accountability. Or perhaps there was NO accountability in the church to begin with? This wound up being the kiss of death for this sweet family! If there were no long term relationships to hold anyone accountable, who would know anything was awry? Who would know to call her spouse to the carpet and tell Vyckie she has to stop the crazy cycle and killing herself to do EVERYTHING? Her story resonated with me as I am apt to think I just need to work harder, smarter in order to get it all accomplished. To achieve awesome kids, to whatever. It is the age old idea that I am in control of everything. That I can directly determine the outcome of all things, if I just do it right.
Vyckie’s story broke my heart. Why didn’t someone intervene for her and tell her about the FREEDOM in Christ? Although I know folks did try to help, and make comments, and reach out to her daughter Angel. I can see where the some of the ladies from her former church reached out and tried to steer her away from the horrid home birth plan. Vyckie simply said all the right words and they believed it. Yet this is common with abused women (the stories I know). They become adept at telling others what they need to hear in order to be left alone.
Oh, Vyckie, I wish you could see the love, acceptance and freedom of Jesus after all of the abuse, all of the work and all of the heartache. All in all, thank you for your candor and for putting this out for all to see. This is completely new to me since I am part of a more moderate denomination and we don’t see this type of “family structure” (for lack of a better word that won’t incur wrath). I applaud you for your efforts to reach out to other hurting women who are in abusive situations. I venture to guess that you will continue to study and learn and grow. I hope you will give Jesus another chance. I hope your kids can heal from all the hurt, and I hope you a good life from here on out.
To Amy H: All aces linking to this.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:32 am
Though I’ve been reading this blog for a while and have enjoyed it very much, I don’t think I’ve ever left a message. I’ve been amazed at the number of reactions this theme has raised. I don’t know much of patriarchy, and have never seen it practiced (I am not in the US and do not know those circles). However, I’m surprised by the amount of things that have been said here that are relevant to experience -personal experience, or experiences of other families that have been witnessed. It seems to me that when we base our convictions first on experience, they aren’t necessarily also based on the word of God. It makes everything very subjective.
From the article linked here, I get the impression that patriarchy doesn’t allow the wife to ever “speak up”, share her insight on things, rebuke her husband, etc. I have gone through a Bible study called “The five aspects of womanhood” by B. Mouser which gives the biblical balance to all that. While it is complementarian, and supports wifely submission, it also shows (based on the book of Proverbs, especially the personification of Wisdom as a woman in chap 8, and culminating in Pr 31 with a “real-life” example) that God created women with a brain, and that she can use her God-given wisdom and intelligence to help her husband, advising him and even sometimes giving reproof. She can (and should) give wise counsel to those surrounding her. Perhaps it is that part (or one of the things) that patriarchy has left out. It is the most biblical study/book on womanhood I have ever seen and it is very liberating for women to discover God’s design in creating them. I have found it so inspiring and uplifting that I wanted to share. I honestly think you would like it and be just as encouraged by it as I have been. (here’s the link http://www.fiveaspects.com/ PS : It’s not reserved to wives, it’s on womanhood in general, whether young or old, single, married, divorced or widowed, with or without children, working or non-working, etc all women can benefit).
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Voddie Baucham has revised is response.
http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2009/11/19_November_Question_of_the_Month_%28Update_Edition%29.html
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Not by much he didn’t. The only difference is two sentences.
“(though these have been limited to those who are angered by my outspoken stance on the sodomization of America).”
“(though only this one bothered to direct it to me personally).”
His response still does not answer peoples concerns about his sermon.
And That Mom – I found the link you gave in response to Matt 18 excellent. Your post gave me food for thought.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Rebecca, I’m glad you found the “Five Aspects” study helpful. Unfortunately, I must sound the alarm here. First off, Reverend Mouser is patriocentric, not complementarian, in his beliefs. And his theology is very problematic; much of it is actually pagan in origin. I wrote analysis of it in the comments section of this blog here a couple years ago:
http://truewomanhood.wordpress.com/2007/11/21/visionary-daughters-thread-3-karen/
The analysis starts in comment #220, and continues in 237, 265, 274, 297, and 392.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:10 am
Hello Light,
Like I said, I don’t really know much about patriarchy, or patriocentricity. Could you specify what you mean by patriocentric and complementarian and what distinguishes them ?
I do not really have time to get into a debate concerning the Five aspects materials. I have read your comments on it and I don’t think you really have understood the material. There are other sentences in the courses that contradict some of your interpretations of the parts you quote. You need to read things in their context. For example, each aspect is divided in three chapters : the created sinless design of God, the fallen state of things, and how Christ restores us to what God intended. According to which part you are quoting from, you are going to get different views : either the ideal sinless situation, or how sin has affected God’s design, or what can be because of and through Christ. You need to give the context of your quotes.
Another detail : you compare Five aspects of man and Five Aspects of woman as though they were written by the same author. That is not the case. Barbara Mouser (then Bear) did an extensive expositional study of woman throughout the Scriptures before she was married (it took her six years to go through the whole Bible). Years later, she organized and compiled what she had learned in the five aspects course. Her husband, Bill Mouser, wrote a “mirror course” for men later. He did not write the women’s course. Missing that essential point (when you talk about the author of Five Aspects of Woman, you always say “he”) makes me wonder how much you really know the whole course.
I think if you go back and study the course to see if what you first understood is correct (for example that according to Mouser only men are called to Christlikeness or that men are a better image of God than women, or, when you talk about this : ““Adam alone was given the garden mandate.” P. 94″ understand that she is referring to Gen 2/15-17 and that she says “garden mandate” and not “world mandate”, etc).
If you still see things the way you did when you first read the course, could I encourage you to write Barbara Mouser directly with your concerns ? I have, when I came across things I disagreed with and she has been very good about answering me and explaining them to me.
As for myself, I am going to ask her what is ICGS’s view on patriarchy.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:13 am
sorry, that smilley was not intended, I was closing the parenthesis
November 24th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
http://submissiontyranny.blogspot.com/2009/11/huge-complementarian-arsenal-of.html
This has been my experience, to my great sorrow. I felt alone, at first, but have discovered many other wives like me who have had the same experience. Something, somewhere, is very wrong.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I just wanted to add my voice to those who are suffering under this patriarchy/complementarian teaching. I understand there are varying degrees and that in normal relationships, women like Amy and others can understand and function under this teaching without misapplying it. Or better…they understand the spirit of the Word.
But there is a wide swath of damage in the church now because of the teachings of men like Wilson and Bauchman. I do not accuse them of abusing their own families at all. But I am questioning the wisdom of church emphasis on this doctrine in any form.
And it is to Amy’s credit and other women like her, who are noticing there is something not quite right in the modern evangelical church with regards to this teaching. Thank you, Amy, for facilitating this debate on your blog and allowing us all to have a voice.
FPW, Holly, Sallie, thatmom and the many women who have commented here have spoken at length about the damaging aspect of the teachings themselves. They ARE hurting Christian marriages and women especially, and they offer their own testimonies as to what they have experienced or observed. These are not anomolies, they are just the tip of this iceberg.
I have recently discovered that my husband of 22 years, suffers from a personality disorder. It is an attachment disorder believed to have formed in early childhood. It is called Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) and symptoms increase with age.
It isn’t classified as a mental illness, but is like autism in that there is a wide spectrum and many, many people fall into that spectrum.
Women are affected, but it is much more common in men. Mental health officials have estimated that anywhere from 2-16% of the population suffers some form of NPD. And that is only what they have been able to document. They conclude that it is a difficult disorder to treat, as most people who have it cannot complete any type of therapy.
The very nature of NPD makes it impossible to reach a diagnosis unless someone living with it does the research on their own or the symptoms have degenerated the individual to such an extent, it is diagnosed almost by accident.
Men with NPD are highly functioning and rarely criminal. Their view of others is distorted to the extent that they believe when conflict arises it is NEVER because of them. They are very likable, even lovable, but almost exclusively to everyone outside their homes, because appearances are everything to them.
I want to add that my husband was a “dry drunk” for many years during the time we were exposed to patriarchal/complementarian teachings. His history of alcoholism made it impossible for him to serve in the church, for which I am thankful to God for this small mercy. I cannot imagine the hell of living with him if he had any kind of authority within the church and my heart hurts for women who have lived or are still living in this situation.
If these statistics are even partly accurate, there are tens of millions of people walking around with varying degrees of this disorder…and this is just ONE personality/attachment disorder.
What I’m trying to convey is this: with men like my husband sitting in church listening to preaching or being taught in bible studies the “men love their wives/women submit” doctrine, this is what they hear:
“I already love my wife as Christ loves the church, so I must make her submit to make my marriage more godly.”
An NPD wife will hear this:
“I already submit to my husband as to the Lord, so I must make him love me as Christ loves the church to have a more godly marriage.”
Then proceeds the living hell I and others like me are consigned to…often for many years.
It does not glorify God.
The people who defend this teaching within the church are missing the point here. This is about the uncountable cost from these teachings. There is no doubt about the damage.
No one is throwing out or twisting God’s word. There is no slippery slope into radical feminism when we speak against patriarchy in all its forms. There is no condmenation of any one person’s particular ease with complementarian beliefs.
And there is no insistence that egilitarian is ‘more Godly’…for many, many women it is simply the only way our marriages can function now (should we ever have a functioning marriage in our future).
There are many personality and mental illnesses that can go for years without diagnosis. There is no way to know how many people have mental or emotional attachment disorders within a given church. This means that while complementarian teachings may result in a wonderful marriage for couple A…couple B will likely have a wife trapped in church-approved prison from which there is no escape.
Please bear in mind, there is no possible way to reason with these people. They are very religious and feel they are following God’s Word to the “t”. They do not feel ANY empathy for the suffering they cause their spouses and the spouses are left in confusion because the church is not only teaching them they are not doing God’s will, but they themselves are ill-equipped to deal with these increasing disorders.
The best they can do is stand on the outside and try to save the marriage they think is in trouble.
The result is wives submitting to their husband’s illness rather than getting help.
It truly exacerbates an already horrendous situation.
My husband heard from our pastor constantly to love me as Christ loves the church. But his disorder convinced him he already did, so any problems our marriage had were my fault.
I am not an exception any more, ladies…I am part of a great many women who are separating or divorcing due to patriarchy/complementarian teachings.
What is most difficult is to be a witness to this growing segment and know that while I cling to Jesus in my pain now, many more women think they are obeying Him all along.
…and all along the Lord weeps with them as their hearts break and their souls are plundered under this teaching.
It is a direct result of the particular emphasis placed on this doctrine and interpreted in such a way by these high-placed men in the church, that there is no hope for women like me caught up in it.
There are no red flags…there are no warning signs. Personality disorders are particularly devastating because they are unrecognized and undiagnosed, not just for years and years, but often for a lifetime.
Here is a website for those who are curious about NPD:
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html#npd
I want to assure all those women who find comfort in the leadership of their husband and the peace of domestic duties, to rest assured that I am not trying to distort God’s Word to make sense of my situation. I am questioning the teachings of patriarchy/complementarian, because if it chains even one more women like myself to a man or a marriage from which she is being destroyed…bit, by little bit…then it’s time to look at the teachings, question the men who are leaning on it for their ministry, and warn women as to the harm that can come from it.
I believe the I’ve done my time in this religious prison…Christ has set me free, and I’m sorry to tell you, but He didn’t do it in the evangelical church.
My prayer is that the church as a whole will wake up to the damage and the cost to many families caught up in this teaching and seek help. Either equip their pastors to recognize personality disorders…or stick to preaching Gal. 3:28.
Blessings to all,
Julia
November 25th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Julia/redink,
I hear what you are saying. As a theological complementarian, I’m listening. I am really thinking about this.
As I said before, if my husband ever ordered me around, I’d knock his figurative block off, so I wonder if my own marriage is truly complementarian (as it is supposed to be, since a man loving his wife would never treat her as a child with orders of submission) or a functional egalitarian. I don’t know. But I do know that women should not live in abuse nor should we promote frameworks that encourage it, of course. It never occurred to me that wifely submission could mean that my husband trumps me. (What a fool to think he ought to go ahead anyway without me….would God set things up in such a way knowing the sin nature of man? What about Abigail and Nabal?)
Thank you for taking time to share that.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:28 am
Hi All,
I just thought I would throw my two cents worth in: I am one of the contributors at NLQ.
I grew up part of a fundamentalist, home schooling, patriarchal family. I knew many others as well. My parents were very active, very involved in the fundamentalist movement here in Australia.
I am not here to be preached at, nor to preach. I don’t want to be converted or prayed over either. I am here just to present a different perspective: that of a 2nd generation child, whom decided to leave the faith, because of abuse issues that I witnessed in my life and in some of the others whom were also involved in this movement.
Now before I begin on where I am coming from, can I please stress that I am not saying that this is necessarily the case 100% of the time in all fundamentalist/quiverfull/homeschooling families.
But in my family, and the families that I knew growing up, abuses were common. At the time, none of us knew of the other family’s distress or vice versa. It was only after many of them had left the movement/divorced that the women and girls in particular stepped forward with their often times horrific stories of abuse. And I am not just talking about “taking away the TV” as one of you light-heartedly referenced. I am talking about long term, serious, physical, sexual and emotional abuse. This ranged from not allowing children to eat (because they forgot to feed the chickens), to rape and paedophilia. This is undeniable and Jasmine, we have witnesses: enough witnesses according to the laws of the land to charge and arrest the persons involved. As for talking to the husbands/fathers to get their sides of the story? Many times these are men whom at home are monsters, but in outside situations present as wonderful, caring men (I am talking from the experience of living with one such man, my father, for 17 years). They are expert liars, and are very charming. They look like everybody else, and act like (if not better) them too.
This was not a one family thing either, it was a number of families, and all of them were actively involved in the movement here. All of them truly believed and followed the Word; and all of them spoke, lived and preached many of the same things that many of you above have stated as your belief system. Trust me, it wasn’t a works salvation thing at all: it was just they believed that the man was designed to be the head of the house and that women should submit to them, and so on and so forth.
Reading through many of your comments I find that many of you are judging people’s faiths/situations etc without knowing the full circumstances. Please stop it. Until you have walked in our shoes and faced the dark side, you have no idea about what you are passing judgement on.
Jo
December 5th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Thank you, Princessjo.
One other thought: The New Testament was written in a time when wives were under the authority of their husbands, slaves were under the authority of their masters, and the Emperor was in charge of everything. In that system, those in power often abused their power. But Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, and so, rather than preaching revolution and overthrowing these systems, the apostles taught new ways Christians were to believe and act within those systems. Masters were to recognize that they too had a Master. Husbands were to love their wives and give themselves up for them. And if the Emperor had converted to Christianity at that time, the message of Jesus to “wash the feet” of those under him would have stood.
Later, throughout history, people with roots in Christian teachings began to change the systems themselves. Kings were reduced to nominal power, and Parliaments and Congresses elected. Slavery became against the law. The fact that the Bible assumed slavery and monarchy existed, was seen to be a different thing altogether than an endorsement of monarchy and slavery.
But none of this happened without a fight. There were those who trumpeted the divine right of kings, and the rights of masters to own slaves– and backed them up with Scripture. But in the end, systems that curbed and balanced power rather than concentrating it in the hands of a few, were seen to be better answers.
But in this one area, we continue to struggle. Though the Bible need not be seen as supporting monarchy or slavery– men are still seen as meant to be in charge of women, and women to be subordinate to men. And then when men abuse their power in marriage, many in the church fail to see that should the system be changed so that power is shared by two rather than concentrated in the hands of one, this would be a better answer. The balance of power to prevent abuse is no more “un-biblical” in marriage than it is in government or in labor/work relationships.
Please think about it. Thanks for your time.