Perspective [maybe]

Today I came across this article about child brides in India and Middle Eastern countries. Besides being shocked at a practice I knew existed but have never thought much about, I was of course reminded of patriocentricity. 


At first I was struck by how good we have it in the US, even most girls in patriocentric households, in comparison to girls in other parts of the world. And that's a valuable reminder. 


At the same time...that article reeks of patriocentricity. Every description of the mindset, if not the customs, in those cultures exactly matches that of patriocentricity. 

Forced early marriage thrives to this day in many regions of the world—arranged by parents for their own children, often in defiance of national laws, and understood by whole communities as an appropriate way for a young woman to grow up when the alternatives, especially if they carry a risk of her losing her virginity to someone besides her husband, are unacceptable.

The husbands may be...abductors who rape first and claim their victims as wives afterward, as is the practice in certain regions of Ethiopia.  

 Well this doesn't sound at ALL like the Old Testament laws, does it! 

Deut. 22: ²⁸ If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, ²⁹ he shall pay her father fifty shekels^[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Remember this too: The very idea that young women have a right to select their own partners—that choosing whom to marry and where to live ought to be personal decisions, based on love and individual will—is still regarded in some parts of the world as misguided foolishness.

Some parts of the world. I take a sarcastic amusement in the shock that the author of this article would display at some of the patriocentric nonsense available right here in the US. 

He regarded me dubiously. "You have children?" he asked.

Two, I said, and the sheikh looked dismayed. "Only two!" He tipped his head toward a young woman nursing a baby in one arm while fending off two small children with the other. "This young lady is 26," he said. "She has had ten."

The sheikh made various pronouncements concerning marriage. He said no father ever forces his daughter to marry against her will. He said the medical dangers of early childbirth were greatly exaggerated. 

I am reminded of Debi Pearl's claim that the supposed dangers of multiple and too-frequent childbirths are negligible, compared to the more important 'eternal' consequences of not being quiverfull. 

"If there were any danger in early marriage, Allah would have forbidden it," a Yemeni member of parliament named Mohammed Al-Hamzi told me in the capital city of Sanaa one day. "Something that Allah himself did not forbid, we cannot forbid."Al-Hamzi, a religious conservative, is vigorously opposed to the legislative efforts in Yemen to prohibit marriage for girls below a certain age (17, in a recent version), and so far those efforts have met with failure. 

This last statement leaves me completely confused. At one time, I wish patriocentrists would take this approach: if God did not forbid women to work outside the home, go to college, or limit the number of children they have...why should we forbid it? On the other hand, the negative effects of this sort of thinking are evident in the above example: if we think that we can only make decisions on topics the Bible specifically speaks to, we will perpetually ignore real problems. 


Anyways, in conclusion...it's horrible to think that girls are undergoing real abuse in this way. [That is where a patriocentrist would leave it, probably with a subtle or not-so-subtle insinuation that the daughters of patriocentricity never undergo real abuse.] 


It is also horrible to remember that patriocentrists often share the same harmful values that drive families in India or Yemen to deny their daughters education, worth and freedom. 

My most inflammatory post yet

Recent exploits include... [oh those famous words]

-An assortment of graduation festivities including my own rather small grad party, which was followed by a roof-raising barn dance attended with dear buddy Eva and spent alternately catching up with old friends and dancing with Joseph of Road to Freedom and other fame.

-Summer vacation in Southern California. We decided to leave on very very short notice, in the midst of homeschool book sales, robotics events, and other fun things. The first night was spent in Willows CA, a Northern California town of the rice-farms-and-train-tracks variety. A column of flying bugs formed in the streetlight, we went for a walk and were shrieked at twice by the occupants of cars passing in the night, and I swam in the hotel pool [unfathomably warm to this sun-starved child of the PNW]. The next day dawned predictably warm and sunny but by evening we were shivering in the coastal fog of San Luis Obispo [and, in my case, sitting dejectedly in the hotel room in a patriarchy-induced gloom]. Next day, after an exciting incident during my [brief] stint as driver, an undisclosed number of bottles of coconut juice, and a lot of Tom Petty enthusiasm, we reached our destination at my grandparents' assisted-living residence near the beach. Ensconced in the hotel down the hill, we spent the next few days making forays to various posh areas of the county for shopping, food, and swimming. I notably managed to avoid getting a sunburn.
On the way back home, armed with nectarines, sandy flipflops, and still more coconut juice, I spent my time alternately between driving and brooding over an imposing to-do list in my notebook.
Some of this immensely productive time closeted in close proximity to a notebook resulted in the start of a few unpolished thoughts regarding the patriarchy movement.

One of the homeschool book sales boasted about six copies of Debi Pearl's Created to Be His Helpmeet, thankfully the work of only one seller [who probably invested in them all to dispense to her friends...one can only hope she changed her mind later]. Never having read the infamous work, I skimmed through a copy. The chapter I read was on chastity, which the author appears to think revolves solely around modesty, in the case of women.
Note: potentially offensive material below. Offensive to any thinking person who isn't used to hearing women compared to animals, that is.

Claim: the verse that says a man who lusts after a woman has committed adultery with her in his heart, means that the woman is complicit [complicit: adj. or noun, depending on whether you are talking to Bethany or my dictionary, meaning to blame, in league, culpable, guilty with another party]. The woman is consenting and complicit in the adultery because the phrase is 'adultery WITH her', not 'adultery AGAINST her'.

My response:
Your reasoning is only valid if there are other uses of the two phrases, to mean different things. There aren't. Can you give me even one example of 'adultery against' being used? So therefore, if it doesn't exist, you can't argue that the other phrase means anything out of the ordinary.
Second point: if Jesus was truly saying that the woman was also to blame....he would have said that right out, SURELY, especially if it was such a vital point.
[Note from the devil's advocate: this begs the question, if the woman truly isn't to blame, then why isn't it called rape and not adultery? A disturbing question, except that punishments for adultery were more severe than for rape, I believe.]

Claim: actually this isn't a claim, this is an out-and-out lie. This amazing chapter on chastity attempts to scare and insult women into 'modesty'. There are various excerpts from readers' letters, mostly men. They twice refer to women as pigs [and as a 'cow']. Why? Just why, do the worst insults towards women always revolve around characterizing them as animals? The first instance was a letter from a man who was enraged at an immodestly dressed woman: he called her 'cow' and 'pig' in his mind. Dear Debi Pearl somehow thought this worthy of publishing and impressing on the minds of young women. Thank you for adding one more voice to the thousands that scream at women, from inside and out of their heads. Now she has another 'biblically' sanctioned name to call herself.
The second reference came from a man who just hates to see women let their belly fat show. He goes on to say that it reminds him of the gold ring in the sow's snout analogy. [I believe he compares the women themselves to the sows, but even if he doesn't the image is clear enough.] This reader states that he 'doesn't mind the fact that they're fat so much, but that they flaunt it like they think it's hot' [paraphrased]. These fat-flaunting women [does such a thing exist?] remind him of 'biscuits with the uncooked dough popping out the middle' [paraphrased].
Does this even need refuting? Probably not, but I can't resist.
1) How about overweight men who let their belly fat show, also with apparent pride? By his standard, women should be telling them that THEY certainly aren't hot, and remind them of their own resemblance to biscuit dough.
2) Thank you for yet another condemnation of women judged to be overweight. Rest assured that your sense of duty has also served to attack women who consider themselves fat, often with no cause. Like the first reader, you've just thrown one more stone.
3) This is an arguable point, but...who gets to decide what is 'hot'? Hasn't the American media been doing a darn good job of that for years, without your chiming in? Wouldn't it be revolutionary if the people themselves were allowed to decide if they were 'hot'? Of course, it may not be semantically possible for a person to judge themselves attractive or not, assuming that means 'attractive to other people', but even so: attractive is entirely a matter of personal taste. And that may just mean that that roll of belly fat that reminds you of biscuit dough and swine could be hugely attractive to the next man.

One of my little projects on the trip to Cal was to attempt to show that the God of the Bible doesn't hate and detest women. It's still a work in progress. [Not sure how much of a joke that is supposed to be.] But here is a point: women are never referred to as animals in the Bible. That mention of rings and pig's noses? 'Like a gold ring in a swine's snout, is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion' [Proverbs]. The comparison is actually gold ring == woman, pig's snout == lack of discretion. Now it is difficult to tell where to draw the line between just being a gold ring, and being defined by being in a pig's snout, but I think it is pushing it far to say that the Bible calls women pigs [which neither Pearl nor the readers ever claimed: they just assumed it].

[Another note from the devil's advocate: the Israelites would detest the very thought of swine, which were so unclean in their culture: along with menstruating women, of course. See why I said the whole proving-the-Bible-loves-women project was a work in progress?]


----------
Advertisement break! The notebook here has a page that reads:
Every child is an engineer. Somewhere along the way they learn that STEM is 1) hard 2) needs math 3) is not cool.
We need to make engineering:  not easy, you can't just ignore math, but it can be cool AND needs to be shown to be relevant, fun; whatever it is to young kids.

-------
Back to the patriarchy war:

The next installment came after I'd gotten my unfortunate paws on Nancy Leigh DeMoss's book, 'Lies Women Believe', which, I must add, our college pastor mentioned favorably in his address today. I always get worried whenever any pastor besides our regular one stands up in the pulpit and it's usually with good cause.

DeMoss says that what we really need to do is not love ourselves in order to love others, but love ourselves less. She claims that it is impossible for a person to hate themselves [and makes the requisite disdainful mention of 'modern psychology'], because 'no man ever hated his own body, but loves and cares for it'. Thus, low self esteem is nonsense, we never need to love ourselves more, etc etc.

I'm not sure I can argue that in all senses it is possible to hate yourself. However, how do you deal with suicide and self-injury? Would anyone injure or kill someone they really loved? I can't imagine it. How can you argue that someone who committed suicide really loved and thought too highly of themselves?
Oh, and if I wanted to parse words in the same way that patriocentrists do...I could claim that because that verse talks to MEN, it refers only to the male gender and not to women. [So women are able to hate themselves, just not men.] Just like the pastoral books of the New Testament were written only to men [and don't apply to women] because they're addressed to 'brothers'. Makes no sense..but it does in their heads.

While I'm at it, collecting incoherent random bits of thoughts...here is a shameless plug for Hillary McFarland's book Quivering Daughters, just because I saw a post from the patrio lady who wrote to rather viciously attack said book back in the fall. She [patrio lady] says that she doesn't even want to mention that book's name because no publicity is worse than bad publicity.

With that.....I depart.

To steal and kill and destroy

I am more angry at patriocentricity than I have ever been, triggered by what might seem like a small thing. Tonight I stupidly, at the end of a long and stressful day, took a look at a few patriocentric websites that I hadn't been around in a while. As a result, I missed being able to really talk to my best friend [who I've been almost too busy to talk to the last few days]. I was engaged in becoming rapidly more upset and depressed by the sanctimonious blather of people who recommend a recent anti-feminist film ['The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women', by the Brothers Gunn] as excellent material to show to girls in pregnancy crisis centers, who are so hard up for something to criticize that they lambast the recent film about that gal who lost her arm to a shark a few years ago [and happens to share my name] as not being distinctively Christian and promoting personal fulfillment [and even manage to get in a knock against long-haired guys in the same post! What depth! What virtuosity!], who say that girls who declare they 'don't like pink' and 'aren't girly' are actually insecure, competitive for boys' affections, intent on covering up their own social awkwardness or lack of beauty, and generally feel superior *, who ......you get the idea.

* For the record, I have often declared that I don't like pink, am not a 'girly girl', don't like feminine High Drama, detest sewing, am proudly willing to shoot and clean a wild rabbit with my bare hands, and otherwise done my best to distance myself from my perception of the fluffy-headed female. Apparently half the rest of the female population of the world is bent on doing the same thing. And it is no longer socially acceptable [in patrio circles] to be proud of who you are, just as in less conservative circles it is ONLY socially acceptable to be proud of who you are.

So I'm no longer original, just feministic. And bitter. And insecure. And proud. And to heck with it, because I will not change for the anti-feminists. They can just TAKE my quirks and geekiness [they'd say they don't give a hoot, I'M the one who will have to deal with people disliking my contrived unoriginality!]
-------------

To conclude this little anecdote, I wound up so rattled by the anti-feminists that my distant-time-zone friend was forced to retire by the lateness of the hour and my steadfastly terse responses. Ah, small thing, but it shocked me to my senses, a bit......I became first miserable that I'd missed talking with someone I deeply care for and hadn't been able to talk with in longer than I'd like, and then enraged. 

Enraged because this is only the latest small event to convince me that patriocentricity, legalism, and faithless 'religion' will steal everything I have. Friends, college, happiness, love, enthusiasm, peace. And Jesus. [On that note, just about all of Galatians is applicable....] 

Friends, rather stereotypically, because you can't trust someone if you are convinced they are bent on leading you astray. 

College [self explanatory].

Happiness [also self explanatory].

Enthusiasm and peace, ditto. 

And love. Patriocentricity, for all its grand words, is NOT about loving your husband or anyone else, least of all God. I had rather a shocking, though not unexpected, thing said to me recently. In essence, that the worst thing this person could imagine was that his future wife might someday succumb to patriocentricity in its most extreme form. And that he wouldn't WANT her to.

Surprising, no? [Or maybe not.] Isn't the stereotype of conservative homeschooled Christian men that they [secretly or not] want a wife who is bent on 'generational faithfulness' and Submission to Men in General [including the woman's own younger brothers] and being a 'keeper at home' [to the exclusion of all else] and fulfilling her 'dominion calling' and remaining silent in the churches and being MEEK AND QUIET and steadfastly refusing to be an equal. 

Stereotype or no, accurate or no, I think I've encountered a specimen of that rare species, the Non Patriocentric Man.

---------------

But I got a bit off topic. I am angry at patriocentricity and its associated cadre of legalism. Remember that passage in John about how 'The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy'? *   That's patriocentricity for you.......to steal joy, kill love, and destroy hearts. 

* Remember too the rest of the verse, spoken by Jesus Christ:  'but I am come that they might have life, and have it to the full'. 

Really, all this ferocious rhetoric is partly a cover for the fact that I am still a very scared person. And sometimes being angry is a good way to shake off despair. 

And as a reminder, down in print, that patriocentricity holds nothing good for me. 

Time for a rant!! [AKA, I forgot to publish this..]

Edit April 2011: apparently I neglected to publish this post when I wrote it back at Christmas time. For your enjoyment, may I present:


Step right up folks! I am reading a nice selection of books this Christmas break and several of them demand attention.
So Much More, by Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin
Quivering Daughters, by Hillary McFarland
Blue Like Jazz, by Donald Miller
Perelandra, by C. S. Lewis [again]
The Science of God, by Gerald Schroeder

[Admittedly the last few are kinda waiting to be read....]

The first two books demand to be read and talked about. So Much More, by the by-this-time infamous Botkin sisters, has been both strongly recommended and strongly denounced. Quivering Daughters, which really isn't an argument to So Much More so much as it is an attempt to heal those hurt by patriocentricity, has also been rejoicingly and critically received.
Supporters of So Much More always preface their recommendation with a variation on 'if you are a feminist, or afraid to have your views challenged, or unwilling to submit entirely to God's plan for your life, don't read this book because you won't like it'. This is a method which I have encountered numerous times and it is beginning to anger me rather a lot. There appears to be NO way to argue with it. It is the single most effective way of stifling criticism that I've seen......feel free to disagree with us, but if you do we will know that you're a rebellious feminist.



I am swiftly working my way through Quivering Daughters. I think I'd recommend it to ANY young women raised to believe that patriocentricity is correct...also any men out there who either are incensed at patriocentricity's influence, or are whole-hearted supporters of it.
Hopefully a more thorough review of QD later; right now I am up in arms over So Much More.

I haven't read the whole thing yet, really couldn't stand to....have been taking dips out of it here and there with my customary lightning-speed reading.

Just a few things that stood out to me....

In the first chapter:

 'Don't read this book at all (I would rephrase: "You won't like this book....") if you have a bad attitude toward your father and if you are trying to keep your distance from him. Many girls enjoy having "space" away from their fathers. That space is dangerous.'

[-So Much More, page 6, emphasis mine]
It goes on with the same sort of warnings I mentioned earlier.

They do say to check what they say against Scripture.

I become irked at the constant assumption that women in earlier times were happier because they were unfeministed [word, hehe]. The first mention of this recurring theme occurs here.... 'The lifestyle and worldview we present ... was lived before, when women were much happier.'  Really? I fail to see how anyone can judge whether a whole set of people in another time is more or less happy than now.

There's an interesting comment about 'extreme measures' which I'd like to contrast with one in Quivering Daughters.

We believe that in a day of extreme apostasy and judgement, extreme measures are exactly what's called for, and that a drastic step in the opposite direction is exactly what we need to take. 

[page 8, emphasis in original]

From QD, talking about moving away from patriocentricity:

'...it feels like you are going towards another extreme. Consider, however, that you are on a line, with patriarchalism on one end and, as an example, secular feminism on the other. Because your starting point is an extreme, to move toward balance initially appears like rushing to another extreme.'

[Quivering Daughters, page 159]

So Much More utilizes a number of testimonies from young women who are introduced in the beginning of the book. Almost all of them started out as feminists; most of them started out sincerely wanting to serve God [but in what they later came to believe was the wrong way: by going to college, becoming a lawyer, or conducting business]. This gives me great hope that someday I, too, may be like these young women and realize that I am trying to serve God in the wrong way.

Fathers
The entire book is geared exclusively towards daughters and their fathers [which has been used as a criticism, because mothers are rarely if ever mentioned]. Every chapter is headed 'Daughters, Fathers and ___'.  There is very, very brief mention made of the plentitude of difficult circumstances that could prevent this relationship....what about a father not having a job that his daughter can help with? [Geoffrey Botkin, in a special appendix, says that fathers should consider getting a new job or risk losing their daughters. I'm sure my dad would be happy to hear that.]

Good grief:

'Our fathers...are even supposed to represent God to us. This means that are dads have the tremendous responsibility of being accurate reflections of God's authority, as well as providers of the security and love that God created us, as women, to need.'  

[page 17, emphasis mine]
There's a lot of concern that a daughter who grows up equating her father with God will have deeply twisted perceptions of God if her earthly father was abusive [EMOTIONALLY and spiritually, not just physically].

Men's and women's roles
Oh now we get to the good stuff, the stuff that will keep you up at night.

'Every woman's life is built around men and men's role and leadership in some way.' 

[page 11] [They go on to say that, for instance, feminist Betty Friedan spent her life furthering a man's agenda: Karl Marx.]

'As we stated before, every woman is, by nature, a man's helper. You are a helper, no matter your age or marital status.' 

[page 42]
That's funny, isn't it? I thought a woman was her HUSBAND's helper.


Courtship
Their take on purity/etc was predictable, and less strident than I envisioned [included all of a page and a half telling girls to not beat themselves up if they have previous sins in their past].

Courtship, on the other hand, proved a truly unpleasant subject.

I've read several opinions on courtship and this one has the heaviest emphasis on extensive input from all involved parents and other adults.....no mention made of when this heavy-handed approach might give way to the two people actually doing it THEMSELVES....one would presume that two 30-year-olds interested in marriage would still have to be under the leadership of their parents. That looks like this:

First stage: friendship [sure].
Then, if the young man thinks the young woman may be his intended bride, he discusses it with his parents [paraphrasing here, from page 241].

He then approaches the girl's father without informing the girl about it. 

Lovely, isn't it?

The father then finds out all about the young man. If the young man obtains the approval of the father to begin courting, the daughter is consulted as to her wishes [finally!].
Then they go off courting, with marriage being the expected outcome. Theoretically any party can bow out at any time, but......

We still find our emotions entangled and disheveled under the most protective, sensible scenarios, and some people who court let themselves become just as emotionally devastated as people who date, if the courtship is called off. 

[page 242, emphasis mine]

Splendid....glad to hear that if I court someone and then become attached to them and then they DUMP me [as an example]....that if I am upset, it is MY FAULT.....my fault for letting myself become emotionally devastated. This is carrying it a bit far, but I'd like to take it to the conclusion of.....if a wife loses her husband of thirty years in a car accident, she LETS herself become emotionally devastated?

No, they don't explain that comment away. It is right there, boldly discounting any person's pain. I know how to take things in context.

In the interview with Geoffrey Botkin, he talks about the 'bride price', which we are to assume he intends to require for his daughters. He states that without the bride price, daughters were financial liabilities to families. [The bride price, apparently, involves the son-in-law giving money or estates to the father-in-law, who then passes the money along to his daughter, the bride.] Since the girl's family would then never get the money, I fail to see how that makes daughters any less of a financial liability. Mr. Botkin then states that he would hate to see this made into a formula 'with dollars and cents attached to it'.


College
This is perhaps their most revolutionary concept. I think they fall short of saying that going to college is a sin.....they just attack every possible motive for attending college.

'A mature young Christian friend of ours...feels like she has won, because she exited with a degree and what she thinks is an intact soul. What she doesn't know is that the college is laughing at her, because it knows it is the real winner.' 

[page 144]

There is much mention made of parents sending their daughter off to college...packing her away to a university...sending her out into the storm....etc. There is no mention at all made of what to do with a daughter who WANTS to go to college.

[Edit, April 2011: the manuscript ends here :P I think I remember getting extremely frustrated and depressed over the whole thing right about when I started to tackle the college question, and abandoned it. ]

My disappointing multi-generational vision, AND Texas

I keep hearing the phrase 'multi-generational vision' or 'multi-generational faithfulness'. I guess I really should READ the books [addressed to men] that explain in detail what exactly multi-generational vision is...

Vision Forum is, naturally, very big on vision.

I am not.

My disappointing version of 'vision' does not involve 'taking dominion' over the earth and everything and everybody in it. If I may paraphrase one of my friends: I see value in changing the culture, but only one person at a time, simply by being a Christian. Showing Christ's love to others, that is.

We are never told in the New Testament [and I think not in the Old either] to take dominion over the culture.


Heh, my vision would probably tend towards wanting any offspring to do FIRST and go into computer science and maths and other things like that, but I hope I wouldn't ever force them to do that. Because other people are not me.

My vision includes ensuring that any children I have, particularly girls, do not read or hear about patriocentricity until they have a solid faith based on love and grace, and they are old enough to discern the good from the bad. Sheltering, I suppose. Meh.

Most likely I'll eschew any Vision Forum products, if only so that Mum does not have a meltdown upon seeing the catalog she used to fume over a teenager, hehehe.

Okay, I really do have more uplifting goals than that. I just don't have the time or energy to expound to an eagerly waiting public [heh heh] about them.


In other news, I'm back to considering LeTourneau University. So much so, in fact, that I'm actually flying out there next week, to compete for a scholarship and also tour the place. Of course the Dallas airport WOULD be closed currently, due to the worst storm of this year's Texas winter, but hopefully things will be cleared up by next week. I leave next Wednesday, at the cheery hour of 8 AM, and return late Sunday night.
So! A solo trip to a college on foreign soil! Great fun! Also a little frightening, but I am quite enthused. And beginning to pack baggage [the college doesn't have room for the influx of its 100 top students of the freshman class, so we are kipping on dorm room floors in sleeping bags].

I've been banned!! Great joy!

My latest trawlings through the internets have resulted in my joining the infamous band of brothers [and sisters] who have been banned from commenting on the blog of the Bayly Brothers. I saw their blog mentioned as being an easy place to get banned from [I've been there before] and wondered how many questions I could raise before the hand of authority was lifted against me. 


I found this toothsome little post and was more interested in the comment section than anything. My comments are away at the end of the comment page....
When previously reading the Bayly's blog, I've been struck at how almost all of the comments are from 'preach it, brother!' male-types. The dissenting opinions come about equally from men and women, and it seems the women are usually banned pretty promptly.  I am actually going to repost my comments and those of the blog owner:  


[I had chimed in about a woman who spoke about against patriarchy, and another commenter promptly said it was nothing more than could be expected from someone who had lived in sin]

"My husband and I have been together since we were 20, were married at 22..."

"....I would, however, agree that the lifestyle Nyka describes--living in sin with marriage maybe following, "

I see no reason, from her words, to assume that Nyka was 'living in sin' before her marriage. Shame for assuming that someone whom you disagree with on one point is guilty on another.

Bravo, Rachel, for being willing to testify that patriarchy is not the conclusion that all who seek God finally come to. 

Posted by: Bethany | WEDNESDAY, 29 DECEMBER 2010 AT 05:02 PM

>>...patriarchy is not the conclusion that all who seek God finally come to.

Actually, it is. Or rather, patriarchy is The Order God established in the Garden of Eden prior to the Fall, and all who believe in the Triune God and submit to His Holy Word reject anarchy and feminism, instead embracing patriarchy with love and joy as an act of worship of our Lord Jesus Christ.

All the church throughout all time has affirmed God's order of patriarchy. Also, all the church throughout all history has found it hard to be obedient to this order, as they also found it difficult to be obedient to it in New Testament times. This is the reason for the commands of Scripture that wives must submit to their husbands and the commands also forbidding woman to teach or exercise authority over man.

Love,

Posted by: TIM BAYLY

>> Actually, it is.

Really? I'm not sure I know ONE person [in my daily contact with other people] who embraces patriarchy, much less the style you and your supporters claim is God-ordained. But I do know many people who I believe really are seeking God: most of them are equally repulsed by feminism and patriarchy/patriocentricity.

>> All the church throughout all time has affirmed God's order of patriarchy.

The fact or statement that something has been affirmed throughout 'all time' [~2000 years] does not make it valid [or invalid].

I've had several conversations with other Christians about whether the command to submit and not lead is given to wives about their husbands, or to women about all men. [I actually have usually taken the view that where the translation says 'in authority over a man', it does mean MAN and not just husband. People try to tell me that is a wrong translation, and it really means 'man' in the sense of husband. ]

Posted by: Bethany | WEDNESDAY, 29 DECEMBER 2010 AT 10:07 PM

>>Really? I'm not sure I know ONE person [in my daily contact with other people] who embraces patriarchy...

Actually, most people still do embrace patriarchy. You're fooled by their embarrassment to admit it in our wicked day.

As to the "kind" of patriarchy this or that man embraces, there are no kinds at all. Only questions of implementation. And the implementations we at Baylyblog recommend are quite soft and gentle and effeminate compared to those of all of history in all cultures and all religions before our time. Baylyblog is a kinder, gentler patriarchy for our rebellious day.

>>The fact or statement that something has been affirmed throughout 'all time' [~2000 years] does not make it valid [or invalid].

Yes, this is the way modern rebels see it, but it's the very opposite of Christian faith which commands pastors who are always men to "Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you" (Timothy 1:13, 14).

Please do not oppose patriarchy again, here, or I will be forced to guard this command and truth of God by denying you future commenting privileges.

Love,

Posted by: TIM BAYLY | WEDNESDAY, 29 DECEMBER 2010 AT 10:34 PM

If the command and truth of God is really in danger from my comments, then God is a lot weaker than I've always thought.

I'd love to reply to your other statements, but I think that would lead to this comment not being allowed to remain at all.

[Incidentally, you don't need to worry about denying me commenting privileges, I won't be back. Thank you for allowing me to make the comments that I have.]

Posted by: BETHANY | WEDNESDAY, 29 DECEMBER 2010 AT 11:37 PM

Good grief. Let me just sum up some of the amazing conclusions that Tim Bayly comes to:

1) All people who seek God eventually become patriarchalists

2) All the church, all the time [except NOW...NOW doesn't count] affirms patriarchy 

3) This makes patriarchy right

4) Most people still do embrace patriarchy, they just won't admit it, because of our rebellious generation. This because it is impossible for Mr. Bayly to countenance the idea that people might love God and NOT be patriarchalists!

5)  Different types of patriarchy differ only in implementation. This actually seems like kind of a key point to me, because it seems to deny that there could be any 'wrong' implementation of patriarchy. This idea is bolstered by the next point:

6) The Bayly brothers hold views on patriarchy that are 'soft, gentle and effeminate' compared to those of past days. This is truly amusing, if you've ever read the Baylys' blog...

7) My questioning of established tradition within the Church is described as the action of a 'modern-day rebel'. [I stated that the mere fact something is a 'tradition' does not validate it.] Martin Luther, anyone? 

8) The most encouraging part of the whole discussion: patriarchy, 'this command and truth of God', is in danger from MY comments. Please do not oppose patriarchy again, here, or I will be forced to guard this command and truth of God by denying you future commenting privileges.

 I am a significant threat to something, apparently....probably, they think they are preventing innocent sheep from reading my incendiary comments and getting pulled into questioning their own beliefs.....or maybe they actually think I'm blaspheming or something. Note, I'm not trying to make light of blasphemy.....I just find it amusing that I, this small weak thing that is plagued with all sorts of doubts and fears, am actually considered a danger. 

Mr. Bayly's comment about church tradition being backed up by Scripture seems true until one looks at the verse....yes, I am going to set myself up as an expert. The verse in its entirety is, 2 Timothy 1:13-14

¹³ What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. ¹⁴ Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

Paul is talking about keeping true to the teaching that he himself gave [about GRACE, incidentally]. He is NOT talking about holding on to traditions JUST because they are time-honored. Galatians 1:8 says:

⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

This isn't perhaps speaking directly to the issue at hand, because the Church hadn't been established long enough at that point to really bring 'following Church traditions' into question, but I think it's appropriate.

Something else: 'Baylyblog is a kinder, gentler patriarchy for our rebellious day'. If the patriarchy of the olden days was the right thing, why are we going gentle all of a sudden? Surely anything less would be wrong. If it wasn't the right thing, why are we- WHOOPS, SORRY.  

As I mentioned, I was a bit surprised by how few dissenting opinions are found on BaylyBlog. Now we know why: they all got banned.    

And remember: YOU can single-handedly threaten patriocentricity! They are afraid of ....YOU. 

Just to remind myself one more time what actually matters: 'Why' by Nichole Nordeman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPCbzz5pJzQ

A Steadfast response to charges of legalism

Stacy McDonald has responded to charges of legalism, both at Steadfast Daughters and her personal blog Your Sacred Calling. Classically, I felt the need to compose a lengthy [and probably inarticulate] reply, which I posted on YSC. 


I am very irked at the steadfast refusal to address specific concerns, and the equally steadfast assumption that 'quivering daughters' are by and large still the guilty parties. 

The Romans 14 quote is one which ought to be at the forefront of any movement which claims to combat legalism [all too often, it isn't]. 

However, I see a gap between what that verse prescribes and the application that I think you would extend it to. 

It is, I think, fair to assume that the person who 'eats everything' could be compared to 'Quivering Daughters' and their allies. 

Hence, we can also assume that the person who 'does not eat everything', because he feels it wrong, is represented by 'Steadfast Daughters'.

In my experience, those who hold to the Steadfast Daughters view are 1) 'not eating everything' which we are told we must NOT treat with contempt [Romans 14:3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.] but also, 2), they are judging those who do not believe as they do. 

This is the key point.  I hope that none of those who battle against legalism would object to an individual's opinions on whether it is right for them to do anything from only wear skirts, to decline to attend college. The line becomes blurred when one individual would seek to impose that idea on their entire family, and it is crossed entirely when an individual or an organization teaches an entire community that it is wrong for all of them to attend college or leave home. [Usual disclaimer applies: those are examples, I would prefer not to debate whether or not you or your followers have actually taught those exact things.] 

The examples you gave of the four people who might be called legalists, did not fit my definition of legalism.  However, had there been any suggestion that, for instance, Jennifer imposed her dietary restrictions on her sister-in-law, or indicated that following Mosaic dietary laws is the only 'correct' action, then I would have indeed cried 'Legalism!'. 

--------

You talk about false accusations of legalism rather a lot in this post. Do you 1) believe that false accusations are being made about the actions of those in the patriarchy movement? or 2) the actions they have committed are not legalistic? or 3) a combination of the above? 

I agree with your view, that those of us who say we have left legalism are still prone to it. 

I also agree with your reader's comment: 'Calling others legalistic based on outward appearance is itself legalistic and hypocritical.' 

However, it is not legalistic to state that a person's beliefs as imposed upon or suggested to others are legalistic. One could not call the Pharisees legalists solely based on the fact that they tithed: one could, however, call them legalistic based upon what they taught to others as God-ordained fact. 

I think it is fair to state that your writings on Your Sacred Calling are mostly read by those who could find themselves being accused of legalism [whether true or false]. You rightly devote a lengthy section to how to respond to incorrect accusations of legalism, based on their appearances. You do not, however, speak much to how to avoid actual legalism. 

The readers of Steadfast Daughters, however, also include many who are leveling charges of legalism against others. You speak of the abuses of power that you have seen, but fail to mention the key points that these readers are likely to be objecting to. Throughout the history of Steadfast Daughters, and indeed everything I have seen written from a patriarchal perspective in recent months, there has been a distinct unwillingness to come to terms with the tangible protests of 'quivering daughters'. I think this is because you know that many WILL disagree with your presuppositional views, and you are trying to smooth things over. I can understand this, but it is doing a really bad job of 'reconciling' those who disagree with you. To be fair, most of those who disagree with Steadfast Daughters already know they disagree with your views, and many are familiar with years of 'reconciliation' as suggested by those in the patriocentric movement who [supposedly] were in fact their abusers. It is all too familiar for most 'quivering daughters' to buy into. Many have already received [they believe] healing and freedom, and NOT at your hands. They are not going to be happy when you produce 'a biblical response' to something [namely Hillary McFarland's work] that they already believe to be helpful, Christ-honoring and in fact BIBLICAL. 

My apologies if I have worded any of this confusingly. I am rather prone to do that. And yes, feel free to pick apart my arguments in any way, I have certainly done so to yours. 

You could, in a way, say we've declared war.

*sigh* I was planning a really nice, inspiring, semi-chipper sort of blog post for this time. Then along came  the tragic teen suicide at one of the high schools where I take classes. I was going to do a sober reflection on that, a cautionary tale inspiring y'all to take the time to get to know people [because the single most common thing people have said on the Facebook page honoring this kid is, 'I wish I'd gotten to know you better.'] 


And then along came another blog post, and I'm too wrapped up in my own irritation to do anything except talk about that. 
[You'll notice I've started using sub-section headings..hehe....I figured it might make plowing through lengthy works like this a little easier. Plus chapter titles are fun.] 

Steadfast in the face of rebellion

This website right here, Steadfast Daughters, is 'a biblical response to “Quivering Daughters,” the book and blog written by Hillary McFarland.'   This is a new blog apparently intended to counter and explore the growing advances of Hillary's book. Steadfast Daughters is co-authored by Stacy McDonald, the author of various likewise-controversial books such as Raising Maidens of Virtue, and Passionate Housewives Desperate for God. 


There was quite a firestorm surrounding the opening of Steadfast Daughters. I understand that it may have accidently been opened before the authors were ready for it to go public. Most comments [all, so far, of an irate and exasperated character] have been removed. Mine was up for a time: I'm not going to publish it here right now, because it's mostly stuff you've already heard several times. 

My sister, channeling Satan

Stacy McDonald has stated [I regret I can't find the quote] that she does not view Hillary as an enemy, but as a sister. This nicely complements her assessment of part of Hillary's book. 'Here is another list of questions to daughters that Hillary posted on her blog. When reading this, for some reason, I get a mental picture of a grainy black-and-white movie featuring a scene where Satan is whispering into the ear of a struggling sinner.'  


Does that look to anyone else as though Stacy is equating Hillary's words with Satan's? Of course, Jesus said the famous 'Get behind me, Satan!' to none other than his disciple Peter. Maybe Stacy sees Satan working through Hillary. 

Stacy [and most other patriocentrist writers] seems to mostly be concerned that reading Quivering Daughters will incite young women to rebellion and discontent. 

Would young girls who are struggling with laziness or sin, or who have a difficult time submitting to godly authority, read Quivering Daughters or articles like Hillary’s “Letter to a Patriarchal Daughter” and be seduced into self-pity or rebellion?

While Hillary claims to write only to “adult daughters” from Christian patriarchal families, her writing seems to be especially attractive to any older teen struggling with sin. Notice the baiting nature of her address: '- It is not okay when your feelings and individuality are not respected.'

Who gets to define what this means? Anyone in a close relationship will at times feel the sting of disrespect or offense—real or imagined.

The final message, after Stacy says that certain church leaders or parents might benefit from reading Quivering Daughters, is this: 
 'Still, I cannot recommend Quivering Daughters to Hillary’s intended audience, even to the ones who have suffered from real abuse.'

A sinful desire for approval....but wait, this time it's approval from PARENTS

There are other authors on Steadfast Daughters. The most recent article [comments still aren't open, which I am irked by] is here. The only thing I take away from this article is, 'Rise above it. Others have had to suffer too. You only got what you deserved.' I was reading along, not getting terribly involved in anything the author was saying because I've heard it all before, and then this quote leapt out at me. There was a quote from Hillary, telling her pain at her parents' apparent rejection of her poetry. She obviously wanted their approval.  And now, the reply from  [this is 'a biblical response', remember] ~  'Perhaps the best parental treatment for a sinful, inordinate desire for approval is a loving hug together with a gentle, loving rebuke.'

It took my breath away, it really did. And that is hard to do, after lengthy trawling on patriocentric websites. 

This was clearly connected with the incident Hillary had related. The sin Hillary had committed was being upset that her parents discounted and didn't know what to make of her poetry. This sin, like all sin, calls for 'a gentle, loving rebuke'. [We also hear all SORTS of discipline described as loving. Anything which is good for someone is loving. There rarely seems to be any further advice on how to be gentle or loving: it's taken for granted that if something is good for someone, that automatically makes it the right thing to do, and who cares how you do it.]

Okay, well, at least they said a loving hug and gentle rebuke. We would hope that is how one would reply to sin in one's offspring. That is NOT how one should reply to something that is NOT sin. Let's say for a minute that this desire for approval is not actually sin. Now, the parent just replied in an inappropriate way and has just stepped over a serious line: calling something sin, which isn't. 

It is very, very easy to convince a child that something is wrong. If you convince them something is a sin, it darn well better be. 

Let's argue now that I have never been a parent and have never tried to raise a child. I'll admit myself that I have only rarely experienced children younger than myself [woeful inadequately prepared for marriage, according to patriocentrists]. However, only a few years ago I WAS a child, and I know that very often, the slightest rebuke was enough to send me into tears. That may only mean that I cried easily.

Back to desire for approval from parents. This viewing of this as a sin is a TOTAL departure from everything I have ever heard from patriocentrists. Supposedly, children are all to ready to look for approval from the world, their friends, whatever, when they really should be seeking to please their parents. God is in there too, but seek first your parents' will. 

Now, we find that trying to please parents may be THE WRONG THING TO DO. Let's take this to its logical conclusion, shall we? 

It is VERY likely that an adult or half-grown child may believe that they are actually called by God to do something of which their parents don't approve. This could be anything from foreign missions to a career [for women] to college [for women]. Or maybe they just believe they have some special calling from God to be a writer, or an artist, or a teacher [fill in job of your choice which doesn't pay well]. 

Now, if we are going along with the idea that approval from parents is less important than approval from God, wouldn't we say that these children should go ahead and DO whatever that is? 

Patriocentrists don't think so, as evidenced in nearly every patriocentric writing. 

This is a rather shocking example of....what? Double-speak? Double standard? Something rather dishonest and irksome, whatever it is. 

A shining example 

[against whom Bethany is bitterly sarcastic, against her principles]

I found another, little, not-much-known blog, this one from a 20-something woman who has been raised in the patriocentric paradigm. It would be all too easy for me to launch into a full-blown flame war on this girl. An old post touches on that same article from Michael Pearl which I referenced here.

Here is her view on the article, completely opposite to mine. [Note, even if you are upset by her blog, I wouldn't recommend commenting. The two comments I've written, all with my signature politeness :P have not been published. Whatever her moderator says about 'bitter comments' being the only ones censored, it is clear that no-one who holds any opposing view is allowed to comment. Leave the blog, back away from the flame war, control your inner troll.] 

She comes out with this little gem:  'So when have the Pearls bought into this thing that everyone is a seperate individual?' 

Yes, that is the quote, and no I didn't take it out of context.  

Now see if you can wade through the following quotes and counter-quotes.  [Michael Pearl compiled this testimony from a child of a patriocentric home.]

I am from a Patriarchal Dysfunctional Family, as you put it.  At 25 years of age, I left my father’s home along with two of my younger sisters. We praise the Lord for providing wise counselors and pastoral support as we made the decision to leave the home. My father was the head of his own church, so we had to find counsel and pastors to help us realize the error of these teachings. I know that without them, I would have probably turned my back on Christ.

[Here is the blog author's thoughts on this:] WOW. So when did it become an applauded thing to leave the home? Those children are in rebellion, if you ask me. The pastor who “counseled them” is going to have to answer to God for undermining their parent’s authority. Yet the article is filled almost two pages with similar examples, applauding the “wise” individuals who “were shown by the Lord” that they needed to “use their wings and fly away”. This grieves me deeply to see these misguided individuals.

[Now Bethany.] OH GOODNESS. This almost escaped me the first time I read it, but you will notice that the child left home at the age of TWENTY-FIVE. You see that? 
She uses the obligatory phrase 'in rebellion'. Let's summarize, shall we?  A twenty-five year old person [woman, I assume] leaves home with support of several apparently Christian mature adult counselors. In rebellion and misguided. 



Here's one last nice quote to make you grit your teeth at one of us, me or her. 'Let your child pursue its dreams? That sounds right out of the world.'
She isn't being sarcastic, folks! She really isn't! Nor does she go on to qualify or explain that statement.
 I'm not sure why I'm picking on this one girl, not much older than me. Except perhaps because she is a perfect example of what a patriocentrist young woman should be. The Botkins, Doug Phillips, Stacy McDonald, they're the ones to thank. They've succeeded. She's really happy and she really believes what she's saying. Now, they wouldn't agree with her on all points, most likely. Nor would the Botkins, masters of the written word themselves, much enjoy her writing style. [Ever notice how easy it is to pick on someone's misspellings and flabby prose when you disagree with them?] 

You'll meet her again

Nevertheless, girls like her are the face of the patriocentric movement of the future. They are the ones I will be confronting in ten years or twenty [assuming I don't go over to the patriocentrists: always a cheerful and engaging prospect]. If you are a homeschooler, get used to patriocentricity: it's not going away. If patriocentricity gains ground to the point where when people hear 'homeschooler' they really think 'patriocentrist', we're goin' down. You think liberals and moderates and free-thinkers and even libertarian Christians are going to allow homeschooling to be legal if they see what appears to be such shocking abuse going on in it?  
Many Christians are repelled by patriocentricity; can you imagine what a liberal must think when they see a patriocentric homeschooler? Good grief. They have, in their opinion, every right to be horrified and want to outlaw it. 


So, patriocentricity seems to me to be a threat to more than the children and parents involved. I think that it could significantly threaten the future of homeschooling. 
I'm told, by women who were around at the time ;) that homeschooling started out as a loose coalition of free-thinkers [such as we see in the unschooling movement today]. These free-thinkers ran the gamut from hippies to Old Testament literalists. 

Now, we have large homeschool summits led by 'leaders of the homeschooling community', and so on. Since when did the 'loose coalition' get leaders? Let me make this clear, these are leaders who want to define what homeschooling is. Homeschooling started out as the counter-counter-culture [I'm borrowing that phrase from someone..]. Now, it has settled into an INSTITUTION, as far as I can see. 

Something I have always heard is that rebellions inevitably submit to leaders. Then the leader becomes the institution which needs to be rebelled against, and away you go again. The pendulum-swing is another favorite point, and let me state that we probably are now seeing the pendulum-swing against the excesses of the 1900s. Ever notice how a pendulum goes really fast at the bottom of its swing, and spends the most time at either extreme? Likewise, cultures seem to be terribly fond of getting out of that comfy 'happy medium' zone as soon as they can. 

There's nothing like the old tradition of disclaimers, and here's mine. I'm only 18, I'm really not very experienced in stuff like this, I haven't seen the rise and fall of dictators and movements and ideologies. So take what I'm saying with a grain of salt [if you're an adult, you're probably already doing that]. 

War? 

The title of this post talks about war. Stacy McDonald 'does not view Hillary as an enemy'. Patriocentrists do talk about 'the culture war' as being one which will be won in part by sheer numbers [out-breeding the liberals]. China's always been pretty good at that too. 


Ephesians 6:12 says something that we hear quoted a lot, but that I think most people tend to forget. 

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

You see this? Anyone reading this who isn't a Christian, please take note. We aren't supposed to be fighting you. [In a bunch of other places, it's made clear that we're supposed to be LOVING you.] 


Patriocentrists are really really good about making war on the rulers of this world [or at least they think they are]. They are also really bad about remembering that our struggle is NOT against flesh and blood. And what do we encounter every day? It's flesh and blood. It's human beings. 


I'm also really bad at remembering this, only I tend to think it's all about making war on the oppressors and legalists [patriocentrists]. That's just as bad, though. 

War!

So! Here's your inspiring phrase and/or choice quotable quote for the evening. STEP right UP, folks!


We are at war against what is commonly termed 'the world'. This does not mean that we are at war against the PEOPLE of the world. 
We are also at war against Pharasaical legalism and the harmful teachings of patriocentricity. 
Nor does this mean that we are at war against patriocentrists [hear that, Bethany? Hear that? Sit up and pay attention, young lady. You aren't fighting the Botkin sisters or Doug Phillips or that girl that you got so irritated with an hour ago.] 


But it's definitely a war, I think, if you prefer to think of it in those terms. And occasionally we have traitors within the ranks [like Bethany, when she totters on the knife edge of falling over the cliff into patriocentricity]. 
No matter the inspiring speeches given by leaders in the movement [oh gosh, didn't I just say leadership of movements was bad?] like Karen or Lewis, there will be a lot of dark moments for all of us. And the battle is lost, not just when we all become patriocentrists, but whenever one person succumbs to legalism and leaves Christ. Because it really is the same thing. 
Also despite my perhaps-inspiring speeches over here on A Selection of Varied Topics, I'm as close to losing the battle as any of us. And I have a feeling it may stay that way. 

Peace 

Yeah, you know how last summer I posted about how I'd 'found peace"? I thought I had, but it didn't last. A truce, maybe. Then I found the opposing armies were still on the move. You can't stand by and let Germany overrun Poland [instead, you start a world-wide war that kills millions]. 
Oh and the fun part is, you really don't know who is going to win the war. Remember I'm not talking about patriocentrists. The war has to be won or lost for and by EACH PERSON, and you really can't tell how it'll turn out [there's a Lord of the Rings quote for that]. That means that I really don't know what's going to happen to ME. I could turn to legalism. I could lose the war. 
Not sure whether to be scared or not. 


Oh, and YOU can lose or win the war too.