On the outside, it was a fairly idyllic childhood.
Seventeen acres in the middle of the woods, our three bedroom double wide trailer plopped on a manmade knoll on the hill. A large garden, swings and a playhouse my dad built himself, trees to climb on, forests to explore, a million white cloth diapers swinging in the wind. There were six of us by then, all girls. I remember being outside a lot in the summer; reading on my bed in the winter as wind and snow swirled around us(it being upstate New York, after all). Idyllic? To everyone who didn't live there, sure.
But paradise, by its very nature, doesn't really exist.
The truth is, I have no intention of talking much about my childhood on this blog. We were borderline patriarchal, I suppose. Lots of kids. Homeschooled. My mom subscribed to all the "right" magazines, they flirted with family integrated church, we didn't have a whole lot of socialization in my younger years. They had a lot of friends in ATI, though my parents never bought into all that Gothard said. Looking back I can see some of the influences--they thought all rock music, even Christian rock, was satanic for a while, though they gave that up at some point. They were influenced by a lot of people, a lot of good friends, who, looking back, were terribly, terribly afraid of the outside world.
(By the way, I also have no intention of judging my parents, especially my mother. I love being a mother and a wife, but I have no idea if I would still be a good mother if I had six children eleven years old and under, being a stay-at-home-mom in a cramped trailer in the middle of nowhere with very little money and a husband who worked long hours. I suspect the stress would get to me, and my children would not remember me as a very happy person or as a decent mother. Fortunately, this is not a scenario I see happening.)
But I bring this all up today because, looking back, I see how terribly influenced my parents were by the magazines they read, the friends they had, the choices those friends make. And the root cause of all of those choices was fear. Fear of the big, bad world outside. Fear of corrupting influences. Fear of public school, of pantyhose on little girls instead of thick white tights, fear of the slippery slope that Christian rock or age-segregated Sunday School might bring. Who knows what your children might be taught by dedicated Sunday School teachers, or worse, what the public schooled children--who are not as innocent as your kids, most assuredly--might whisper to them? The best way to avoid this is to have family Sunday school, where the parents and all their kids, regardless of age, learn together. Or better yet, just skip Sunday School altogether, after all, it's never mentioned in the Bible. As fear took a deeper hold, the movement towards homechurching started...just stay home! Dad is the priest of the home; he can teach his wife and children all about God. Who needs church? Who needs ministers? Who needs the corrupting influences those worldly(meaning: anyone who is not like us) Christians in church bring? Stay home! Stay safe!
I saw so many families get strangled by fear. Keeping their children by their side all the time. Rarely leaving home. Associating only with those who believed exactly the same way. Afraid of...afraid of everything.
But Christianity has never, ever been about safety.
And they skipped over 1 John 4 completely, where the apostle teaches that Christians have nothing to fear from the world. That "He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world."
They missed that. Instead, fear crept in. Wrapped its long tentacles around their lives, choking them, while all the time they thought they were living the only Godly lifestyle. Meanwhile, their kids saw it for what it was, and walked away.
Because they were afraid of...of what?
Of the outside world. Of the unknown. Of not being able to control their children's every action, thought, choice. Of the fear that their children might, possibly, make a wrong choice. And instead of teaching their children about making good decisions and giving them many opportunities to practice, they never let their children make choices at all.
Fear is a destroyer. It destroys lives and families.
We are not called to be safe. We do not need to be afraid of the world out there. Parts of it are scary, yes, and bad things happen. I know this; I'm not naive. But I make the choice, every day, to step out of my house, my son by my side, and face the good and the bad and the ugly.
We need to teach our children right and wrong, good choices and bad choices, and then step back, hard as it is, and let them fly.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Monday, December 26, 2011
Homesteading Movement
I stumbled across this blog the other day while looking for something Broken Flowers Of the Catholic Homesteading Movement
It took me a few minutes to realize why some of it sounded so familiar, and then realized that the homestead was less than an hour away from where I grew up. It's highly likely that somewhere I heard about it, especially the billboard they speak of. For those unfamiliar with the homesteading movement, the idea was basically to live as close to Little House On the Prairie as possible. We knew families who sold everything and bought as much land as they could with the proceeds, and lived in campers/barns/tents/makeshift buildings as they constructed a house debt free from the timber on the land. They usually had animals, large gardens, fruit trees eventually, and lived off the grid. My dad still subscribes to "Backwoods Home Magazine," which is one the bibles of this movement, though it advocates living off the grid for secular reasons. The families we knew who fell into thiscraziness lifestyle usually were doing it for religiously based reasons: they believed the Bible instructed fathers to be the head of the household, raising their children(and if you are working a 9-5 job five days a week, it was reasoned, Mommy was the head of the household most of the time, and that just wouldn't do) and having a family run business or agricultural lifestyle, so that Dad could be in charge All The Time. Mom was in charge of (a) obeying Dad, (b) canning/sewing/gardening/cooking on whatever she had to cook with/not spending any money etc. As much as possible was to be homegrown and homemade. Children were invariably homeschooled, such as school was, and the harshness of the lifestyle often left these families struggling to survive, relying on the children to work as hard as the parents, and education often suffered. Money was too tight to buy new textbooks or curriculum, and there was a lot of emphasis on practical skills. The families we knew often homechurched, as well, and the kids were not involved in any extracurricular activities. It was a very secluded, claustrophobic, family-only lifestyle.
I only wish I was exagerrating.
We are adults now. I am not in touch with many of the people I knew, but sometimes through the grapevine I hear stories. Stories of adult children of this movement who found that their limited education was difficult to overcome out in the real world. Stories of anxiety disorders. Stories of women--strong, capable women--trying to discover who they really are. Stories of adults who may be able to cook over an open fire, build a house of trees they cut themselves, raise chickens and raise many little children, but who struggle with daily life and social skills.
It's not a pretty picture.
I find I want to talk about this movement. Though my family lived in the middle of nowhere for several years, cramming a lot of children into a trailer, homeschooling and subsisting from paycheck to paycheck with only one vehicle, my parents never bought into the homesteading movement. They were frugal and tried to be a self-sustaining as possible, but we were not sheltered, overworked, and education was a top priority. It is still very different from how I am raising my children, but I was never once told that women couldn't pursue higher education or work, and my parents have never expected any of us to have large families(though my mother would never turn down grandchildren). But I knew families for whom this wasn't true, and for those children of fifteen years ago, I want to examine this over the next couple weeks.
It took me a few minutes to realize why some of it sounded so familiar, and then realized that the homestead was less than an hour away from where I grew up. It's highly likely that somewhere I heard about it, especially the billboard they speak of. For those unfamiliar with the homesteading movement, the idea was basically to live as close to Little House On the Prairie as possible. We knew families who sold everything and bought as much land as they could with the proceeds, and lived in campers/barns/tents/makeshift buildings as they constructed a house debt free from the timber on the land. They usually had animals, large gardens, fruit trees eventually, and lived off the grid. My dad still subscribes to "Backwoods Home Magazine," which is one the bibles of this movement, though it advocates living off the grid for secular reasons. The families we knew who fell into this
I only wish I was exagerrating.
We are adults now. I am not in touch with many of the people I knew, but sometimes through the grapevine I hear stories. Stories of adult children of this movement who found that their limited education was difficult to overcome out in the real world. Stories of anxiety disorders. Stories of women--strong, capable women--trying to discover who they really are. Stories of adults who may be able to cook over an open fire, build a house of trees they cut themselves, raise chickens and raise many little children, but who struggle with daily life and social skills.
It's not a pretty picture.
I find I want to talk about this movement. Though my family lived in the middle of nowhere for several years, cramming a lot of children into a trailer, homeschooling and subsisting from paycheck to paycheck with only one vehicle, my parents never bought into the homesteading movement. They were frugal and tried to be a self-sustaining as possible, but we were not sheltered, overworked, and education was a top priority. It is still very different from how I am raising my children, but I was never once told that women couldn't pursue higher education or work, and my parents have never expected any of us to have large families(though my mother would never turn down grandchildren). But I knew families for whom this wasn't true, and for those children of fifteen years ago, I want to examine this over the next couple weeks.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Choices
Very occasionally, I understand the lure of patriarchy.
Today I took my son to a new day care. We are just trying it out for a few weeks, and he was only there for a few hours in the morning. I came back after lunch, during their rest time, to find my little boy standing up in the playpen, sobbing his heart out. His eyes were red, his nose running, his shirt soaked with tears and snot. I scooped him out and he wimpered, "Mommy, no go bye-bye."
Unfortunately, his nap time doesn't coincide with the day care's naptime. He might have played quietly with toys and a book if they had been offered, but it isn't their policy to do so. The other seven babies have been there since they were six weeks old, and are there five days a week, so their schedules are the same. My son's isn't.
It also, apparently, is not their policy to pick up a child who sobs for half an hour and comfort him.
I came very, very close to quitting my job today. Fortunately, my reasonable husband said, "Well, you can. We can afford it, if that's what you want. But you like your job. And you only work two days a week; we can work around your schedule."
And we can. But my point is that sometimes I understand the security that patriarchy can seem to offer. Dad works, preferably at home, where he is easily accessible. Mom takes care of the kids and the house, not having to worry about day cares and work schedules and what in the world she's going to make for dinner after getting off a twelve hour shift. Life is prescribed; Dad does this, Mom does that, kids do what Mom and Dad say, and Mom does what Dad says. There's no guessing; no struggling in the dark hours of the night about choosing good child care or whether or not a parent should keep working.
(By the way, I'm not saying that day care is wrong. My son was in a wonderful day care for several months, but it's no longer available so we are looking at other options.)
There is some measure of comfort in having your choices taken away. When you lose choice, you can stop wondering whether or not you are doing the right things.
But you lose so much more.
You lose who you are. What makes you you. You lose the understanding that what works well for you may not work well for another family. When choice is taken away, and roles are set in stone, who are you? Are you just a robot, following your programming?
That is why I will never veer down the path of patriarchy(well, that and my husband has too much sense). Even when I struggle with my choices, I am glad I have the ability to make them. Even when I look at my sleeping son tonight, snuggled in his crib, and flash back to his tear streaked face earlier today, wondering if I should even keep working, I am so thankful I have that choice. Many, many women are not financially able to make a choice about working, and many women have been denied the education that would give them career options. I don't know yet exactly what I'm going to decide, but I am so, so thankful that ultimately, it is my decision, not one that my church, pastor, parents or husband have made for me.
Today I took my son to a new day care. We are just trying it out for a few weeks, and he was only there for a few hours in the morning. I came back after lunch, during their rest time, to find my little boy standing up in the playpen, sobbing his heart out. His eyes were red, his nose running, his shirt soaked with tears and snot. I scooped him out and he wimpered, "Mommy, no go bye-bye."
Unfortunately, his nap time doesn't coincide with the day care's naptime. He might have played quietly with toys and a book if they had been offered, but it isn't their policy to do so. The other seven babies have been there since they were six weeks old, and are there five days a week, so their schedules are the same. My son's isn't.
It also, apparently, is not their policy to pick up a child who sobs for half an hour and comfort him.
I came very, very close to quitting my job today. Fortunately, my reasonable husband said, "Well, you can. We can afford it, if that's what you want. But you like your job. And you only work two days a week; we can work around your schedule."
And we can. But my point is that sometimes I understand the security that patriarchy can seem to offer. Dad works, preferably at home, where he is easily accessible. Mom takes care of the kids and the house, not having to worry about day cares and work schedules and what in the world she's going to make for dinner after getting off a twelve hour shift. Life is prescribed; Dad does this, Mom does that, kids do what Mom and Dad say, and Mom does what Dad says. There's no guessing; no struggling in the dark hours of the night about choosing good child care or whether or not a parent should keep working.
(By the way, I'm not saying that day care is wrong. My son was in a wonderful day care for several months, but it's no longer available so we are looking at other options.)
There is some measure of comfort in having your choices taken away. When you lose choice, you can stop wondering whether or not you are doing the right things.
But you lose so much more.
You lose who you are. What makes you you. You lose the understanding that what works well for you may not work well for another family. When choice is taken away, and roles are set in stone, who are you? Are you just a robot, following your programming?
That is why I will never veer down the path of patriarchy(well, that and my husband has too much sense). Even when I struggle with my choices, I am glad I have the ability to make them. Even when I look at my sleeping son tonight, snuggled in his crib, and flash back to his tear streaked face earlier today, wondering if I should even keep working, I am so thankful I have that choice. Many, many women are not financially able to make a choice about working, and many women have been denied the education that would give them career options. I don't know yet exactly what I'm going to decide, but I am so, so thankful that ultimately, it is my decision, not one that my church, pastor, parents or husband have made for me.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Vision Forum Curriculum
There is a book from Vision Forum entitled "Building a Winning Curriculum: How To Use Vision Forum Products To Build a Winning Homeschool Curriculum." It appears to be a guide to designing unit studies using mainly Vision Forum products, studying such academic topics as:
Manly Leadership
The Nobility of Womanhood
The Blessing of Children
A Culture of Virtuous Boyhood and Girlhood
The Development of Christianity and Western Civilization
Science and Creationism
We'll take the second to last one, development of Christianity and Western Civilization, just because it is one of the more comparable topics to other academic curriculums. Author Dorys Horn writes, "We need to teach our children to defend their faith by understanding God's providential hand in history. I know of no better way to do this than to expose them to men who have a passionate love and appreciation for God and for the subject they teach."
Utilizing the Western Civilization Collection as the basis of this study(with lectures by such people as Dough Phillips, Dr. Joseph Morecraft III, William Potter and Colin Gunn), Mrs. Horn divides each unit per DVD, of which there are ten. The first one is entitled Five Hundred Years of Liberty Birthed by the Reformation. It is a lecture by--you guessed it--Doug Phillips himself, "(providing) a panoramic overview of the Reformation while introducing the audience to the worldview issues articulated by John Calvin, and demonstrates how Calvin helped to lay the foundations of freedom for modern Western Civilization." It may just be the political philosophy bachelor's degree holder in me, but I don't remember John Calvin discussed in this context. I do, however, remember John Locke, Jean Jacque Rousseau, Thomas Jefferson, Plato, Socrates, St. Augustine, and several others studied. None of these people, save Thomas Jefferson and Augustine, are mentioned at all throughout this entire history study.
Once you watch this video, the topics for composition and discussion are:
Calvin's Impact On The Family
The Origination of Representative Government
What is the greatest battle of our day?
How did the reformation lay the foundation of freedom for modern Western Civilization?
Further study topics include the Council of Nicea, Geneva Psalter, Gregorian Chant, Five Solas of the Faith, and the Doctrine of Providence.
For further reading, they suggest some more DVDs by Dr. Morecraft on topics of the Five Solas, St. Augustine, and "What Every Christian Needs To Know About the Revolution."
DVD #2 is even lighter academically. It discusses how "John Calvin is arguably the most important man of the past 1,000 years and how his influence has reached into the 21st century." For composition and discussion, they suggest "two marks of a true church," "Calvin and Evanglism", "Calvinism and the 21st Century." Further study topics includes Libertines, Anabaptists, ANtinomianism, and Alexander Duff. One book by Philip Vollmer on John Calvin is listed for reading, as well as 3 more DVD videos by Dr. Morecraft.
Not once are any books suggested from outside Vision Forum, nor are any original writings by Calvin, differing viewpoints especially from Calvin's time period, and, frankly, I'm not sure how they can make the statement that John Calvin is not just the most important man in a millenium, but that the philosophic underpinnings of American democracy lie on his shoulders.
Sonlight Curriculum(which I am using simply for comparison purposes) covers the Reformation through the present in approximately the same age group the above Vision Forum curriculum is suggested for--7th-9th grade. Copied from their website, here are the goals:
You and your children will...
My goal in educating my children is not indoctrination. It is not presenting false viewpoints(such as Calvin is responsible for American Revolution), but studying the world events holistically. What was going on historically, economically, creatively, that precipitated this world event? Why were there so many voices of human rights and political reform during a particular time? What were the thoughts, events, writings, movements that spawned the Renaissance, the American Civil War, the Women's Rights movement? I want my children to read literature. Literature that may present viewpoints or ideas that I don't agree with. I want them to immerse themselves in good, high quality literature; to know a good book when they see it. I want my children to be critical readers.
I want my children exposed to differening viewpoints, different ideas. I want them to understand that even though I may disagree with some things, that there may be good and strong points made by those who hold opposite views.
I want my children to think for themselves.
And this is why I won't be using Vision Forum products in our homeschool. Teaching your child one viewpoint will lead to an adult that either dismisses other ideas out of hand or becomes confused the first time they encounter an articulate, intelligent person who believes differently. Skimming through history, only studying subjects, people and writings that fit neatly into your worldview will lead to a child who not only is getting a terrible education, but who cannot process today's events.
Vision Forum is not interested in critical thinking. They are interested in selling a product and a lifestyle. They aren't that interested in educating your children, because they know that true education will lead to critical thinking skills, which, in turn, will lead to them going out of business. I can't stop places like Vision Forum, but I can teach my children critical thinking skills. Perhaps, though, that is the one thing that scares them the most.
Manly Leadership
The Nobility of Womanhood
The Blessing of Children
A Culture of Virtuous Boyhood and Girlhood
The Development of Christianity and Western Civilization
Science and Creationism
We'll take the second to last one, development of Christianity and Western Civilization, just because it is one of the more comparable topics to other academic curriculums. Author Dorys Horn writes, "We need to teach our children to defend their faith by understanding God's providential hand in history. I know of no better way to do this than to expose them to men who have a passionate love and appreciation for God and for the subject they teach."
Utilizing the Western Civilization Collection as the basis of this study(with lectures by such people as Dough Phillips, Dr. Joseph Morecraft III, William Potter and Colin Gunn), Mrs. Horn divides each unit per DVD, of which there are ten. The first one is entitled Five Hundred Years of Liberty Birthed by the Reformation. It is a lecture by--you guessed it--Doug Phillips himself, "(providing) a panoramic overview of the Reformation while introducing the audience to the worldview issues articulated by John Calvin, and demonstrates how Calvin helped to lay the foundations of freedom for modern Western Civilization." It may just be the political philosophy bachelor's degree holder in me, but I don't remember John Calvin discussed in this context. I do, however, remember John Locke, Jean Jacque Rousseau, Thomas Jefferson, Plato, Socrates, St. Augustine, and several others studied. None of these people, save Thomas Jefferson and Augustine, are mentioned at all throughout this entire history study.
Once you watch this video, the topics for composition and discussion are:
Calvin's Impact On The Family
The Origination of Representative Government
What is the greatest battle of our day?
How did the reformation lay the foundation of freedom for modern Western Civilization?
Further study topics include the Council of Nicea, Geneva Psalter, Gregorian Chant, Five Solas of the Faith, and the Doctrine of Providence.
For further reading, they suggest some more DVDs by Dr. Morecraft on topics of the Five Solas, St. Augustine, and "What Every Christian Needs To Know About the Revolution."
DVD #2 is even lighter academically. It discusses how "John Calvin is arguably the most important man of the past 1,000 years and how his influence has reached into the 21st century." For composition and discussion, they suggest "two marks of a true church," "Calvin and Evanglism", "Calvinism and the 21st Century." Further study topics includes Libertines, Anabaptists, ANtinomianism, and Alexander Duff. One book by Philip Vollmer on John Calvin is listed for reading, as well as 3 more DVD videos by Dr. Morecraft.
Not once are any books suggested from outside Vision Forum, nor are any original writings by Calvin, differing viewpoints especially from Calvin's time period, and, frankly, I'm not sure how they can make the statement that John Calvin is not just the most important man in a millenium, but that the philosophic underpinnings of American democracy lie on his shoulders.
Sonlight Curriculum(which I am using simply for comparison purposes) covers the Reformation through the present in approximately the same age group the above Vision Forum curriculum is suggested for--7th-9th grade. Copied from their website, here are the goals:
You and your children will...
- Discover what it was like to live in the exciting world of the 1700s as you meet Benjamin Franklin, Napoleon, Fredrick the Great, Catherine of Russia and many more.
- Open a window into the world of our first president—George Washington.
- Experience the rich tapestry of world events and political happenings of the 1800s in places like: Britain, Germany, Japan and Russia.
- Travel along with Abraham Lincoln as he works his way from a young frontier boy, to President of the United States. Get a deeper look into his life as you discover the heart of the man who is now known as one our greatest presidents.
- Dodge many bullets as you walk through the political, economic, cultural and social stresses that produced several revolutions, a civil war and two world wars.
- Discover how new technology changed communication, travel and war forever and forced a few "isolated" countries to "westernize"—later to emerge as formidable world powers.
- And much more.
My goal in educating my children is not indoctrination. It is not presenting false viewpoints(such as Calvin is responsible for American Revolution), but studying the world events holistically. What was going on historically, economically, creatively, that precipitated this world event? Why were there so many voices of human rights and political reform during a particular time? What were the thoughts, events, writings, movements that spawned the Renaissance, the American Civil War, the Women's Rights movement? I want my children to read literature. Literature that may present viewpoints or ideas that I don't agree with. I want them to immerse themselves in good, high quality literature; to know a good book when they see it. I want my children to be critical readers.
I want my children exposed to differening viewpoints, different ideas. I want them to understand that even though I may disagree with some things, that there may be good and strong points made by those who hold opposite views.
I want my children to think for themselves.
And this is why I won't be using Vision Forum products in our homeschool. Teaching your child one viewpoint will lead to an adult that either dismisses other ideas out of hand or becomes confused the first time they encounter an articulate, intelligent person who believes differently. Skimming through history, only studying subjects, people and writings that fit neatly into your worldview will lead to a child who not only is getting a terrible education, but who cannot process today's events.
Vision Forum is not interested in critical thinking. They are interested in selling a product and a lifestyle. They aren't that interested in educating your children, because they know that true education will lead to critical thinking skills, which, in turn, will lead to them going out of business. I can't stop places like Vision Forum, but I can teach my children critical thinking skills. Perhaps, though, that is the one thing that scares them the most.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Magic formulas
On some of the fundie women's forums I frequent, there is a recurring theme that if you only do all the right things--homeschool, dress modestly, don't use credit or loans, be a stay at home mom, and become pregnant every eighteen months--God will bless you abundantly and fulfill all of your of your needs, both financially and physically.
Here is how this is working in my life:
On Saturday, I got my first homeschooling catalog.
On Sunday, I took a home pregnancy test and found out that I am, indeed, pregnant.
On Monday, I fell off my porch that is being remodeled(debt free, I might add), and tore 75% of the ligaments in my left foot and ankle.
Fortunately, I am only a part-time stay-at-home mom, and I have Aflac through work, and my husband is not self-employed and thus has Blue Cross Blue Shield through his job, so the ER and X-ray bill are completely paid for and Aflac will send me a nice check.
So according to my fundie friends, God is blessing me with something good(my hospital bill paid and the Aflac check on top of it) for something bad that happened, and the only reason that bad thing happened is because Satan doesn't want any more godly children and was purposely tripping me to make me decide to use birth control.
You can't make this stuff up. That last paragraph is pretty darn close to what a fundie friend told me this morning.
Works-based religion is one of my biggest pet peeves with any legalistic movement. There is zero Scriptural evidence that God considers birth control a sin, and a whole lot of evidence that God can send a baby to a couple whenever He wants, regardless of their age, status as a virgin, or usage of conception. The passages describing things such as debt free living and modest dress are not commands, but guidelines. Yes, it is wise to live life without buying things you really can't afford on credit. Yes, it is probably wise to dress in such a way that cars aren't pulling over and asking how much you charge whenever you walk down the street. Those are good things--but they are not Biblical commands. And God does not love a stay-at-home, headcovering, homeschooling mom any more or any less than he loves the single mom next door who is working two jobs to try and pay the bills and wears jeans. Scripturally, there is nothing we can do to make God love us any more or any less than He already does. That doesn't mean we have free license to do whatever we want--Jesus was pretty clear that we need to love God and love others, and He had strong words to say about those who put on a show of better-than-you to try and earn points with God. The Pharisees, anyone? The ones who prayed loud prayers thanking God for how wonderful they were? Jesus couldn't stand them.
And neither can I.
So that is what bothers me about works-based religion. If I can do all the "right" things to earn favor and be blessed by God, what was the point of Jesus? If all I have to do in order to have a good life is A, B, and C, then why are there so many struggling people doing all those things? Why do I know so many young adults who grew up hard-core fundie who want nothing to do with God or church, and many who have significant anxiety and depression issues?
Because there is no magic formula. Regardless of what the Pearls, Doug Phillips, Geoff Botkin, fill-in-the-blank tell you, there is no one magic formula for a happy life. There is no guarantee that if you homeschool/home church/shelter your kids that they aren't going to grow up and hate you, and then go live a normal American life. Good things are not going to happen to you just because you are living a certain way that a teacher is telling you.
What really happens is that good things, like this baby coming next June, and bad things, like a sprained ankle, happen to everyone no matter what. Accidents happen and people get hurt; it doesn't mean Jesus is unhappy with you. Good things happen, and it doesn't necessarily mean that you're living the right way.
There is no formula.
No magic.
Only life.
Here is how this is working in my life:
On Saturday, I got my first homeschooling catalog.
On Sunday, I took a home pregnancy test and found out that I am, indeed, pregnant.
On Monday, I fell off my porch that is being remodeled(debt free, I might add), and tore 75% of the ligaments in my left foot and ankle.
Fortunately, I am only a part-time stay-at-home mom, and I have Aflac through work, and my husband is not self-employed and thus has Blue Cross Blue Shield through his job, so the ER and X-ray bill are completely paid for and Aflac will send me a nice check.
So according to my fundie friends, God is blessing me with something good(my hospital bill paid and the Aflac check on top of it) for something bad that happened, and the only reason that bad thing happened is because Satan doesn't want any more godly children and was purposely tripping me to make me decide to use birth control.
You can't make this stuff up. That last paragraph is pretty darn close to what a fundie friend told me this morning.
Works-based religion is one of my biggest pet peeves with any legalistic movement. There is zero Scriptural evidence that God considers birth control a sin, and a whole lot of evidence that God can send a baby to a couple whenever He wants, regardless of their age, status as a virgin, or usage of conception. The passages describing things such as debt free living and modest dress are not commands, but guidelines. Yes, it is wise to live life without buying things you really can't afford on credit. Yes, it is probably wise to dress in such a way that cars aren't pulling over and asking how much you charge whenever you walk down the street. Those are good things--but they are not Biblical commands. And God does not love a stay-at-home, headcovering, homeschooling mom any more or any less than he loves the single mom next door who is working two jobs to try and pay the bills and wears jeans. Scripturally, there is nothing we can do to make God love us any more or any less than He already does. That doesn't mean we have free license to do whatever we want--Jesus was pretty clear that we need to love God and love others, and He had strong words to say about those who put on a show of better-than-you to try and earn points with God. The Pharisees, anyone? The ones who prayed loud prayers thanking God for how wonderful they were? Jesus couldn't stand them.
And neither can I.
So that is what bothers me about works-based religion. If I can do all the "right" things to earn favor and be blessed by God, what was the point of Jesus? If all I have to do in order to have a good life is A, B, and C, then why are there so many struggling people doing all those things? Why do I know so many young adults who grew up hard-core fundie who want nothing to do with God or church, and many who have significant anxiety and depression issues?
Because there is no magic formula. Regardless of what the Pearls, Doug Phillips, Geoff Botkin, fill-in-the-blank tell you, there is no one magic formula for a happy life. There is no guarantee that if you homeschool/home church/shelter your kids that they aren't going to grow up and hate you, and then go live a normal American life. Good things are not going to happen to you just because you are living a certain way that a teacher is telling you.
What really happens is that good things, like this baby coming next June, and bad things, like a sprained ankle, happen to everyone no matter what. Accidents happen and people get hurt; it doesn't mean Jesus is unhappy with you. Good things happen, and it doesn't necessarily mean that you're living the right way.
There is no formula.
No magic.
Only life.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Love at fifteen
Once, a long time ago in high school, I fell in love. As much love as a 14-year-old can be in, but it felt real at the time. Looking back, I think it was real. A different love than the love I have for my husband, for I was a different person at 14 than I am at just about 30.
This young man was entrenched deeply into patriarchy, though I didn't see it at the time. His family was so deep into patriarchy that when we were 15, they went and lived at a "mission" in the Appalachian mountains. I can only describe it as a commune though it portrayed itself as a training camp for future missionaries. In any case, they eschewed not just birth control, dating, public school and regular church, but also electricity, just in case you might be called to a country where they had no electricity. Phone calls to the outside world were limited to Sunday nights at the leader's house where they listened to every word, and, though I have never been able to prove it, I strongly, strongly suspect our letters to each other were read not only by his parents, but by the mission leaders.
I wasn't much different fifteen years ago than I am now. It screamed cult, and cult was what I called it. Blatently. Loudly. To their face.
My letters to him were filled with teenage refutations to the arguments they presented--why women shouldn't go to college. Why dating was bad. Why birth control was anti-Biblical. Why it ticked me off completely that their practical classes were segregated by gender--the men studied construction, hunting, community planning, first aid. The women studied childrearing, homeschooling, sewing, and cooking. I argued that we should not get married at sixteen years old so I could go to the misison field with his family. (Seriously, the cult leaders recommended that. I suspect they thought marriage would shut me up and make me toe the submissive line. I should hunt them down now and let them talk to my husband about how well that worked)
I should have seen it. But by then I was 17, and we were madly, deeply in love. I didn't want to see what would happen. I didn't want to realize that I was a threat to the cult leadership; that one of their followers in a relationship with a smart, outspoken, opionated, educated and assertive woman would destroy what they had tried to build.
But it came down to one question.
Would I submit to him in all things after we were married, even if it was something I believed to be a sin?
And the answer was no, I would not.
I'm nothing if not honest and blunt. What you see is what you get with me. And no, I would not, could not, submit to my husband in all things.
After three years, that was the end of that relationship.
Eventually they realized it for what it is, and left. From mutual friends, I know that he, his wife, his parents, brother and sister-in-law are still wallowing deep in patriarchy and the family-integrated church movement. I run across articles that he or his in-laws have written every now and then.
The last thing he told me was that I wouldn't find a good Christian man if I couldn't submit.
Today is my 2 and a half year wedding anniversary.
My husband is a good Christian man. He was a deacon in his church for a while. He believes in God, and Jesus, and a literal interpretation of the Bible. And he loves so completely and totally that it takes my breath away. Two-and-a-half years of marriage later, just hearing him walk onto the porch makes my heart skip a beat. We are madly, passionately, truly in love with each other.
And my husband does not expect me to submit to him in all things.
He expects me to love him, and I expect him to love me. I expect him to put my needs and wants ahead of his own, and I do the same for him. He would not want me to do something he wanted if I firmly believed it was wrong, and I would not want him to do something he believed was a sin. This isn't submission. It's mutual respect and love, two core building blocks of any marriage.
Patriarchy has no place in our marriage.
So in the end, I dodged a bullet. I met someone, even if it was ten years later, and fell in love. And this is why I talk about patriarchy and gender roles and submission. I talk about it for the fifteen year old girl that I was, in the throes of teenage love.
And I talk about it for the fifteen year old girls that are out there today, who for whatever reason aren't able to look at the patriarchal movement and say, loudly and boldy, This is a lie. I talk about this for the fifteen-year-old girls who have been taught and believe that they are worth nothing more than their virginity and then their wombs. I talk about this for that fifteen-year-old girl, sitting in her room in her long skirts, exhausted from caring for her siblings and the responsibilities of a large family. For the girls trapped and not seeing any way out.
This blog, and everyplace else I write, is for you.
This young man was entrenched deeply into patriarchy, though I didn't see it at the time. His family was so deep into patriarchy that when we were 15, they went and lived at a "mission" in the Appalachian mountains. I can only describe it as a commune though it portrayed itself as a training camp for future missionaries. In any case, they eschewed not just birth control, dating, public school and regular church, but also electricity, just in case you might be called to a country where they had no electricity. Phone calls to the outside world were limited to Sunday nights at the leader's house where they listened to every word, and, though I have never been able to prove it, I strongly, strongly suspect our letters to each other were read not only by his parents, but by the mission leaders.
I wasn't much different fifteen years ago than I am now. It screamed cult, and cult was what I called it. Blatently. Loudly. To their face.
My letters to him were filled with teenage refutations to the arguments they presented--why women shouldn't go to college. Why dating was bad. Why birth control was anti-Biblical. Why it ticked me off completely that their practical classes were segregated by gender--the men studied construction, hunting, community planning, first aid. The women studied childrearing, homeschooling, sewing, and cooking. I argued that we should not get married at sixteen years old so I could go to the misison field with his family. (Seriously, the cult leaders recommended that. I suspect they thought marriage would shut me up and make me toe the submissive line. I should hunt them down now and let them talk to my husband about how well that worked)
I should have seen it. But by then I was 17, and we were madly, deeply in love. I didn't want to see what would happen. I didn't want to realize that I was a threat to the cult leadership; that one of their followers in a relationship with a smart, outspoken, opionated, educated and assertive woman would destroy what they had tried to build.
But it came down to one question.
Would I submit to him in all things after we were married, even if it was something I believed to be a sin?
And the answer was no, I would not.
I'm nothing if not honest and blunt. What you see is what you get with me. And no, I would not, could not, submit to my husband in all things.
After three years, that was the end of that relationship.
Eventually they realized it for what it is, and left. From mutual friends, I know that he, his wife, his parents, brother and sister-in-law are still wallowing deep in patriarchy and the family-integrated church movement. I run across articles that he or his in-laws have written every now and then.
The last thing he told me was that I wouldn't find a good Christian man if I couldn't submit.
Today is my 2 and a half year wedding anniversary.
My husband is a good Christian man. He was a deacon in his church for a while. He believes in God, and Jesus, and a literal interpretation of the Bible. And he loves so completely and totally that it takes my breath away. Two-and-a-half years of marriage later, just hearing him walk onto the porch makes my heart skip a beat. We are madly, passionately, truly in love with each other.
And my husband does not expect me to submit to him in all things.
He expects me to love him, and I expect him to love me. I expect him to put my needs and wants ahead of his own, and I do the same for him. He would not want me to do something he wanted if I firmly believed it was wrong, and I would not want him to do something he believed was a sin. This isn't submission. It's mutual respect and love, two core building blocks of any marriage.
Patriarchy has no place in our marriage.
So in the end, I dodged a bullet. I met someone, even if it was ten years later, and fell in love. And this is why I talk about patriarchy and gender roles and submission. I talk about it for the fifteen year old girl that I was, in the throes of teenage love.
And I talk about it for the fifteen year old girls that are out there today, who for whatever reason aren't able to look at the patriarchal movement and say, loudly and boldy, This is a lie. I talk about this for the fifteen-year-old girls who have been taught and believe that they are worth nothing more than their virginity and then their wombs. I talk about this for that fifteen-year-old girl, sitting in her room in her long skirts, exhausted from caring for her siblings and the responsibilities of a large family. For the girls trapped and not seeing any way out.
This blog, and everyplace else I write, is for you.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Patriarchal fail
Recently I received an email from a facebook acquaintance who explained why she was unfriending me. She's heavy into patriarchy and it's associated nonsense, and she explained that (a) my questioning of her potty training methods(strapping her sixteen month old son onto a potty chair and letting him watch videos all afternoon, which I suggested is not something that is developmentally appropriate) was unacceptable and (b) while she wants to raise her children for the glory of God, apparently all I want is to raise my children for the glory of myself, and that is also unacceptable. She cited the fact that I work and am so busy in outside activities that I have no time for my husband and son(the latter fact is something I was unaware of, since my husband is rarely home and my son usually accompanies me on things like infant music lessons and swimming, since those are activities for him, not me) as proof that I'm not interested in God.
She also cited my college degrees, my not getting married until I was 27, and only having one child in two years of marriage(what huh?) as further proof of being "out for myself."
Have I mentioned that she is a good six years younger than me, with three children under four, a husband who earns barely minimum wage and can't keep a job, and they just moved into their sixth apartment in a year because they have to keep downgrading due to finances? And she refuses to get a job to help out because she's a woman, even though they are barely subsisting and going deeper and deeper into debt.
I don't bring this up to talk about her. I bring this up to talk about the logical disconnect here. When a family is barely able to put food on the table because neither parent has any education and the belief is that it is always wrong for a wife to work, patriarchy has failed. When a family is living in a one-bedroom apartment and praying the landlord doesn't find out they had a baby a year ago and Mom is pregnant with number four and they can't afford a large enough vehicle for all their kids, the belief system is a failure. It's not about money; it's about being smart enough to realize when something isn't working.
And in this family, getting married at 18, not pursuing higher education, and popping out child after child while crammed into an apartment because their lifestyle choices have limited their earning potential--this is not a success story.
And yet there are people in my husband's former church who hold up this family as the pinnacle of succes. They tell their children--look at that family! Homeschoolers who married young and now have a bunch of children! That is what you want!
While us--married in our late twenties, six college degrees and two professional certifications between us, with an income that is not spectacular but pays the bills and lets us have a little fun, one very loved and welcomed child who gets to have not only his own bedroom but a playroom and a puppy, too--we're the failures?
It's not about money. Someone who makes a better income is not better than someone who doesn't. It's about providing for the family you've chosen to have. It's about making sure you have the skills and/or education you need in order to hold down a job that pays the bills and provides adequate food, shelter, clothing and education for your children.
It's about not blindly continuing to hold onto a belief system that has proven itself to be an absolute failure.
So I have one less facebook friend. But my son, who is not strapped into a potty chair in front of a television, is running around here today with crayons in his little fist. He's well fed. His clothes, though they aren't new, are clean and well fitting. He knows his Mommy and his Daddy love him, and that when they go to work, he gets to go to Grandma's house and play in the sandbox. And he knows that they will come back, and take him to the zoo, or out on the boat, or swimming at the pool, or some other great adventure that he loves. And someday, he will know that while man may tell him that he has to do A, B, and C in order to live the way God wants(or not do A, B, and C, such as the case may be), he will know that those are man's requirements, and not God's. And hopefully, carefully, prayerfully, we will ensure he has the tools to discern when a belief system comes from man, and not from God.
She also cited my college degrees, my not getting married until I was 27, and only having one child in two years of marriage(what huh?) as further proof of being "out for myself."
Have I mentioned that she is a good six years younger than me, with three children under four, a husband who earns barely minimum wage and can't keep a job, and they just moved into their sixth apartment in a year because they have to keep downgrading due to finances? And she refuses to get a job to help out because she's a woman, even though they are barely subsisting and going deeper and deeper into debt.
I don't bring this up to talk about her. I bring this up to talk about the logical disconnect here. When a family is barely able to put food on the table because neither parent has any education and the belief is that it is always wrong for a wife to work, patriarchy has failed. When a family is living in a one-bedroom apartment and praying the landlord doesn't find out they had a baby a year ago and Mom is pregnant with number four and they can't afford a large enough vehicle for all their kids, the belief system is a failure. It's not about money; it's about being smart enough to realize when something isn't working.
And in this family, getting married at 18, not pursuing higher education, and popping out child after child while crammed into an apartment because their lifestyle choices have limited their earning potential--this is not a success story.
And yet there are people in my husband's former church who hold up this family as the pinnacle of succes. They tell their children--look at that family! Homeschoolers who married young and now have a bunch of children! That is what you want!
While us--married in our late twenties, six college degrees and two professional certifications between us, with an income that is not spectacular but pays the bills and lets us have a little fun, one very loved and welcomed child who gets to have not only his own bedroom but a playroom and a puppy, too--we're the failures?
It's not about money. Someone who makes a better income is not better than someone who doesn't. It's about providing for the family you've chosen to have. It's about making sure you have the skills and/or education you need in order to hold down a job that pays the bills and provides adequate food, shelter, clothing and education for your children.
It's about not blindly continuing to hold onto a belief system that has proven itself to be an absolute failure.
So I have one less facebook friend. But my son, who is not strapped into a potty chair in front of a television, is running around here today with crayons in his little fist. He's well fed. His clothes, though they aren't new, are clean and well fitting. He knows his Mommy and his Daddy love him, and that when they go to work, he gets to go to Grandma's house and play in the sandbox. And he knows that they will come back, and take him to the zoo, or out on the boat, or swimming at the pool, or some other great adventure that he loves. And someday, he will know that while man may tell him that he has to do A, B, and C in order to live the way God wants(or not do A, B, and C, such as the case may be), he will know that those are man's requirements, and not God's. And hopefully, carefully, prayerfully, we will ensure he has the tools to discern when a belief system comes from man, and not from God.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Divided: More propaganda without logic
Philip LeLerc is a good looking, articulate, intelligent young man. He and his brother, Chris, pal around with friends from Vision Forum and--oh yeah--make movies, one of VF's pet projects. His latest project has actually received quite a bit of press outside of the patriarchy circles. "Divided" tackles a hot subject in many Christian circles today--why are young adults leaving the church?
Unsurprisingly, the answer Philip comes up with is age-segregation in the church, specifically youth groups. Why is this unsurprising? Because this documentary was sponsered--if not financially, at least philosophically and emotionally--by the National Council for Family Integrated Churches(http://www.ncfic.org/) If you doubt this in any way, please look at their website, on which Scott Brown repeatedly refers to Divided as "our" movie. Mr. Brown also requests donations to help spread the message of the documentary and says that the NCFIC is the sponser of the online free viewing, as well.
Why am I bringing this up in the beginning of this review? Simply put, because Philip LeLerc has a long history of associating with Vision Forum and NCFIC. Mr. LeLerc claims in the beginning of the film that it is a documentary of his journey to discover why young adults are leaving the church. He wants to know, he claims, why young adults don't want to grow up, respect Scripture, and attend church. He also states that what he discovers shocks and saddens him. It is important to view those claims of open mindedness, however, through the lens of realization that this film was supported, from the inception, by NCFIC and its agenda.
The movie begins with interviews at a Christian music festival. One interviewee fondly remembers his youth pastor pulling him out of school to play video games. Others point out that there is a time for study, and a time to "mess around." The not-so-subtle point, of course, is that every single young adult interviewed remembers the fun of the youth group and not the Biblical study. Other points are made, here, as well, primarily that Philip sees no difference between the youths at the Christian music festival and those he sees out in the world. Through several interviews with two youth pastors(both of whom have now changed their views on the value of "fun" youth activities) and Brett McCracken, author of "Hipster Christianity," Philip comes to the conclusion that parents are abdicating their responsibilities to teach their values to their children because they don't believe they are capable. Instead, Philip feels that parents leave teaching Christianity to youth pastors. He then travels to a youth pastor conference, where several people tell him that the most important part of drawing youth to Christ is being "authentic," which Philip interprets as meaning "just be yourself." Other speakers at the conference tell him that they need to be relational and relevant, and Philip says that many told him that the biggest problem is that parents won't get involved, and expect the church to do the parenting for them.
Philip then begins to research modern church structure, starting with Sunday School. Sunday School, according to his interview with Scott Brown, starts philosophically with Plato, who believed that children needed to be removed from their parents in order to be educated by the state. Churches eventually embraced the same idea, developing curricula based on age segregation. This, according to Doug Phillips, is based on evolutionary thinking, though he doesn't explain how, at least in this film. Philip then throws out all child development theory as he believes it is based on "pagan theories." The only basis for anything, then, according to Doug Phillips and Voddie Bachman, is what is portrayed in Scripture. If something is not described or commanded in Scripture, then it should be automatically prohibited. (No comment on why documentaries, which are not described in Scripture, are allowed)
So now that Philip has come to his(pre-drawn) conclusions, he zeroes in on the family integrated church. For this, he interviews Kevin Swanson, who basically repeats what everyone has said previously: (a) there is no description in Scripture of age-segregated churches, (b) there are many commands to parents to train and raise their children, thus (c) age-segregated churches are wrong and harmful to families.
At this point, 35 minutes into the film, Philip finally asks the question I have been waiting for. We can all agree that parents need to disciple and teach their own children, but what is wrong with delegating some of that to the church and/or youth ministries, or even using some of those programs in order to disciple your children?
The answer is that youth groups help parents disobey Scripture by not discipling their own children, and are morally wrong because they are not described in the Bible(no word on why church buildings, which were not used in the first century church, are okay). Philip also says that delegating or outsourcing to the church works to separate parents and children, and he stresses there are just some things one cannot delegate. However, this argument breaks down. His examples include things like loving your wife. No, of course you cannot delegate someone to love your wife, because the very definition of "wife" demands an exclusivity. A husband and a wife's love is supposed to be exclusive to one another, and by definition cannot be delegated. The teaching of children, however, does not fall into this definitional category. Of course it is my responsibility to ensure that my son is well educated in my values and religion. But to say that none of it can be delegated is silly; that would mean I can't ask his grandmother to read him a Bible storybook before bedtime if he's spending the night? You laugh, but that is where this logic would lead you if fully drawn out.
The main problem with this documentary, as well as the problem with much of patriarchal thinking, is the rampant either/or logic. Those interviewed in this film are presenting an artificially limited range of choices--either you are being responsible for training your children, or you are leaving all the teaching and discipling to others. Either a theory is developed only by someone with a Christian worldview, or it is wrong. Either something is described or commanded in the Bible, or it is wrong. It is a very common technique in propaganda, and is designed to cleverly seduce someone who is not well informed on a topic.
Just because something, like child development theory, was developed by a "pagan," doesn' make wrong. And simply because something wasn't spoken about in the Bible doesn't make it wrong--after all, as I have pointed out, church buildings, praise bands, 30 minute sermons, and Wednesday night prayer meeting--and documentaries--are not described in the Bible, either, but it doesn't mean that those things are wrong, just that they did not exist when Scripture was written. And while they do try to argue that teaching children about God is something that cannot be delegated, they fail to explain why.
While I certainly agree that modern church has many problems, and that Sunday School and youth ministry have areas that need to be questioned and critically evaluated, I don't find any compelling arguments in Divided. Frankly, it appears to be nothing more than more propaganda from the Vision Forum/NCFIC crowd. To convince those who are able to spot the logical flaws in their arguments, they will, once again, need to do better than this.
Unsurprisingly, the answer Philip comes up with is age-segregation in the church, specifically youth groups. Why is this unsurprising? Because this documentary was sponsered--if not financially, at least philosophically and emotionally--by the National Council for Family Integrated Churches(http://www.ncfic.org/) If you doubt this in any way, please look at their website, on which Scott Brown repeatedly refers to Divided as "our" movie. Mr. Brown also requests donations to help spread the message of the documentary and says that the NCFIC is the sponser of the online free viewing, as well.
Why am I bringing this up in the beginning of this review? Simply put, because Philip LeLerc has a long history of associating with Vision Forum and NCFIC. Mr. LeLerc claims in the beginning of the film that it is a documentary of his journey to discover why young adults are leaving the church. He wants to know, he claims, why young adults don't want to grow up, respect Scripture, and attend church. He also states that what he discovers shocks and saddens him. It is important to view those claims of open mindedness, however, through the lens of realization that this film was supported, from the inception, by NCFIC and its agenda.
The movie begins with interviews at a Christian music festival. One interviewee fondly remembers his youth pastor pulling him out of school to play video games. Others point out that there is a time for study, and a time to "mess around." The not-so-subtle point, of course, is that every single young adult interviewed remembers the fun of the youth group and not the Biblical study. Other points are made, here, as well, primarily that Philip sees no difference between the youths at the Christian music festival and those he sees out in the world. Through several interviews with two youth pastors(both of whom have now changed their views on the value of "fun" youth activities) and Brett McCracken, author of "Hipster Christianity," Philip comes to the conclusion that parents are abdicating their responsibilities to teach their values to their children because they don't believe they are capable. Instead, Philip feels that parents leave teaching Christianity to youth pastors. He then travels to a youth pastor conference, where several people tell him that the most important part of drawing youth to Christ is being "authentic," which Philip interprets as meaning "just be yourself." Other speakers at the conference tell him that they need to be relational and relevant, and Philip says that many told him that the biggest problem is that parents won't get involved, and expect the church to do the parenting for them.
Philip then begins to research modern church structure, starting with Sunday School. Sunday School, according to his interview with Scott Brown, starts philosophically with Plato, who believed that children needed to be removed from their parents in order to be educated by the state. Churches eventually embraced the same idea, developing curricula based on age segregation. This, according to Doug Phillips, is based on evolutionary thinking, though he doesn't explain how, at least in this film. Philip then throws out all child development theory as he believes it is based on "pagan theories." The only basis for anything, then, according to Doug Phillips and Voddie Bachman, is what is portrayed in Scripture. If something is not described or commanded in Scripture, then it should be automatically prohibited. (No comment on why documentaries, which are not described in Scripture, are allowed)
So now that Philip has come to his(pre-drawn) conclusions, he zeroes in on the family integrated church. For this, he interviews Kevin Swanson, who basically repeats what everyone has said previously: (a) there is no description in Scripture of age-segregated churches, (b) there are many commands to parents to train and raise their children, thus (c) age-segregated churches are wrong and harmful to families.
At this point, 35 minutes into the film, Philip finally asks the question I have been waiting for. We can all agree that parents need to disciple and teach their own children, but what is wrong with delegating some of that to the church and/or youth ministries, or even using some of those programs in order to disciple your children?
The answer is that youth groups help parents disobey Scripture by not discipling their own children, and are morally wrong because they are not described in the Bible(no word on why church buildings, which were not used in the first century church, are okay). Philip also says that delegating or outsourcing to the church works to separate parents and children, and he stresses there are just some things one cannot delegate. However, this argument breaks down. His examples include things like loving your wife. No, of course you cannot delegate someone to love your wife, because the very definition of "wife" demands an exclusivity. A husband and a wife's love is supposed to be exclusive to one another, and by definition cannot be delegated. The teaching of children, however, does not fall into this definitional category. Of course it is my responsibility to ensure that my son is well educated in my values and religion. But to say that none of it can be delegated is silly; that would mean I can't ask his grandmother to read him a Bible storybook before bedtime if he's spending the night? You laugh, but that is where this logic would lead you if fully drawn out.
The main problem with this documentary, as well as the problem with much of patriarchal thinking, is the rampant either/or logic. Those interviewed in this film are presenting an artificially limited range of choices--either you are being responsible for training your children, or you are leaving all the teaching and discipling to others. Either a theory is developed only by someone with a Christian worldview, or it is wrong. Either something is described or commanded in the Bible, or it is wrong. It is a very common technique in propaganda, and is designed to cleverly seduce someone who is not well informed on a topic.
Just because something, like child development theory, was developed by a "pagan," doesn' make wrong. And simply because something wasn't spoken about in the Bible doesn't make it wrong--after all, as I have pointed out, church buildings, praise bands, 30 minute sermons, and Wednesday night prayer meeting--and documentaries--are not described in the Bible, either, but it doesn't mean that those things are wrong, just that they did not exist when Scripture was written. And while they do try to argue that teaching children about God is something that cannot be delegated, they fail to explain why.
While I certainly agree that modern church has many problems, and that Sunday School and youth ministry have areas that need to be questioned and critically evaluated, I don't find any compelling arguments in Divided. Frankly, it appears to be nothing more than more propaganda from the Vision Forum/NCFIC crowd. To convince those who are able to spot the logical flaws in their arguments, they will, once again, need to do better than this.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Dear Doug, you make me mad.
Dear Doug,
I watched "League of Grateful Sons" this morning. On one hand, I commend you for applauding the heros of World War 2 and Iwo Jima in particular. On the other hand, I really dislike you using these brave, heroic men as propaganda tools. You are not worthy to tie their shoes, much less make a "documentary" about them.
#1) WW2 was not an epic battle of Christendom vs. statism, which you assert. We did not go to war with Japan because their little sons were "taken away from moms and dads and being raised by the state." However, when the only "historians" you interview are yourself and Matt Chancey, I don't know why I expected historical accuracy.
#2) The men of WW2 were not fighting so they could preserve the "historic Christian family" where Daddy works 9-5 and Mommy stayshome and bakes cookies. How dare you even assert this, considering that WW2 saw the largest influx of women in the workplace in history. If you did any valid historical research at all, you would know that many of those woman did not want to leave the workplace to be stay at home wives, and it was a large factor in the women's rights movement.
#3) Stop talking about manhood, courage, valor and perserverance like you know what those words mean. You are clueless. Courage, valor, honor, sacrifice, perserverance...those aren't baby names, Doug. Those are attributes that many men--and women--I know posess. Taking your two sons to Iwo Jima to meet veterans of that battle is a good learning experience. It doesn't mean you are on some great research expedition or have suddenly been imbibed with courage and valor. It means you took your kids on an expensive field trip to meet great men.
Do you want to meet real heros, Doug? I'm a paramedic. A few years ago, on the coldest night of the year with -20 wind chill, I got called out in the early morning hours for an elderly man, acancer patient , having trouble breathing. His yard had at least 3 feet of snow in it, his sidewalks and driveway hadn't been shoveled since he was unable to do it, and we had to call the fire department just to help us carry the stretcher through the snow, since it wouldn't roll and had to be picked up and carried several hundred feet to the waiting ambulance. Several members of the local volunteer fire department showed up in the bone chilling wind and cold, and we carried that man to the waiting ambulance. While I was giving him a breathing treatment and starting an IV, I looked out the back windows of the ambulance. And there were the men and women of the fire department, who didn't know this man or his wife at all, out in the driveway and sidewalk with shovels. In that freezing cold, they were shoveling this man's property so his wife wouldn't have to worry about it. It took them a good 30 minutes between the six of them, and they all had to go home and warm up and go to their paying jobs yet that day. They were missing sleep and the comforts of home to stay longer and hand shovel that driveway and sidewalk. Nobody asked them to. It wasn't part of their job description . They weren't receiving any compensation.
They did it because it was the right thing to do.
That is honor, Doug. That is valor. That is sacrifice.
That is what I want my son to be.
I don't want him to grow up and be like you. Or Matt Chancey. I want him to know true courage, and true honor, and true valor. I want him to do the right thing, even when it's cold and uncomfortable and he's tired. I want him to be a man who will get out of his nice warm bed in the middle of a freezing winter night to help someone else out, and expect nothing in return.
Until you have any clue about real life courage, please stop talking about it like you know what those words mean.
Thank you.
Signed,
A college degreed woman who does not stay at home with her children, but will go into your burning house to save yours.
I watched "League of Grateful Sons" this morning. On one hand, I commend you for applauding the heros of World War 2 and Iwo Jima in particular. On the other hand, I really dislike you using these brave, heroic men as propaganda tools. You are not worthy to tie their shoes, much less make a "documentary" about them.
#1) WW2 was not an epic battle of Christendom vs. statism, which you assert. We did not go to war with Japan because their little sons were "taken away from moms and dads and being raised by the state." However, when the only "historians" you interview are yourself and Matt Chancey, I don't know why I expected historical accuracy.
#2) The men of WW2 were not fighting so they could preserve the "historic Christian family" where Daddy works 9-5 and Mommy stays
#3) Stop talking about manhood, courage, valor and perserverance like you know what those words mean. You are clueless. Courage, valor, honor, sacrifice, perserverance...those aren't baby names, Doug. Those are attributes that many men--and women--I know posess. Taking your two sons to Iwo Jima to meet veterans of that battle is a good learning experience. It doesn't mean you are on some great research expedition or have suddenly been imbibed with courage and valor. It means you took your kids on an expensive field trip to meet great men.
Do you want to meet real heros, Doug? I'm a paramedic. A few years ago, on the coldest night of the year with -20 wind chill, I got called out in the early morning hours for an elderly man, a
They did it because it was the right thing to do.
That is honor, Doug. That is valor. That is sacrifice.
That is what I want my son to be.
I don't want him to grow up and be like you. Or Matt Chancey. I want him to know true courage, and true honor, and true valor. I want him to do the right thing, even when it's cold and uncomfortable and he's tired. I want him to be a man who will get out of his nice warm bed in the middle of a freezing winter night to help someone else out, and expect nothing in return.
Until you have any clue about real life courage, please stop talking about it like you know what those words mean.
Thank you.
Signed,
A college degreed woman who does not stay at home with her children, but will go into your burning house to save yours.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Epistemological Baby Naming
I(Cross posted from freejinger)
Continuing on in my review of the Vision Forum Baby Conference, I give you Doug Phillips' seminar on Baby Naming. This is just an outline, as I could not even make enough sense of it to actually do a logical and analytical review.
*Being epistemologically conscious when naming babies
Doug relates a story about going through his house at 4 am, waking his children up and telling them that their baby sister was born. They have a rule that all the children have to line up outside the door of their parents' room before coming in to see the baby. Then the lovely epistemologically-named children holds the new epistemologically-named child.
"A name that the parent gives a child is extremely important and has lifelong ramifications for the child." No kidding, so why did you name your son Providence Mather? Doug says that names reflect theology, worldview, and the priorities they have for their children. Doug also slips into his 200-year-vision thing, assuming that his descendents will name their progeny after Doug's, so when naming his children, he looks ahead to his future descendents and thinks about them when he chooses names. Basically, Dougie assumes that there will be many many Jubilees and Providences and Justices. He also thinks his future descendents will look back and thank him for epistemologically naming his children so they can name their children the same. (As a descendent of Dougie's heros, Cotton Mather, I a. will not name my child Mather and b. think my ancestor was completely insane. I think Dougie's descendents will have the same feeling)
So once again, I think Doug's just completely stuck on himself.
Doug lists some other country's rules about naming and the latest social security lists for baby names(Jacob and Isabella are number 1). None of this seems to be anything more than a time filler and excuse for Doug to hear himself talk.
Doug's bad reasons for naming a child:1) looking at popular names and using those to determine whether or not you want a popular name
2) hiring a baby naming consultant (this is "genuine ridiculous foolishness)
3) naming your little girl Tallulah-Does-The-Hula-From-Hawaii. (He's serious)
4) Anything Frank Zappa would name his child. (Ok, I give you that one)
5) Marketing strategies, practicality, foolishness
6) Picking a name based on a whim and because it sounds good, because you will completely
uninspire your child if you name her Mary because you like it, and not because it fits in with
a larger worldview. I can't make this up, people. This is straight from the mouth of Doug Phillips, esq.
So what does the wise one suggest that we do?
Doug's good reasons for naming a child:
1) You want your child to be able to say "My daddy named me something that matters."
2) You want something that will be "able to disciple the recipient through his name." Doug points out that his name, Douglas Winston, is after Douglas McArthur and Winston Churchill.
Because of this name and knowing that his dad named him after them, he has became a great leader.
3) Even more important than the name itself is the context that the parents ascribe to it. "The way you craft the story behind the name is EVERYTHING." He says that his daughter Jubilee
was born when his family was given a brand new direction in life, liberation and freedom, and so they named their daughter Jubilee, and it is Such. A. Blessing. to be able to tell her this.
4) The great generations give their children great names. "When there is a great work, you see parents name their children great names." Other than Biblical names, in the rare cases that God tells the parents what to name their children(like "Jesus" and the symbolic story of Hosea), Doug has no examples of this.
Approaches to baby names:
1) Virtue names, like the Puritans. They went from traditional English names(john, arthur, mary) to "virtue names," like Remember, Humility, and Resolve.
2)Naming children after historical great people. Like George Washington. And Douglas Winston Phillips.
3) Names of Biblical honor(Mary, Joseph, Adam)
4) Names of generational honor. This is naming after members of your family that you want to continue. Especially if you are one of Dougie's descendents
There are other legitimate, but not overly important considerations, like how it sounds. Dougie also says that if you give names that speak great signficance to your children but that may be
somewhat strange, expect great resistance from other people, in particular grandparents. Because you know those grandparents have no vision.
So to sum up, when you name your child, forget how it sounds, what the initials are, and especially what may be popular or easy to pronounce and spell. Instead, focus on how great you are, how great your vision, purpose,and signficance is, and name your children that way. And then Dougie finishes with a shout out to his BFF, the Great Baby Namer Of All Time, Peter Bradrick himself.
Because we should ALL be naming our children Loyal Cromwell.
Continuing on in my review of the Vision Forum Baby Conference, I give you Doug Phillips' seminar on Baby Naming. This is just an outline, as I could not even make enough sense of it to actually do a logical and analytical review.
*Being epistemologically conscious when naming babies
Doug relates a story about going through his house at 4 am, waking his children up and telling them that their baby sister was born. They have a rule that all the children have to line up outside the door of their parents' room before coming in to see the baby. Then the lovely epistemologically-named children holds the new epistemologically-named child.
"A name that the parent gives a child is extremely important and has lifelong ramifications for the child." No kidding, so why did you name your son Providence Mather? Doug says that names reflect theology, worldview, and the priorities they have for their children. Doug also slips into his 200-year-vision thing, assuming that his descendents will name their progeny after Doug's, so when naming his children, he looks ahead to his future descendents and thinks about them when he chooses names. Basically, Dougie assumes that there will be many many Jubilees and Providences and Justices. He also thinks his future descendents will look back and thank him for epistemologically naming his children so they can name their children the same. (As a descendent of Dougie's heros, Cotton Mather, I a. will not name my child Mather and b. think my ancestor was completely insane. I think Dougie's descendents will have the same feeling)
So once again, I think Doug's just completely stuck on himself.
Doug lists some other country's rules about naming and the latest social security lists for baby names(Jacob and Isabella are number 1). None of this seems to be anything more than a time filler and excuse for Doug to hear himself talk.
Doug's bad reasons for naming a child:1) looking at popular names and using those to determine whether or not you want a popular name
2) hiring a baby naming consultant (this is "genuine ridiculous foolishness)
3) naming your little girl Tallulah-Does-The-Hula-From-Hawaii. (He's serious)
4) Anything Frank Zappa would name his child. (Ok, I give you that one)
5) Marketing strategies, practicality, foolishness
6) Picking a name based on a whim and because it sounds good, because you will completely
uninspire your child if you name her Mary because you like it, and not because it fits in with
a larger worldview. I can't make this up, people. This is straight from the mouth of Doug Phillips, esq.
So what does the wise one suggest that we do?
Doug's good reasons for naming a child:
1) You want your child to be able to say "My daddy named me something that matters."
2) You want something that will be "able to disciple the recipient through his name." Doug points out that his name, Douglas Winston, is after Douglas McArthur and Winston Churchill.
Because of this name and knowing that his dad named him after them, he has became a great leader.
3) Even more important than the name itself is the context that the parents ascribe to it. "The way you craft the story behind the name is EVERYTHING." He says that his daughter Jubilee
was born when his family was given a brand new direction in life, liberation and freedom, and so they named their daughter Jubilee, and it is Such. A. Blessing. to be able to tell her this.
4) The great generations give their children great names. "When there is a great work, you see parents name their children great names." Other than Biblical names, in the rare cases that God tells the parents what to name their children(like "Jesus" and the symbolic story of Hosea), Doug has no examples of this.
Approaches to baby names:
1) Virtue names, like the Puritans. They went from traditional English names(john, arthur, mary) to "virtue names," like Remember, Humility, and Resolve.
2)Naming children after historical great people. Like George Washington. And Douglas Winston Phillips.
3) Names of Biblical honor(Mary, Joseph, Adam)
4) Names of generational honor. This is naming after members of your family that you want to continue. Especially if you are one of Dougie's descendents
There are other legitimate, but not overly important considerations, like how it sounds. Dougie also says that if you give names that speak great signficance to your children but that may be
somewhat strange, expect great resistance from other people, in particular grandparents. Because you know those grandparents have no vision.
So to sum up, when you name your child, forget how it sounds, what the initials are, and especially what may be popular or easy to pronounce and spell. Instead, focus on how great you are, how great your vision, purpose,and signficance is, and name your children that way. And then Dougie finishes with a shout out to his BFF, the Great Baby Namer Of All Time, Peter Bradrick himself.
Because we should ALL be naming our children Loyal Cromwell.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Return of the Daughters
Anna Sofia and Elizabeth, in their first real "documentary," begin by discussing how "militant feminism" has destroyed America. They state that if we follow Biblical principles, daughters will live at home until marriage under the protective hedge of their daughters. At the end, the say that this is historically normative, which is a very difficult case to make, but as is usual with the Botkins, they state something authoritatively and don't back it up. Nor do they once provide any Scripture references to what Biblical principles and/or verses they are referring to in order to make their case. Instead, they turn to anecdotal, modern day evidence in the form of interviews with stay-at-home daughters.
Katie Valenti
"At age 23, she is well established in business"--then they explain that she works as an interior designer for her father, a "well-re-known builder" in Louisiana. Katie states that it is good training as she "learns to submit in this particular way to a man." Her father says that the Bible clearly teaches that the main focus of women is to be their home and helpers to their fathers and husbands. He insists that it is based in the Scriptures, but never once gives a Scripture reference to back up these claims. He does quote the Deuteronomy passage where it says to teach your children truths, when they lie down and get up and walk along with them on the road. However, since this verse is clearly using hyperbole, the claim he is trying to make(that you cannot constantly teach your children if they are not constantly with you) is invalid. It just isn't there. The intent of this verse is not that you have to constantly be with your children, but instead to be consistently and daily teaching them truths.
Jasmine Bachman
Jasmine talks about her desire to be a screenwriter, to go to NYU, to be a successful, single, powerful woman. Jasmine had dreams, but she and her father "reevaluated her ambitions according to their Scriptural discoveries." Jasmine says she and Voddie have been studying together the "role of father to daughters," in the Bible, but once again, no Scripture references are used. Voddie says that the Bible nowhere commands women to become independent, but to be submissive. He references back to the Genesis curse, saying that Eve's sin was actually independence, and the curse was that Eve would desire her husband's position. This is up for much Scriptural debate, but Voddie takes it for granted that we would all just accept this point blank. Voddie continues that as Jasmine "works with and serves her father," she is developing her own abilities and gifts. He brings up a point that Katie Valenti made in the previous segment--why would you go out and support another man and contribute to his dreams and vision when you could be helping your father? Jasmine says that it's been very hard for her, especially because she has family members who deride her choices and tell her that she's thrown the torch down, instead of pursuing the opportunities given to her by generations before, for both African-American and women.
Melissa Keen
Melissa's father works as an over-the-road truck driver, so unlike Katie and Jasmine, she doesn't have opportunities to work with her father. Instead, she says her father wants her to be entrepreneriul and focus on businesses she can do from home. Melissa apparently organizes the Vision Forum Father-Daughter retreat, which she talks about in detail(booking the venue, planning a traditional high tea, handle registrations, decorating, etc). To me, it seems to be stretching to show that Melissa has gainful skills and useful projects. However, I have a hard time seeing that organizing one event can fill a 25-year-old's time. Plus, where in real life do you need to know how to plan a traditional high tea?
Lourdes Torres
This opens with Lourdes target shooting. She's a little different from the others--she only has one sibling and lives in a mobile home. Both of which are immediately mentioned. Her father, Alfredo, is a janitor. Lourdes says that even though her father doesn't have a business, she can still be serve his vision of her as a servant. In order to accomplish this, Lourdes spends a lot of time helping others in her church and community. I totally applaud community service, but again, I can't imagine that living in a trailer with one sibling, plus service to your community, takes a great deal of time. Lourdes does say that her priority is to invest in her family. She does this by "serving God and (my) father."
Kelly BradrickKelly talks about being a helpmeet, and praying for someone with a "mission and a vision." Someone, she says, like her father, who was "going places." Peter and Kelly's courtship story is once again rehashed, with Peter answering hard questions and writing theological papers and spending months having interviews with Kelly's father. The questions that lingers in my mind is the one that is always asked when hearing one of these courtship stories--who was Peter wooing? Kelly, or her father?
Kelly and Peter are once again held up as courtship's poster children. Scott Brown, Kelly's father, spent months vetting this young man and requiring ridiculous things, like Peter's theological position in twenty-page papers. Kelly, at the age of 22, says that the transition from daughter in her father's home to wife in her husband's home was easy, since it was all she had been trained for. Peter says that Kelly was receiving a Ph.D.-level education in homemaking, which, personally, I find offensive to those of us who can cook, clean, raise a child, balance a checkbook, grocery shop and menu plan, and went to graduate school.
Kelly brings up 1 Corinthians 7, which talks about singles not throwing away their time, but using their single years to better themselves and contribute to the Kingdom of God. How, I ask, is spending your time in your father's house, "serving" your father, contributing to the Kingdom of God? Would it not be better, if this is your goal, to be serving God instead of Daddy?
Ah, yes, and nothing would be complete without thepompous idiociy joy which is Jennie Chancey. Jennie talks a hundred words a minute, waxing eloquent on her favorite subject--why women shouldn't go to college. Why, she asks, does a woman have to develop her gifts in an institution? Why can't a woman develop her gifts where they are going to be used, at home? Jennie says that she gets a lot of letters from highly educated women with college degrees and don't even know how to boil water. Because it takes four years post-high school serving your father to learn how to boil water.
Cut to Voddie talking about an epidemic of unprotected women, blaming promiscuity, mistreatment and abuse of women, and failed marriages, on sending these "helpless creatures out their on their own." Trying to make this connect logically makes my neurons explode, so I'm not even going to try.
"Return of the Daughters" is another in a long line of Vision Forum's beautifully produced and articulate products. By highlighting three obviously very well to do, upper class daughters(Kelly, Jasmine and Katie) who have multiple things to do at home in their father's business, including learning marketable skills, and skimming over Melissa and Lourdes, Vision Forum once again shows that it is interested only in the upper class of society. Though I believe this is probably inadvertant, by not offering suggestions to those who families (a) can't afford to support their grown daughters indefinately and (b) have a father who does not have a business he can offer his daughters work in, VF quickly alienates much of their audience. Instead of offering practical advice to the daughters whose families don't fit into VF's neat little model, Anna Sofia and Elizabeth neatly ignore the issue. They are quick to say that you're sinning if you are not a stay-at-home daughter, but those who can't are summarily ignored.
It fails in attempting to defend its position, that daughters should stay at home until marriage, in any form, but especially Biblically. The very few Scripture references cited, when taken in context both linguistically and historically, have nothing to do with what Anna Sofia and Elizabeth are trying to prove. There is absolutely no Biblical precedence for women staying at home, serving their fathers. In fact, with all the emphasis on serving fathers and not God, it appears that the fathers are confusing themselves with God. The Biblical precedence for that is called idolatry, and it is a violation of the very first of the Commandments. This is also all in direct contrast to Jesus' teachings, who repeatedly taught that our purpose is to love and serve others, particularly the "least of these." With the possible exception of Lourdes Torres and her community ministries, none of the women featured in this movie are living out Jesus' very clear commands to serve the poor, the needy, and the lost. Instead, they are living at home, sheltered in their (often well-to-do) father's home, serving man instead of God.
Katie Valenti
"At age 23, she is well established in business"--then they explain that she works as an interior designer for her father, a "well-re-known builder" in Louisiana. Katie states that it is good training as she "learns to submit in this particular way to a man." Her father says that the Bible clearly teaches that the main focus of women is to be their home and helpers to their fathers and husbands. He insists that it is based in the Scriptures, but never once gives a Scripture reference to back up these claims. He does quote the Deuteronomy passage where it says to teach your children truths, when they lie down and get up and walk along with them on the road. However, since this verse is clearly using hyperbole, the claim he is trying to make(that you cannot constantly teach your children if they are not constantly with you) is invalid. It just isn't there. The intent of this verse is not that you have to constantly be with your children, but instead to be consistently and daily teaching them truths.
Jasmine Bachman
Jasmine talks about her desire to be a screenwriter, to go to NYU, to be a successful, single, powerful woman. Jasmine had dreams, but she and her father "reevaluated her ambitions according to their Scriptural discoveries." Jasmine says she and Voddie have been studying together the "role of father to daughters," in the Bible, but once again, no Scripture references are used. Voddie says that the Bible nowhere commands women to become independent, but to be submissive. He references back to the Genesis curse, saying that Eve's sin was actually independence, and the curse was that Eve would desire her husband's position. This is up for much Scriptural debate, but Voddie takes it for granted that we would all just accept this point blank. Voddie continues that as Jasmine "works with and serves her father," she is developing her own abilities and gifts. He brings up a point that Katie Valenti made in the previous segment--why would you go out and support another man and contribute to his dreams and vision when you could be helping your father? Jasmine says that it's been very hard for her, especially because she has family members who deride her choices and tell her that she's thrown the torch down, instead of pursuing the opportunities given to her by generations before, for both African-American and women.
Melissa Keen
Melissa's father works as an over-the-road truck driver, so unlike Katie and Jasmine, she doesn't have opportunities to work with her father. Instead, she says her father wants her to be entrepreneriul and focus on businesses she can do from home. Melissa apparently organizes the Vision Forum Father-Daughter retreat, which she talks about in detail(booking the venue, planning a traditional high tea, handle registrations, decorating, etc). To me, it seems to be stretching to show that Melissa has gainful skills and useful projects. However, I have a hard time seeing that organizing one event can fill a 25-year-old's time. Plus, where in real life do you need to know how to plan a traditional high tea?
Lourdes Torres
This opens with Lourdes target shooting. She's a little different from the others--she only has one sibling and lives in a mobile home. Both of which are immediately mentioned. Her father, Alfredo, is a janitor. Lourdes says that even though her father doesn't have a business, she can still be serve his vision of her as a servant. In order to accomplish this, Lourdes spends a lot of time helping others in her church and community. I totally applaud community service, but again, I can't imagine that living in a trailer with one sibling, plus service to your community, takes a great deal of time. Lourdes does say that her priority is to invest in her family. She does this by "serving God and (my) father."
Kelly BradrickKelly talks about being a helpmeet, and praying for someone with a "mission and a vision." Someone, she says, like her father, who was "going places." Peter and Kelly's courtship story is once again rehashed, with Peter answering hard questions and writing theological papers and spending months having interviews with Kelly's father. The questions that lingers in my mind is the one that is always asked when hearing one of these courtship stories--who was Peter wooing? Kelly, or her father?
Kelly and Peter are once again held up as courtship's poster children. Scott Brown, Kelly's father, spent months vetting this young man and requiring ridiculous things, like Peter's theological position in twenty-page papers. Kelly, at the age of 22, says that the transition from daughter in her father's home to wife in her husband's home was easy, since it was all she had been trained for. Peter says that Kelly was receiving a Ph.D.-level education in homemaking, which, personally, I find offensive to those of us who can cook, clean, raise a child, balance a checkbook, grocery shop and menu plan, and went to graduate school.
Kelly brings up 1 Corinthians 7, which talks about singles not throwing away their time, but using their single years to better themselves and contribute to the Kingdom of God. How, I ask, is spending your time in your father's house, "serving" your father, contributing to the Kingdom of God? Would it not be better, if this is your goal, to be serving God instead of Daddy?
Ah, yes, and nothing would be complete without the
Cut to Voddie talking about an epidemic of unprotected women, blaming promiscuity, mistreatment and abuse of women, and failed marriages, on sending these "helpless creatures out their on their own." Trying to make this connect logically makes my neurons explode, so I'm not even going to try.
"Return of the Daughters" is another in a long line of Vision Forum's beautifully produced and articulate products. By highlighting three obviously very well to do, upper class daughters(Kelly, Jasmine and Katie) who have multiple things to do at home in their father's business, including learning marketable skills, and skimming over Melissa and Lourdes, Vision Forum once again shows that it is interested only in the upper class of society. Though I believe this is probably inadvertant, by not offering suggestions to those who families (a) can't afford to support their grown daughters indefinately and (b) have a father who does not have a business he can offer his daughters work in, VF quickly alienates much of their audience. Instead of offering practical advice to the daughters whose families don't fit into VF's neat little model, Anna Sofia and Elizabeth neatly ignore the issue. They are quick to say that you're sinning if you are not a stay-at-home daughter, but those who can't are summarily ignored.
It fails in attempting to defend its position, that daughters should stay at home until marriage, in any form, but especially Biblically. The very few Scripture references cited, when taken in context both linguistically and historically, have nothing to do with what Anna Sofia and Elizabeth are trying to prove. There is absolutely no Biblical precedence for women staying at home, serving their fathers. In fact, with all the emphasis on serving fathers and not God, it appears that the fathers are confusing themselves with God. The Biblical precedence for that is called idolatry, and it is a violation of the very first of the Commandments. This is also all in direct contrast to Jesus' teachings, who repeatedly taught that our purpose is to love and serve others, particularly the "least of these." With the possible exception of Lourdes Torres and her community ministries, none of the women featured in this movie are living out Jesus' very clear commands to serve the poor, the needy, and the lost. Instead, they are living at home, sheltered in their (often well-to-do) father's home, serving man instead of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)