tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32190959629086023532024-03-05T07:37:45.013-08:00Vision DistortionWe stand against the distortion of truth in any form, especially that which is cloaked in the appearance of light and spirituality. We stand against patriocentricty, legalism, and spiritual, physical, and mental abuse of any kind.Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219095962908602353.post-34772803441926782202011-12-28T16:35:00.000-08:002011-12-28T16:35:30.265-08:00FearOn the outside, it was a fairly idyllic childhood.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
But paradise, by its very nature, doesn't really exist.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
(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.)<br />
<br />
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 <em>fear. </em>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! <br />
<br />
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 <em>everything. </em><br />
<br />
But Christianity has never, ever been about safety.<br />
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."<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Because they were afraid of...of what?<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Fear is a destroyer. It destroys lives and families.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219095962908602353.post-87374728704230036852011-12-26T12:20:00.000-08:002011-12-26T12:20:56.467-08:00Homesteading Movement<em><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">I stumbled across this blog the other day while looking for something <a href="http://brokenflowerschm.blogspot.com/">Broken Flowers Of the Catholic Homesteading Movement</a></span></em><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"><em>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 <strong>everything</strong> 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 <strike>craziness </strike>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 </em><strong>All The Time. </strong><em>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.</em></span><br />
<br />
<em><span style="font-family: Georgia;">I only wish I was exagerrating.</span></em><br />
<br />
<em><span style="font-family: Georgia;">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.</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: Georgia;">It's not a pretty picture.</span></em><br />
<br />
<em><span style="font-family: Georgia;">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.</span></em>Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219095962908602353.post-41497930694978389892011-11-22T17:44:00.000-08:002011-11-22T17:44:56.925-08:00Choices<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Very occasionally, I understand the lure of patriarchy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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."<br />
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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">It also, apparently, is not their policy to pick up a child who sobs for half an hour and comfort him.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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 <em>like </em>your job. And you only work two days a week; we can work around your schedule."<br />
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.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">(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.) </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">But you lose so much more.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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? <br />
<br />
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 <em>my </em>decision, not one that my church, pastor, parents or husband have made for me.</span>Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219095962908602353.post-32478624749212849102011-10-04T13:18:00.000-07:002011-10-04T13:18:14.906-07:00Vision Forum Curriculum<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">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:</span><br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Manly Leadership</span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The Nobility of Womanhood</span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The Blessing of Children</span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">A Culture of Virtuous Boyhood and Girlhood</span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The Development of Christianity and Western Civilization</span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Science and Creationism</span></strong><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"><br />
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."<br />
<br />
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 <strong>Five Hundred Years of Liberty Birthed by the Reformation. </strong>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.<br />
<br />
Once you watch this video, the topics for composition and discussion are:<br />
Calvin's Impact On The Family<br />
The Origination of Representative Government<br />
What is the greatest battle of our day?<br />
How did the reformation lay the foundation of freedom for modern Western Civilization?<br />
<br />
Further study topics include the Council of Nicea, Geneva Psalter, Gregorian Chant, Five Solas of the Faith, and the Doctrine of Providence. <br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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:<br />
You and your children will...<br />
<ul><li>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.</li>
<li>Open a window into the world of our first president—George Washington.</li>
<li>Experience the rich tapestry of world events and political happenings of the 1800s in places like: Britain, Germany, Japan and Russia.</li>
<li>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.</li>
<li>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.</li>
<li>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.</li>
<li>And much more.</li>
</ul>Their resources include Susan Wise Bauer's "Story of The World," making timelines, reading and analyzing literature and original sources and writings, writing argumentative essays, studying the opposing viewpoints, and creative writing. There are too many books to list here, and more than one narrow, Calvinist viewpoint is reviewed, discussed and analyzed.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
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. <br />
I want my children to think for themselves.<br />
<br />
And this is why I <em>won't </em>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. <br />
<br />
<strong>Vision Forum is not interested in critical thinking. They are interested in selling a product and a lifestyle. </strong>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.</span>Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219095962908602353.post-2778125511221379332011-09-27T09:51:00.000-07:002011-09-27T09:51:25.771-07:00Magic formulas<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">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.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">Here is how this is working in my life:<br />
<br />
On Saturday, I got my first homeschooling catalog.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">On Sunday, I took a home pregnancy test and found out that I am, indeed, pregnant.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">You can't make this stuff up. That last paragraph is pretty darn close to what a fundie friend told me this morning.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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<strong>. 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.</strong> 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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">And neither can I.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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 <strong>not </strong>going to happen to you just because you are living a certain way that a teacher is telling you. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">There is no formula.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">No magic.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">Only life.</span>Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219095962908602353.post-56827861144067463942011-09-07T15:10:00.000-07:002011-09-07T15:10:03.638-07:00Love at fifteen<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">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 <em>was</em> 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.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"> 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 <em>not </em>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 <em>that </em>worked)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">I should have seen it. But by then I was 17, and we were madly, deeply in love. I didn't <em>want </em>to see what would happen. I didn't <em>want </em>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.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">But it came down to one question.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">Would I submit to him in all things after we were married, even if it was something I believed to be a sin?<br />
And the answer was no, I would not.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">After three years, that was the end of that relationship.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">The last thing he told me was that I wouldn't find a good Christian man if I couldn't submit.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">Today is my 2 and a half year wedding anniversary.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">And my husband does not expect me to submit to him in all things. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">Patriarchy has no place in our marriage.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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, <strong>This is a lie. </strong>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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">This blog, and everyplace else I write, is for you.</span>Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219095962908602353.post-28929501369741264562011-08-31T09:24:00.000-07:002011-08-31T09:24:51.814-07:00Patriarchal fail<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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 <em>always </em>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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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--<strong>this is not a success story.</strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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!<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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. </span><br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">It's about not blindly continuing to hold onto a belief system that has proven itself to be an absolute failure.</span></strong><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">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 <em>not</em> do A, B, and C, such as the case may be), he will know that those are <em>man's </em>requirements, and not <em>God's.</em> And hopefully, carefully, prayerfully, we will ensure he has the tools to discern when a belief system comes from man, and not from God. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219095962908602353.post-45644574103250317842011-07-20T20:04:00.000-07:002011-07-20T20:26:13.445-07:00Divided: More propaganda without logicPhilip 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?<br />
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(<a href="http://www.ncfic.org/">http://www.ncfic.org/</a>) If you doubt this in any way, please look at their website, on which Scott Brown repeatedly refers to <em>Divided </em>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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
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. <br />
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?<br />
<br />
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 <em>just some things one cannot delegate.</em> 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.<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Just because something, like child development theory, was developed by a "pagan," doesn' make <em>wrong. </em>And simply because something wasn't spoken about in the Bible doesn't make it <em>wrong</em>--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 <em>wrong, </em>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. <em> </em><br />
<br />
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 <em>Divided</em>. 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.Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219095962908602353.post-37218789057972962012011-02-03T13:17:00.000-08:002011-02-03T13:17:28.836-08:00Dear Doug, you make me mad.Dear Doug,<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
#1) WW2 was <strong>not </strong>an epic battle of Christendom vs. statism, which you assert. We did <em>not </em>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.<br />
<br />
#2) The men of WW2 were <strong>not </strong>fighting so they could preserve the "historic Christian family" where Daddy works 9-5 and Mommy stays <nobr><a class="FAAdLink" href="http://freejinger.yuku.com/topic/5061/Dear-Doug-you-make-me-mad#" id="FALINK_3_0_2"><span style="color: #006600;">home</span></a></nobr> 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.<br />
<br />
#3) <strong>Stop talking about manhood, courage, valor and perserverance like you know what those words mean. You are clueless.</strong> 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. <br />
<br />
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 <nobr><a class="FAAdLink" href="http://freejinger.yuku.com/topic/5061/Dear-Doug-you-make-me-mad#" id="FALINK_2_0_1"><span style="color: #006600;">cancer patient</span></a></nobr>, 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 <nobr><a class="FAAdLink" href="http://freejinger.yuku.com/topic/5061/Dear-Doug-you-make-me-mad#" id="FALINK_1_0_0"><span style="color: #006600;">job description</span></a></nobr>. They weren't receiving any compensation.<br />
<br />
They did it because it was the right thing to do.<br />
<br />
That is honor, Doug. That is valor. That is sacrifice. <br />
That is what I want my son to be.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Until you have <strong>any clue</strong> about real life courage, please stop talking about it like you know what those words mean.<br />
<br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
Signed,<br />
<br />
A college degreed woman who does not stay at home with her children, but will go into your burning house to save yours.Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219095962908602353.post-33791972914262125382011-01-21T16:12:00.000-08:002011-01-21T16:12:49.427-08:00Epistemological Baby NamingI(Cross posted from freejinger)<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
*Being epistemologically conscious when naming babies<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<em>"A name that the parent gives a child is extremely important and has lifelong ramifications for the child."</em> 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)<br />
So once again, I think Doug's just completely stuck on himself.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<strong>Doug's bad reasons for naming a child:</strong>1) looking at popular names and using those to determine whether or not you want a popular name<br />
2) hiring a baby naming consultant (this is "genuine ridiculous foolishness)<br />
3) naming your little girl Tallulah-Does-The-Hula-From-Hawaii. (He's serious)<br />
4) Anything Frank Zappa would name his child. (Ok, I give you that one)<br />
5) Marketing strategies, practicality, foolishness<br />
6) Picking a name based on a whim and because it sounds good, because you will completely<br />
uninspire your child if you name her Mary because you like it, and not because it fits in with <br />
a larger worldview. I can't make this up, people. This is straight from the mouth of Doug Phillips, esq.<br />
<br />
So what does the wise one suggest that we do?<br />
<br />
<strong>Doug's good reasons for naming a child:</strong><br />
1) You want your child to be able to say "My daddy named me something that matters."<br />
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. <br />
Because of this name and knowing that his dad named him after them, he has became a great leader.<br />
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<br />
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.<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Approaches to baby names:<br />
1) Virtue names, like the Puritans. They went from traditional English names(john, arthur, mary) to "virtue names," like Remember, Humility, and Resolve.<br />
2)Naming children after historical great people. Like George Washington. And Douglas Winston Phillips. <br />
3) Names of Biblical honor(Mary, Joseph, Adam)<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
somewhat strange, expect great resistance from other people, in particular grandparents. Because you know those grandparents have no vision.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
Because we should ALL be naming our children Loyal Cromwell.<br />
<br />
<!-- loop replys --><!-- /reply loop --></tbody><!-- /onionskins -->Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219095962908602353.post-35708917921041464222011-01-02T16:51:00.000-08:002011-01-02T16:51:44.203-08:00Return of the Daughters<div class="scrolling"><div>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.<br />
<strong>Katie Valenti</strong><br />
"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 <em>not </em>that you have to constantly be with your children, but instead to be consistently and daily teaching them truths. <br />
<br />
<strong>Jasmine <strong>Bachman</strong></strong><br />
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, <strong>no Scripture references are used. </strong>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.<br />
<br />
<strong>Melissa Keen</strong><br />
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?<br />
<strong>Lourdes Torres</strong><br />
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." <br />
<strong>Kelly Bradrick</strong>Kelly 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?<br />
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, <em>and</em> went to graduate school.<br />
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? <br />
Ah, yes, and nothing would be complete without the <strike>pompous idiociy</strike> 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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
"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 <em>can't</em> are summarily ignored.<br />
<br />
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.</div></div>Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219095962908602353.post-90519644109791199662010-12-20T19:46:00.001-08:002010-12-20T19:46:55.778-08:00Quiverfull<div class="post-header-line-1"></div><div class="post-body">It has been the perfect storm here the last week. Daddy has been working lots of hours, Mommy was recovering from gall bladder surgery and then--surprise!--came down with pneumonia and a sinus infection, we(<em>finally)</em> moved upstairs, leaving the downstairs in complete disaray, we had the fly car for the fire department, meaning one of us was responsible to respond to all calls from 6pm-6am for two weeks(in case you're wondering, we are a volunteer fire department, but we run about 800 calls a year), and in the middle of all this, Baby decided now was a perfect time to cut his first tooth.<br />
<br />
Translated: I haven't slept in two weeks, and Baby has come very, very close to being an only child.<br />
<br />
That last sentence isn't hyperbole. We actually discussed, these last few weeks, limiting our family to only one child. They were serious discussions. We've truly thought about it. I'm not a good homemaker; I can cook fairly well, but I don't really keep the house very clean and I get overwhelmed(um...and bored with) quickly anything even remotely domestic. I know it drives my husband crazy that even being off work totally for 3 weeks, the house was still a mess and dinner was all-too-often takeout(in my defense, we have been really sick here). More than once he not-so-subtly-hinted that sterilization might be in everyone's best interest. But each time it came up, the discussion always ended with what we know to be true: our family is not complete yet. We know there is someone missing. How many someones? We don't know, and we won't choose that. We will continue having children, on whatever timetable they come, until we know that our family is complete. <br />
<br />
We are <em>not </em>Quiverfull(the term, loosely, meaning those who believe in never using any form of birth control, sterilization, natural family planning, etc, and having as many children as come until the wife naturally cannot conceive). We may choose not to use any form of family planning, but we are both convinced that when all of our children are here, we will know it. My parents had eight children. They were not in any way, shape or form Quiverfull; children just kept coming. And when my youngest sister came, they knew they were done. It was nothing more than a peaceful, contented feeling--the feeling of oh, we're all here now. And my parents made sure that there would be no more children after that. And we feel the same way--there is no predetermined amount of children we have in mind. Perhaps we will have another child and know in our hearts that we're done. Perhaps there are five or six or seven more children in our future before we know that our family is completed. I don't know. What I do know is that when we have that peace about our family, I will probably have a tubal ligation done(since I have to have c-sections now, it makes the most sense). And we will go on with our lives, and there won't be any regrets.<br />
<br />
I bring this all up because I have been watching the Quiverfull movement with interest for some time. I have two major concerns with it: firstly, it isn't Biblical. Whether people like it or not, the Bible really doesn't talk about birth control. This movement takes two verses out of Psalms and builds an entire theology upon them. <br />
<br />
<em>Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: </em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>and the fruit of the womb is his reward.</em><br />
<em>As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man;</em><br />
<em>so are children of the youth.</em><br />
<em>Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them:</em><br />
<em>they shall not be ashamed, </em><br />
<em>but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. </em><br />
<em>Psalm 127:3-5 (KJV)</em> <br />
<br />
I don't have time here to detail why it is ridiculous to build a lifestyle and theology on two verses plucked from poetry, but the fact of the matter is that these verses are not talking about birth control. They are simply stating that children are blessings. To extrapolate from this that God does not ever desire one to use birth control is a stretch, especially since the subject of birth control is never really addressed. God was very detailed in the Levitical laws, and nowhere is birth control(of which there is much archeological and historical evidence of use in Biblical times) mentioned. If God could be so detailed as to what kind of fibers were okay to be mixed in clothes, I honestly think that pregnancy prevention would have found its way into the laws if it was that high on God's list of important subjects.<br />
<br />
Besides the lack of Biblical evidence, the Quiverfull movement leaves out another important piece of Christian theology: the will of God being expressed to a particular individual. I subscribed to the Quiverfull digest for two years while researching this subject. Often on there someone would bring up that the Lord led them to move to this or that area, or to a certain job, or laid someone's needs in particular on their heart. Often, women would write in terribly upset that their husbands(or the woman herself, or the couple) felt strongly that God had told them their family was complete. Invariably, the responses back would be simply that they were not trusting God enough, that they were just afraid of finances or another pregnancy or what have you. The logical disconnect here boggled my mind. How can one be so sure of God's leading in one area of life, but completely a similarly strong leading in another? Why could God tell one family to move cross-country, but be incapable of telling that family when their family was complete? Eventually, of course, I realized that it would not fit in with the predominant theology, so the leading from God would be tossed out.<br />
<br />
And this is my main concern about the Quiverfull movement: You cannot make your own doctrine. If you accept God's leading in one area of life, you cannot reject it in another area because it doesn't match what you want the Bible to say. If God is telling you that your family is complete, that you are all here now, and that perhaps you need to think about sterilization, then you need to listen to God--not a book, not a website, not your favorite blogs, not a pet doctrine or theology, not your best friend. I find that QF'ers tend to like to twist Scripture and make their own theology and throw out all evidence to the contrary. <br />
<br />
So someday, our family will be complete. We're pretty sure God will tell us when that is, and(sadly) I will have surgery done to prevent any more childbearing. We don't know how many kids we'll have, but we do know that God is so much bigger than we are, so much bigger than any man-made doctrines or theologies or legalistic rules, and that if we toss out everybody else's opinions and listen to God's alone, we'll know when it's time. <br />
And it will be God's time, not ours.</div>Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219095962908602353.post-34771146921178678582010-12-05T13:29:00.000-08:002010-12-05T13:34:44.607-08:00Homeschool dropoutsAbout a year ago, Vision Forum produced the movie, "Homeschool Dropouts." It is described as a movie discussing the alleged problem of second generation homeschoolers choosing different educational options for their children. It is written, directed and starring the Botkin young adults.<br />
The documentary begins with quotes from numerous young people citing dire statistics from their lives, stating how many(or few) of their friends plan on homeschooling. "Many of my friends would look at homeschooling as a...scholastic option," one young lady says. This seems to be the basic viewpoint, that homeschooling should <em>not </em>be viewed as an option, but "Biblical homeschooling and education" should instead be viewed <em>as mandatory.</em> However, there is no source for these statistics, and it seems to be nothing more than anecdotal evidence. After this, they attempt to make the documentary scholarly by looking at history. However,they once again drag out the old idea that "up until 150 years ago, home education was the norm." This is a <br />
myth perpetuated constantly by homeschooling proponants. The Botkins discuss early American colonial education, saying that "they had a vision for family education that was faithfully perpetuated by the Puritans." They then go on to blame humanism, atheism, socialism and transcendentalism for the decline into "statist" education. In all actuality, colonial children were not educated in the way we think of now. Boys were taught how to read and write, and sent to dame schools taught by uneducated women in order to teach them basic literacy and prepare them for the town's school. The reason for the dame schools was that the town schools would not accept students until they could read at least two-syllable words. As for girls, if they were lucky enough to be sent to the dame schools, that was where their education would stop.<br />
<div itxtvisited="1">(Monaghan, E. Jennifer. "Literacy Instruction and Gender in Colonial New England." <i itxtvisited="1">American Quarterly</i> 40 (March 1988): 18–41.</div><div itxtvisited="1">Sugg, Redding S. <i itxtvisited="1">Motherteacher: The Feminization of American Education.</i> <a class="alnk" href="http://www.blogger.com/topic/charlottesville-virginia" name="&lid=ALINK" onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkTextForCookie(this));" target="_top"><span style="color: #003399;">Charlottesville</span></a>: <a class="iAs" classname="iAs" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3219095962908602353#" itxtdid="27522407" style="background-color: transparent !important; background-image: none; border-bottom: darkgreen 0.1em solid; color: darkgreen !important; font-size: 100% !important; font-weight: normal !important; padding-bottom: 1px !important; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline !important;" target="_blank">University</a> Press of Virginia, 1978.)</div>Historical inaccuracy aside, Homeschool Dropouts never addresses the real question: what are the reasons for homeschool graduates for not homschooling? If it is such a superior educational method, then wouldn't second generation homeschoolers be the most likely people to homeschool? In fact, however, Elizabeth Botkin actually states that this documentary is not going to explore why second generation homeschoolers are not planning on homeschooling. That doesn't matter. What does matter is that we "look at our own sins and infidelities," according to Benjamin Botkin. "If the ball falls, it is because we dropped it," he says.<br />
<div itxtvisited="1"><br />
Six traps that await the second generation:<br />
1. We Don't seek God for ourselves</div><div itxtvisited="1">Benjamin Botkin blames "false piety," people who are not moral reprobates, but not "good kids," either. From what I can tell, this means people who not feministic, atheistic socialists, but normal Christians who don't buy into the Botkins radicalism. Audri Venier, now Benjamin Botkin's wife, states here that it is not enough to <em>love </em>Christ, but that one must live a life according to Christ's word. </div><div itxtvisited="1">2. Deliberate lawlessness</div><div itxtvisited="1">I am not entirely certain what they are discussing here. They attempt to differentiate between "good" and "righteous," but again they simply seem to say that if you're not desiring to live like them, you're good, but not righteous. Anna Sophia does seem to say that you can dress a certain way, think a certain way, and do certain outward activities, but if it doesn't come from a conviction from God, it isn't real. This I actually agree with, but she doesn't go far enough to actually come out and say it. Ezekial 16:49</div><div itxtvisited="1">3. Pride</div><div itxtvisited="1">A focus on superiority because one was homeschooled as opposed to their public schooled peers. Here, I could actually agree with it, but it goes against what they stated early, which was that second generation homeschoolers are ashamed of having been homeschooled. They also state that homeschoolers, since they may be more educated than their parents, may think they know more than their parents.</div><div itxtvisited="1">Another interview with Audri. She states that recently she developed a theology that allowed her to pursue her own interests, in her case, performing cello. She felt that she needed to go to a big name school in order to do that, since God has given her a musical gift. Audri thought that using her talent and performing cello would bring glory to God, but has since realized that dream was prideful and self-glorifying. She has, presumably as she is now married to Ben Botkin, realized that the only thing she can do to bring glory to God is to be a stay at home wife, submissive to her husband, and homeschooling a multitude of children. </div><div itxtvisited="1">4. Not knowing how to engage the world</div><div itxtvisited="1">Becoming distracted and absorbed by a fake world, so we can get loss in fake action, fake dominion and fake battles. They cite video games. They also cite music, and homeschoolers who listen and perform what is popular and cool, instead of...what? The Botkins never say, but I can only assume classical music and hymns.</div><div itxtvisited="1">5. Laziness and complacency</div><div itxtvisited="1">Pursuing a liberal arts education, wage slave employment, and a non challenging church environment. They cite these as the "easy way out." They interview a friend, Jordan Muela, who was public schooled. He blames public school for him not knowing time management as an adult. David Noor then states we are to glorify God with our bodies, and that we have to be completely committed...but to what? They keep using war terminology, but they never say what they are at war <em>against. </em></div><div itxtvisited="1">6. We are bitter instead of grateful. <br />
Audri, again, states that she had an atittude problem, since she despised and resented the homeschool culture(look, community, and activities). She realized, she said, that there was a standard and it was not what she wanted. But again, this is never drawn out. From what I can read between the lines, they are decrying children who think differently from their parents, children who want to "leave their parents and chart their own course." One of the Botkin boys adds on, "We think that by not following in our parents footsteps, we are not in total support of them." And this is not biblical according to the Botkins, and will have consequences, which according to them will lead to the destruction of the third generation of children. Their point here requires quite a stretch of logic--if by not following our parents' lives in all decisions, then we are not respecting and honoring our parents. How can this possibly even make sense once thought about rationally? It doesn't. God never once calls us to be clones or even obey our parents as adults; the word He uses is <em>honor.</em><br />
<br />
Besides throwing around the word "research" but never citing sources or explaining their methods, this documentary makes some very grandiose claims. The first, as referenced in the beginning of this article, is that they sidestep the whole question of <em>why. </em>If someone is choosing something different than what they grew up with, whether it is a different homeschooling method, different lifestyle or whatever, the first question should be why? What complaints and issues did you have with homeschooling? Did you find that it didn't prepare you educationally and socially for life? The vast majority of parents want the best for their children, and if a homeschool graduate decides that a private or public school is the best choice for his or her children, then I would ask, what went wrong in your homeschooling experience? But the Botkins blatantly refuse to ask this, perhaps because they are afraid of the answers. <br />
The second issue I have is that academic homeschooling takes quite a beating in this film, deriding those homeschoolers who win spelling bees and get into selective colleges. The Botkins and their interviewees keep referring to "principled, visionary, Biblical homeschooling," but not much to the actual process or goals of education. <em>The goal of homeschooling is not to produce a child of good character, strong values, or similar religious beliefs. That is the goal of parenting, not education. </em>But the Botkins don't see that, instead, they retreat back to their all or nothing position--either you homeschool their way, or your child will grow up to be an atheistic, feministic, socialist adult. The goal, which Kevin Swanson repeats multiple times during the documentary, is <em>not </em>to give your child a solid, academic education. Early on in the film, he laments, "Early on, parents were concerned about concerned about a biblical education. Now over time the movement has...drifted towards a more secular, humanistic approach to educating children. The initial movement was not so much interested in educating children, nurturing character in the lives of their children...preparing their children for Heaven, not for Harvard."<br />
And perhaps, in that last statement, the Botkins answer the questions they blatantly refused to ask. Maybe the real, underlying reason that many second generation homeschoolers are refusing to homeschool, or refusing to homeschool the Botkins way, is because they discovered that the Vision Forum and ATI form of education did not lead to a solid, academic education. Perhaps they have discovered that the way they were brought up is a lie straight from the pit of hell, and desire something far greater for their children than the childhood they remember. Perhaps the truth of the whole matter is simply that the experiment of character-based, legalistic homeschooling has failed, but in order to keep from admitting that in this documentary, the Botkins, once again, neatly sidestep the hard questions.</div><div itxtvisited="1"><br />
</div>Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219095962908602353.post-64135322264549057042010-12-04T15:52:00.000-08:002010-12-04T16:12:47.647-08:00Beginnings<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtkvamyQSSWdF1qgbv3L4MzkoKUtCqet4XsVWymx6evhfMcpACh33whWJoyb1K8Fomf7tcHil4P1-VHas_5o6LXMVTAJW-Y4CZ0vEmu6CcEcRgeQfw1ClOTnynVDYblBpRgw3hBoRe2ns/s1600/looking.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ox="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtkvamyQSSWdF1qgbv3L4MzkoKUtCqet4XsVWymx6evhfMcpACh33whWJoyb1K8Fomf7tcHil4P1-VHas_5o6LXMVTAJW-Y4CZ0vEmu6CcEcRgeQfw1ClOTnynVDYblBpRgw3hBoRe2ns/s1600/looking.jpg" /></a></div><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">This is a project I have had tumbling in my mind for over a year. I have been hesitant, because I've seen so many other blogs dissipate when the author changed views. Blogs and writers and psuedo-celebrities who, for example, spent their time advocating courtship and no kissing before marriage who are now divorced and want nothing to do with their former selves. Writers who had huge websites and articles and newsletters talking about homeschooling, no dating, no college for girls, and home churching who are now divorced and advocating the extreme opposite. It is a shifting world, and what is on the internet stays available, long after it is officially deleted.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"><br />
I, perhaps, am someone who on the outside might very well fall into the patriarchy lifestyle and all it brings with it. I was homeschooled all the way through high school, I come from a large family, my parents are extremely conservative. My mother subscribed to all the "right" homsechool magazines, which I devoured. Gentle Spirit, Quit You Like Men, Homeschooling Today, The Homeschool Digest, and Far Above Rubies. I had New Attitude, my best friend subscribed to Hope Chest, which she lent me after she was done. My mother bought me and my sisters <em>Beautiful Girlhood </em>and <em>I Kissed Dating Goodbye.</em> I read the Quiverful digest online. I am married, and work only one day a week so I can stay home with my baby son, whom I plan to homeschool.<br />
But here is where the story changes. Even at 11 or 12, when I was reading those homeschooling magazines, I knew it was crap. Sitting at a homeschool conference at 13, listening to a speaker on courtship, something inside told me this was, plainly, nuts. I went to college, which my parents fully supported. I have degrees in philosophy and writing, I am working on a master's in education. At the age of 27, I married a man that I had dated(gasp), and we have a happy marriage, even though we had dated others before each other. At 28, I had a son. I did not live at home until marriage, but went away to college and graduate school, though I did move back home to get a jump start on paying off my college loans. I work, albeit only 24 hours a week, in a career that is masculine dominated and that I have to wear a uniform to do. I am smart, educated, enjoy a career, have an egalitarian marriage, believe the instruction to women to be silent in the church was a cultural mandate only, plan to have a tubal ligation after my next child, and though I do want to homeschool my son, it isn't because the public schools are evil, but because I believe I can give him in a better education. In short, according to some of the homeschooling leaders today, I am a complete homeschool failure.<br />
A few years ago I started wondering what happened to those big homeschool names and writers I remembered from so many years ago. Like anyone else in the information age, I googled them.<br />
I discovered that in the last ten years, much had changed. Some, like Cheryl Lindsey and Vyckie Bennett, had done a complete turnarounds and were now vocally decrying the lifestyle they had left. Others, like Vision Forum and No Greater Joy, had sunk deeper into the weirdness, teaching things that can only be described as father-worship and child abuse. No college for women, in fact, not even leaving home until marriage, is a rampant teaching. And courtship, which I remember Joshua Harris described as not much more than waiting until you're ready to marry to date and involving your parents, has dissolved into something bizarre, rule-laden and often harmful. <br />
In short, the homeschooling world had changed, and not for the better.<br />
<br />
So after two years of debating, much research and thinking, I decided that I needed to write about it. Much of what is written on the quiverfull and patriarchy movement falls into either those proponants of it or those who are completely against it. Perhaps I can analyze this culture differently, since my toes have already been dipped into it. Perhaps I can lend a unique perspective as one who remembers the beginning. Perhaps I can add a personal touch, since I do plan to homeschool my son, and worry greatly about the dangerous influences that seem to be permeating the homeschool community.<br />
<br />
So we begin, here. With book reviews and movie reviews and critical analysis of each. I hope to delve into the beginnings of this movement, to trace where it came from and why, to discover through personal interviews and blog readings why women, especially, are so drawn to a movement that seems to rip them of their rights. Do I think there is any danger of being drawn into this movement myself, as I feared two years ago when I started thinking about it?<br />
No. I have what these women don't have--a husband who thinks patriarchy is ridiculous, a son to raise into a strong man, a career that I love, and, most importantly, the ability and education to think critically and analyze ideas. <br />
<br />
Will you follow me through this journey? I would love to know what you think. What your stories are. When you agree and when you disagree with me. It will, most assuredly, be interesting.</span>Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219095962908602353.post-87445520319159856352010-12-04T13:48:00.000-08:002010-12-04T13:48:45.595-08:00Elsie Dinsmore<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqrgiM8KaZafCu1odjLvwPVRxh331me27qHst8FDPAgD8Fa6sKvrHorsK7ZuyxD8c0rEZNLtlvmJtgB5NMZB6TNWi_Re-X-3F6KHZyIA48n9NyKQ6FtcHGa7G0awP4m7w700drQDQCRyg/s1600/elsie.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ox="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqrgiM8KaZafCu1odjLvwPVRxh331me27qHst8FDPAgD8Fa6sKvrHorsK7ZuyxD8c0rEZNLtlvmJtgB5NMZB6TNWi_Re-X-3F6KHZyIA48n9NyKQ6FtcHGa7G0awP4m7w700drQDQCRyg/s1600/elsie.jpg" /></a></div><div class="post-body">I have a Nook. I love my Nook, and recently I've discovered that I can download old books with expired copyrights--for free.<br />
<br />
I love free, too.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So while searching for free books, I ran across the <em>Elsie Dinsmore </em>series. Way back in early high school, my grandmother bought several of the books for me to read, since they were highly recommended by high-powered Christian homeschool leaders(code for:Vision Forum and Doug Phillips. I am also very disappointed to see that Mantle Ministries and Christianbook.com selling them, since I have usually found the materials from the latter two organizations to be of higher quality). I remember vaguely enjoying them then, but thinking that they were not particularly well written and, past the first two, didn't really have a plot. For the uninformed, they follow an exceedibly beautiful, incredibly rich, and overly pious young heiress in pre-Civil War south. I downloaded the books, since they were free and are being marketed as good books for young girls, with most of the marketing blurbs proclaiming Elsie as a role model.<br />
<br />
The more I read, though, the more I was certain that Elsie Dinsmore Travilla would never, ever be a role model for my daughters, and, as far as I was concerned, my daughters would never make her acquaintance.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
First, and most importantly, is the overt racism. Yes, I understand these books were written by a Southern women in the late 19th century. I understand the culture. But just because I understand the culture and the times does not mean I would allow my young child to wallow in the ideology. I understand the current culture and times, but there are many parts of it I have no desire to expose my young child too.<br />
Among the more bizarre and disturbing examples, Elsie, in teaching her young slaves about Jesus, assures them that they will be white in Heaven. There is a strongly disturbing scene where Elsie comes across the overseer of her plantation, a man she employs, brutally whipping a slave. He explains that he has to use physical punishment in order to "make them work." Elsie's father cautions her against immediately firing the man, saying that the overseer is from the north and is accustomed to long days and hard work. He states that their slaves are naturally lazy, due to their skin color, and that he and Elsie must just explain to the overseer that he has to make allowances for the "natural laziness of the Negro." And so Elsie does, and there is no punishment for the brutal overseer.<br />
<br />
Another issue is the seemingly incestuous overtones of Elsie's relationship with her father. The criticisms that it was a more innocent time and that displays of affection were often described in such seemingly sexual terms are, to me, not valid. There are a number of passages that describe Elsie's father kissing his grown, about to be married daughter, "fully and passionately, deep kisses on her ruby lips." This, to me, is just plainly icky. There is also a comment from Mr. Travilla, when Elsie is a child of 8, that he wishes she was ten years older and he were ten years younger. Ugh. When Elsie is grown and does marry Mr. Travilla, he states plainly that there has been no woman for him other than Elsie since she was a child of 7. What kind of man looks at a 7-year-old girl and has those sort of feelings for her? Not a man I want my children around or reading about.<br />
Elsie's father, it is plain, is only about 16 years older than she, and since he and Edward Travilla were childhood friends, it is likely that Mr. Travilla is only in his early 30s or so when he becomes engaged to Elsie in her late teens. The age difference isn't what strikes me as disturbing, but the numerous comments about how he has been in love with her since she was a little girl. Again, this is not a man I think my children need to read about.<br />
<br />
A third issue I have with this series is that an 8-year-old child is pitted against her father. Elsie is very concerned about Sabbath-keeping and what books and songs and pleasurable activities are allowed and not allowed. Her father does not hold to the same scruples, and in the second book a scenario is set up where he requests Elsie to go against her moral beliefs and read to him a book she does not approve of on the Sabbath. This conflict takes up most of this book, and never once is it suggested that perhaps Elsie is not wise enough at 8 years old to make her own decisions like this, instead she is applauded for refusing her father. Do I expect my 8-year-old child to decide for him or herself what is right and wrong? Absolutely not. Do I expect my 8-year-old child to listen to his or her parents and obey them? Yes, I do. My child may hold very strongly to the belief that eating all peas is bad, but he still may be required to finish dinner. In short, a child that young does not yet have the knowledge or ability to decide the gray areas of right and wrong for himself--he may know that telling a lie is wrong, but I certainly do not expect or want my young child telling me what he is and is not going to do on the Sabbath. That is a grey area that needs to be left up to the parents to determine what is right for their family, and not left to a young child to determine for herself.<br />
<br />
<br />
Do I understand the cultural context that these books are written in? Yes, I do. And again, just because I understand the cultural context of the <em>Twilight </em>series does not mean that I will allow my young daughter undiscriminated access to those books, either. We can understand the culture--a culture that was blatantly racist, a culture that described innocent affection in ways we now think of as sexual--that a piece of literature was written in, and yet choose to keep it from our children until they are old enough to also understand that someone can be as pious as Elsie, and yet still have many, many beliefs that are wrong. But that is <em>not </em>the age group to which these books are being marketed--the age range on the above-mentioned website is "great for the whole family," and they also market an Elsie Dinsmore doll. To me, this is marketing a series of books to children who are too young to understand the context and realize that just because Elsie seems to love Jesus and be pious does not mean that everything she says or does is correct. If I have a late teenage daughter who has the ability to think and read critically, and she wants to read these series, I would then allow it.<br />
<br />
In short, simply because something has the label "Christian" on it does not mean it is worthwhile. If the Elsie Dinsmore series were less sensational and better written(I haven't even touched this, but there is no plot, and the characters are either good or bad, with no character study or rounding out), I might be more willing to let it slide. Instead, I see no value in placing in my daughter's hands a book that, as far as I'm concerned, has no redeeming qualities, either in the value of its writing or its character content. Too often, though, I've seen people see the label "Christian" and hear accolades from homeschool leaders, and never once evaluate the book or movie in question on its own merits. There is a lot of Christian junk out there, and just like secular junk, I plan to keep it away from my children until they are old enough and mature enough to sift through the bad and find the good.<br />
<div style="clear: both;"></div></div>Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219095962908602353.post-2559333440016452272010-12-04T13:43:00.000-08:002010-12-04T13:43:57.890-08:00Training Dominion Oriented Daughters<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRTFJqz9d2HVID-_WeIWIw4zDNB_bJ6vfdkYhu0IlmfMyRqiHs1MIkvY7BlbY9Lh8pIa7S6XU6T8ftUqyQcj3-fB0Wd5lUfewG5fBMSbBdQGQ9cb16zYd-9uiJXKGW1SaT2x5TWfEAqig/s1600/daughters.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ox="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRTFJqz9d2HVID-_WeIWIw4zDNB_bJ6vfdkYhu0IlmfMyRqiHs1MIkvY7BlbY9Lh8pIa7S6XU6T8ftUqyQcj3-fB0Wd5lUfewG5fBMSbBdQGQ9cb16zYd-9uiJXKGW1SaT2x5TWfEAqig/s1600/daughters.jpg" /></a></div>First of all, I was a little disappointed. This had nothing to do with the title, but instead was a question and answer period with Geoff Botkin, whose daughters I would <em>not </em>want mine emulating. So I already have a bias coming into this, but have tried hard to put that aside and give this a fair review. <br />
In order to do so, I will examine the questions asked of Mr. Botkin and his answers. This is not exhaustive of every question, as some were repetitive, but enough to give you an overview.<br />
<br />
<strong>Did you have a vision for them before they were born?</strong>Here, Geoff shares a rather disturbing story about how his wife had a very difficult labor with his eldest daughter and almost died. He held his daughter after this traumatic event, and thought about her ovaries. Yes, and how women are born with all the eggs they will ever have. Geoff put his hand on her tummy, his 25 minute old daughter, and prayed for the future of tens of millions of her descendents. Seriously, your wife just almost died, and you're busy thinking about your infant daughters' ovaries? Where is CPS when you need them?<br />
Now there is certainly much laudable about praying for your children's future. But instead of praying that they would marry young, bear many children, and basically fulfill <em>your </em>dreams for their lives, pray that they would fulfill <em>God's</em> dreams for their lives.<br />
<br />
<strong>What toys did you give them?</strong><br />
A dollhouse. A doll estate that Geoff built, so that they could learn how to manage a home. And servants, which I feel probably clues us in to Geoff's feelings of superiority in life. His children are not to have doll houses, but doll estates so they learn to manage children, home, and servants. Because this clearly is what most of us will have in life.<br />
He gave them tools for their "labratory" which would be the kitchen. They learned how to cook, which Geoff feels is a "tool of dominion," as are sewing machines, fabric, and other sundry items. These are appropriate toys for young girls, according to Mr. Botkin. Again his main emphasis is that <em>his </em>daughters, and by extension <em>all </em>daughters, do not need "toys," they need "tools" to accomplish household tasks.<br />
<br />
<strong>What age did you start teaching them to be ambassadors? How did you do this?</strong><br />
It took me a while to figure out Geoff's answer to this question, and then I finally figured out that the person asking the question did not mean ambassadors in the normal sense, or even ambassadors of God. No, Geoff says that his children are to be ambassadors of "their earthly father and everything he stands for." Again, <strong>we are not raising mini-me's. </strong>My son does not represent me. He may reflect my values and how I have chosen to raise him. But he is not my ambassador. He is not an extension of me. My son is, even at 5 1/2 months old, very much his own person. And that is what I want. I am not raising a mini-me. I am raising a beautiful child, raising him to be a kind, brave, smart, thinking adult. He may share my values exactly. He may choose to think differently than I on some things. That's okay. That means I've succeeded in raising a man.<br />
<br />
<strong>What examples of regal conduct did you put before them, to teach them to be princesses?</strong><br />
This so boggles my mind that I cannot even grasp what he is getting at here. Dear future daughter of mine, you will not be a princess. You will be strong and brave and bold and smart and ambitious and loving and hard working. But <em>princess </em>is not an example I wish to set in front of you.<br />
Again, I think this question is reflective of the way that Geoff Botkin feels about himself and his family, similar to the answer about a doll estate and servants--what, really, does he expect from his daughters? That they will spend their lives sewing and playing the harp while managing their servants and estate? This is delusional to an extreme.<br />
<br />
<strong>Do you shelter your children from the harsh realities of the world?</strong><br />
He answers no, and here, I can actually partially agree with him. We have to live and work in reality. This is not a perfect world. My son is going to come across things that I don't agree with. But here we differ, once again. Geoff states that they simply taught their children that there was wickedness and sins, but that was "out there," and that it was not a part of their lives. I want to teach to critically think through things(why is this wrong? Why is that activitiy a waste of time? Why do people act so cruelly?), to understand, and to make his <em>own choice </em>to not partake in those things. I want my son, when he is an adult, to be wise, not innocent; to be critical, not accepting whatever comes his way as truth. In order to do this, I have to be wise and discriminatory as a parent, but not sheltering.<br />
<br />
These are just some of the questions. I have attempted to be fair, but I truthfully think it is so important to critically evaluate the material presented, especially by people who claim to have all the answers. Geoff Botkin throws out a lot of big words. He uses "multi-generational" and "dominion oriented," but never explains exactly what he means. He never actually addresses the title question, but focuses solely on what he did with his daughters to make them perfect. He gives off an air of superiority, never once using an example of something he may have done wrong in parenting. There is no humbleness here. He also stresses that his children are merely an extension of him, especially while answering one question("Do your children have hobbies?") where he responds that "daddy doesn't have hobbies, so neither does his daughters." He does mention that his daughters have interests, like cross-stitch, calligraphy, textile arts, and setting a proper tea service, all of which, again, seem to point back to his strange belief that they are royalty.<br />
<br />
So in short, do I recommend this?<br />
No. While there are good generalties to consider(praying for your children, having a vision for your family, knowing what character traits you want to impart to your children), they are buried so deep in the ridiculousness and narcissism that they are hard to pull out. Not once did I ever hear Mr. Botkin suggest that we as parents spend time in prayer, seeking <em>God's desires for our children instead of our own.</em> We are not raising princes and princesses. We are not raising children to be the exact image of their parents. We are raising precious little ones who will someday be adults, and not equipping them with the tools of reason, logic, faith and a solid education will only lead to more adults who blindly follow others. And our dreams for our children's lives, in the end, have little meaning. Our goal is not to produce carbon copies of us and what <em>we</em> think they should be, but to grow individuals who are interested solely in <em>God's </em>dreams for them.<em>all</em>Twisted Visionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10256913816118640573noreply@blogger.com3