Recently I received an email from a facebook acquaintance who explained why she was unfriending me. She's heavy into patriarchy and it's associated nonsense, and she explained that (a) my questioning of her potty training methods(strapping her sixteen month old son onto a potty chair and letting him watch videos all afternoon, which I suggested is not something that is developmentally appropriate) was unacceptable and (b) while she wants to raise her children for the glory of God, apparently all I want is to raise my children for the glory of myself, and that is also unacceptable. She cited the fact that I work and am so busy in outside activities that I have no time for my husband and son(the latter fact is something I was unaware of, since my husband is rarely home and my son usually accompanies me on things like infant music lessons and swimming, since those are activities for him, not me) as proof that I'm not interested in God.
She also cited my college degrees, my not getting married until I was 27, and only having one child in two years of marriage(what huh?) as further proof of being "out for myself."
Have I mentioned that she is a good six years younger than me, with three children under four, a husband who earns barely minimum wage and can't keep a job, and they just moved into their sixth apartment in a year because they have to keep downgrading due to finances? And she refuses to get a job to help out because she's a woman, even though they are barely subsisting and going deeper and deeper into debt.
I don't bring this up to talk about her. I bring this up to talk about the logical disconnect here. When a family is barely able to put food on the table because neither parent has any education and the belief is that it is always wrong for a wife to work, patriarchy has failed. When a family is living in a one-bedroom apartment and praying the landlord doesn't find out they had a baby a year ago and Mom is pregnant with number four and they can't afford a large enough vehicle for all their kids, the belief system is a failure. It's not about money; it's about being smart enough to realize when something isn't working.
And in this family, getting married at 18, not pursuing higher education, and popping out child after child while crammed into an apartment because their lifestyle choices have limited their earning potential--this is not a success story.
And yet there are people in my husband's former church who hold up this family as the pinnacle of succes. They tell their children--look at that family! Homeschoolers who married young and now have a bunch of children! That is what you want!
While us--married in our late twenties, six college degrees and two professional certifications between us, with an income that is not spectacular but pays the bills and lets us have a little fun, one very loved and welcomed child who gets to have not only his own bedroom but a playroom and a puppy, too--we're the failures?
It's not about money. Someone who makes a better income is not better than someone who doesn't. It's about providing for the family you've chosen to have. It's about making sure you have the skills and/or education you need in order to hold down a job that pays the bills and provides adequate food, shelter, clothing and education for your children.
It's about not blindly continuing to hold onto a belief system that has proven itself to be an absolute failure.
So I have one less facebook friend. But my son, who is not strapped into a potty chair in front of a television, is running around here today with crayons in his little fist. He's well fed. His clothes, though they aren't new, are clean and well fitting. He knows his Mommy and his Daddy love him, and that when they go to work, he gets to go to Grandma's house and play in the sandbox. And he knows that they will come back, and take him to the zoo, or out on the boat, or swimming at the pool, or some other great adventure that he loves. And someday, he will know that while man may tell him that he has to do A, B, and C in order to live the way God wants(or not do A, B, and C, such as the case may be), he will know that those are man's requirements, and not God's. And hopefully, carefully, prayerfully, we will ensure he has the tools to discern when a belief system comes from man, and not from God.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Divided: More propaganda without logic
Philip LeLerc is a good looking, articulate, intelligent young man. He and his brother, Chris, pal around with friends from Vision Forum and--oh yeah--make movies, one of VF's pet projects. His latest project has actually received quite a bit of press outside of the patriarchy circles. "Divided" tackles a hot subject in many Christian circles today--why are young adults leaving the church?
Unsurprisingly, the answer Philip comes up with is age-segregation in the church, specifically youth groups. Why is this unsurprising? Because this documentary was sponsered--if not financially, at least philosophically and emotionally--by the National Council for Family Integrated Churches(http://www.ncfic.org/) If you doubt this in any way, please look at their website, on which Scott Brown repeatedly refers to Divided as "our" movie. Mr. Brown also requests donations to help spread the message of the documentary and says that the NCFIC is the sponser of the online free viewing, as well.
Why am I bringing this up in the beginning of this review? Simply put, because Philip LeLerc has a long history of associating with Vision Forum and NCFIC. Mr. LeLerc claims in the beginning of the film that it is a documentary of his journey to discover why young adults are leaving the church. He wants to know, he claims, why young adults don't want to grow up, respect Scripture, and attend church. He also states that what he discovers shocks and saddens him. It is important to view those claims of open mindedness, however, through the lens of realization that this film was supported, from the inception, by NCFIC and its agenda.
The movie begins with interviews at a Christian music festival. One interviewee fondly remembers his youth pastor pulling him out of school to play video games. Others point out that there is a time for study, and a time to "mess around." The not-so-subtle point, of course, is that every single young adult interviewed remembers the fun of the youth group and not the Biblical study. Other points are made, here, as well, primarily that Philip sees no difference between the youths at the Christian music festival and those he sees out in the world. Through several interviews with two youth pastors(both of whom have now changed their views on the value of "fun" youth activities) and Brett McCracken, author of "Hipster Christianity," Philip comes to the conclusion that parents are abdicating their responsibilities to teach their values to their children because they don't believe they are capable. Instead, Philip feels that parents leave teaching Christianity to youth pastors. He then travels to a youth pastor conference, where several people tell him that the most important part of drawing youth to Christ is being "authentic," which Philip interprets as meaning "just be yourself." Other speakers at the conference tell him that they need to be relational and relevant, and Philip says that many told him that the biggest problem is that parents won't get involved, and expect the church to do the parenting for them.
Philip then begins to research modern church structure, starting with Sunday School. Sunday School, according to his interview with Scott Brown, starts philosophically with Plato, who believed that children needed to be removed from their parents in order to be educated by the state. Churches eventually embraced the same idea, developing curricula based on age segregation. This, according to Doug Phillips, is based on evolutionary thinking, though he doesn't explain how, at least in this film. Philip then throws out all child development theory as he believes it is based on "pagan theories." The only basis for anything, then, according to Doug Phillips and Voddie Bachman, is what is portrayed in Scripture. If something is not described or commanded in Scripture, then it should be automatically prohibited. (No comment on why documentaries, which are not described in Scripture, are allowed)
So now that Philip has come to his(pre-drawn) conclusions, he zeroes in on the family integrated church. For this, he interviews Kevin Swanson, who basically repeats what everyone has said previously: (a) there is no description in Scripture of age-segregated churches, (b) there are many commands to parents to train and raise their children, thus (c) age-segregated churches are wrong and harmful to families.
At this point, 35 minutes into the film, Philip finally asks the question I have been waiting for. We can all agree that parents need to disciple and teach their own children, but what is wrong with delegating some of that to the church and/or youth ministries, or even using some of those programs in order to disciple your children?
The answer is that youth groups help parents disobey Scripture by not discipling their own children, and are morally wrong because they are not described in the Bible(no word on why church buildings, which were not used in the first century church, are okay). Philip also says that delegating or outsourcing to the church works to separate parents and children, and he stresses there are just some things one cannot delegate. However, this argument breaks down. His examples include things like loving your wife. No, of course you cannot delegate someone to love your wife, because the very definition of "wife" demands an exclusivity. A husband and a wife's love is supposed to be exclusive to one another, and by definition cannot be delegated. The teaching of children, however, does not fall into this definitional category. Of course it is my responsibility to ensure that my son is well educated in my values and religion. But to say that none of it can be delegated is silly; that would mean I can't ask his grandmother to read him a Bible storybook before bedtime if he's spending the night? You laugh, but that is where this logic would lead you if fully drawn out.
The main problem with this documentary, as well as the problem with much of patriarchal thinking, is the rampant either/or logic. Those interviewed in this film are presenting an artificially limited range of choices--either you are being responsible for training your children, or you are leaving all the teaching and discipling to others. Either a theory is developed only by someone with a Christian worldview, or it is wrong. Either something is described or commanded in the Bible, or it is wrong. It is a very common technique in propaganda, and is designed to cleverly seduce someone who is not well informed on a topic.
Just because something, like child development theory, was developed by a "pagan," doesn' make wrong. And simply because something wasn't spoken about in the Bible doesn't make it wrong--after all, as I have pointed out, church buildings, praise bands, 30 minute sermons, and Wednesday night prayer meeting--and documentaries--are not described in the Bible, either, but it doesn't mean that those things are wrong, just that they did not exist when Scripture was written. And while they do try to argue that teaching children about God is something that cannot be delegated, they fail to explain why.
While I certainly agree that modern church has many problems, and that Sunday School and youth ministry have areas that need to be questioned and critically evaluated, I don't find any compelling arguments in Divided. Frankly, it appears to be nothing more than more propaganda from the Vision Forum/NCFIC crowd. To convince those who are able to spot the logical flaws in their arguments, they will, once again, need to do better than this.
Unsurprisingly, the answer Philip comes up with is age-segregation in the church, specifically youth groups. Why is this unsurprising? Because this documentary was sponsered--if not financially, at least philosophically and emotionally--by the National Council for Family Integrated Churches(http://www.ncfic.org/) If you doubt this in any way, please look at their website, on which Scott Brown repeatedly refers to Divided as "our" movie. Mr. Brown also requests donations to help spread the message of the documentary and says that the NCFIC is the sponser of the online free viewing, as well.
Why am I bringing this up in the beginning of this review? Simply put, because Philip LeLerc has a long history of associating with Vision Forum and NCFIC. Mr. LeLerc claims in the beginning of the film that it is a documentary of his journey to discover why young adults are leaving the church. He wants to know, he claims, why young adults don't want to grow up, respect Scripture, and attend church. He also states that what he discovers shocks and saddens him. It is important to view those claims of open mindedness, however, through the lens of realization that this film was supported, from the inception, by NCFIC and its agenda.
The movie begins with interviews at a Christian music festival. One interviewee fondly remembers his youth pastor pulling him out of school to play video games. Others point out that there is a time for study, and a time to "mess around." The not-so-subtle point, of course, is that every single young adult interviewed remembers the fun of the youth group and not the Biblical study. Other points are made, here, as well, primarily that Philip sees no difference between the youths at the Christian music festival and those he sees out in the world. Through several interviews with two youth pastors(both of whom have now changed their views on the value of "fun" youth activities) and Brett McCracken, author of "Hipster Christianity," Philip comes to the conclusion that parents are abdicating their responsibilities to teach their values to their children because they don't believe they are capable. Instead, Philip feels that parents leave teaching Christianity to youth pastors. He then travels to a youth pastor conference, where several people tell him that the most important part of drawing youth to Christ is being "authentic," which Philip interprets as meaning "just be yourself." Other speakers at the conference tell him that they need to be relational and relevant, and Philip says that many told him that the biggest problem is that parents won't get involved, and expect the church to do the parenting for them.
Philip then begins to research modern church structure, starting with Sunday School. Sunday School, according to his interview with Scott Brown, starts philosophically with Plato, who believed that children needed to be removed from their parents in order to be educated by the state. Churches eventually embraced the same idea, developing curricula based on age segregation. This, according to Doug Phillips, is based on evolutionary thinking, though he doesn't explain how, at least in this film. Philip then throws out all child development theory as he believes it is based on "pagan theories." The only basis for anything, then, according to Doug Phillips and Voddie Bachman, is what is portrayed in Scripture. If something is not described or commanded in Scripture, then it should be automatically prohibited. (No comment on why documentaries, which are not described in Scripture, are allowed)
So now that Philip has come to his(pre-drawn) conclusions, he zeroes in on the family integrated church. For this, he interviews Kevin Swanson, who basically repeats what everyone has said previously: (a) there is no description in Scripture of age-segregated churches, (b) there are many commands to parents to train and raise their children, thus (c) age-segregated churches are wrong and harmful to families.
At this point, 35 minutes into the film, Philip finally asks the question I have been waiting for. We can all agree that parents need to disciple and teach their own children, but what is wrong with delegating some of that to the church and/or youth ministries, or even using some of those programs in order to disciple your children?
The answer is that youth groups help parents disobey Scripture by not discipling their own children, and are morally wrong because they are not described in the Bible(no word on why church buildings, which were not used in the first century church, are okay). Philip also says that delegating or outsourcing to the church works to separate parents and children, and he stresses there are just some things one cannot delegate. However, this argument breaks down. His examples include things like loving your wife. No, of course you cannot delegate someone to love your wife, because the very definition of "wife" demands an exclusivity. A husband and a wife's love is supposed to be exclusive to one another, and by definition cannot be delegated. The teaching of children, however, does not fall into this definitional category. Of course it is my responsibility to ensure that my son is well educated in my values and religion. But to say that none of it can be delegated is silly; that would mean I can't ask his grandmother to read him a Bible storybook before bedtime if he's spending the night? You laugh, but that is where this logic would lead you if fully drawn out.
The main problem with this documentary, as well as the problem with much of patriarchal thinking, is the rampant either/or logic. Those interviewed in this film are presenting an artificially limited range of choices--either you are being responsible for training your children, or you are leaving all the teaching and discipling to others. Either a theory is developed only by someone with a Christian worldview, or it is wrong. Either something is described or commanded in the Bible, or it is wrong. It is a very common technique in propaganda, and is designed to cleverly seduce someone who is not well informed on a topic.
Just because something, like child development theory, was developed by a "pagan," doesn' make wrong. And simply because something wasn't spoken about in the Bible doesn't make it wrong--after all, as I have pointed out, church buildings, praise bands, 30 minute sermons, and Wednesday night prayer meeting--and documentaries--are not described in the Bible, either, but it doesn't mean that those things are wrong, just that they did not exist when Scripture was written. And while they do try to argue that teaching children about God is something that cannot be delegated, they fail to explain why.
While I certainly agree that modern church has many problems, and that Sunday School and youth ministry have areas that need to be questioned and critically evaluated, I don't find any compelling arguments in Divided. Frankly, it appears to be nothing more than more propaganda from the Vision Forum/NCFIC crowd. To convince those who are able to spot the logical flaws in their arguments, they will, once again, need to do better than this.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Dear Doug, you make me mad.
Dear Doug,
I watched "League of Grateful Sons" this morning. On one hand, I commend you for applauding the heros of World War 2 and Iwo Jima in particular. On the other hand, I really dislike you using these brave, heroic men as propaganda tools. You are not worthy to tie their shoes, much less make a "documentary" about them.
#1) WW2 was not an epic battle of Christendom vs. statism, which you assert. We did not go to war with Japan because their little sons were "taken away from moms and dads and being raised by the state." However, when the only "historians" you interview are yourself and Matt Chancey, I don't know why I expected historical accuracy.
#2) The men of WW2 were not fighting so they could preserve the "historic Christian family" where Daddy works 9-5 and Mommy stayshome and bakes cookies. How dare you even assert this, considering that WW2 saw the largest influx of women in the workplace in history. If you did any valid historical research at all, you would know that many of those woman did not want to leave the workplace to be stay at home wives, and it was a large factor in the women's rights movement.
#3) Stop talking about manhood, courage, valor and perserverance like you know what those words mean. You are clueless. Courage, valor, honor, sacrifice, perserverance...those aren't baby names, Doug. Those are attributes that many men--and women--I know posess. Taking your two sons to Iwo Jima to meet veterans of that battle is a good learning experience. It doesn't mean you are on some great research expedition or have suddenly been imbibed with courage and valor. It means you took your kids on an expensive field trip to meet great men.
Do you want to meet real heros, Doug? I'm a paramedic. A few years ago, on the coldest night of the year with -20 wind chill, I got called out in the early morning hours for an elderly man, acancer patient , having trouble breathing. His yard had at least 3 feet of snow in it, his sidewalks and driveway hadn't been shoveled since he was unable to do it, and we had to call the fire department just to help us carry the stretcher through the snow, since it wouldn't roll and had to be picked up and carried several hundred feet to the waiting ambulance. Several members of the local volunteer fire department showed up in the bone chilling wind and cold, and we carried that man to the waiting ambulance. While I was giving him a breathing treatment and starting an IV, I looked out the back windows of the ambulance. And there were the men and women of the fire department, who didn't know this man or his wife at all, out in the driveway and sidewalk with shovels. In that freezing cold, they were shoveling this man's property so his wife wouldn't have to worry about it. It took them a good 30 minutes between the six of them, and they all had to go home and warm up and go to their paying jobs yet that day. They were missing sleep and the comforts of home to stay longer and hand shovel that driveway and sidewalk. Nobody asked them to. It wasn't part of their job description . They weren't receiving any compensation.
They did it because it was the right thing to do.
That is honor, Doug. That is valor. That is sacrifice.
That is what I want my son to be.
I don't want him to grow up and be like you. Or Matt Chancey. I want him to know true courage, and true honor, and true valor. I want him to do the right thing, even when it's cold and uncomfortable and he's tired. I want him to be a man who will get out of his nice warm bed in the middle of a freezing winter night to help someone else out, and expect nothing in return.
Until you have any clue about real life courage, please stop talking about it like you know what those words mean.
Thank you.
Signed,
A college degreed woman who does not stay at home with her children, but will go into your burning house to save yours.
I watched "League of Grateful Sons" this morning. On one hand, I commend you for applauding the heros of World War 2 and Iwo Jima in particular. On the other hand, I really dislike you using these brave, heroic men as propaganda tools. You are not worthy to tie their shoes, much less make a "documentary" about them.
#1) WW2 was not an epic battle of Christendom vs. statism, which you assert. We did not go to war with Japan because their little sons were "taken away from moms and dads and being raised by the state." However, when the only "historians" you interview are yourself and Matt Chancey, I don't know why I expected historical accuracy.
#2) The men of WW2 were not fighting so they could preserve the "historic Christian family" where Daddy works 9-5 and Mommy stays
#3) Stop talking about manhood, courage, valor and perserverance like you know what those words mean. You are clueless. Courage, valor, honor, sacrifice, perserverance...those aren't baby names, Doug. Those are attributes that many men--and women--I know posess. Taking your two sons to Iwo Jima to meet veterans of that battle is a good learning experience. It doesn't mean you are on some great research expedition or have suddenly been imbibed with courage and valor. It means you took your kids on an expensive field trip to meet great men.
Do you want to meet real heros, Doug? I'm a paramedic. A few years ago, on the coldest night of the year with -20 wind chill, I got called out in the early morning hours for an elderly man, a
They did it because it was the right thing to do.
That is honor, Doug. That is valor. That is sacrifice.
That is what I want my son to be.
I don't want him to grow up and be like you. Or Matt Chancey. I want him to know true courage, and true honor, and true valor. I want him to do the right thing, even when it's cold and uncomfortable and he's tired. I want him to be a man who will get out of his nice warm bed in the middle of a freezing winter night to help someone else out, and expect nothing in return.
Until you have any clue about real life courage, please stop talking about it like you know what those words mean.
Thank you.
Signed,
A college degreed woman who does not stay at home with her children, but will go into your burning house to save yours.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Epistemological Baby Naming
I(Cross posted from freejinger)
Continuing on in my review of the Vision Forum Baby Conference, I give you Doug Phillips' seminar on Baby Naming. This is just an outline, as I could not even make enough sense of it to actually do a logical and analytical review.
*Being epistemologically conscious when naming babies
Doug relates a story about going through his house at 4 am, waking his children up and telling them that their baby sister was born. They have a rule that all the children have to line up outside the door of their parents' room before coming in to see the baby. Then the lovely epistemologically-named children holds the new epistemologically-named child.
"A name that the parent gives a child is extremely important and has lifelong ramifications for the child." No kidding, so why did you name your son Providence Mather? Doug says that names reflect theology, worldview, and the priorities they have for their children. Doug also slips into his 200-year-vision thing, assuming that his descendents will name their progeny after Doug's, so when naming his children, he looks ahead to his future descendents and thinks about them when he chooses names. Basically, Dougie assumes that there will be many many Jubilees and Providences and Justices. He also thinks his future descendents will look back and thank him for epistemologically naming his children so they can name their children the same. (As a descendent of Dougie's heros, Cotton Mather, I a. will not name my child Mather and b. think my ancestor was completely insane. I think Dougie's descendents will have the same feeling)
So once again, I think Doug's just completely stuck on himself.
Doug lists some other country's rules about naming and the latest social security lists for baby names(Jacob and Isabella are number 1). None of this seems to be anything more than a time filler and excuse for Doug to hear himself talk.
Doug's bad reasons for naming a child:1) looking at popular names and using those to determine whether or not you want a popular name
2) hiring a baby naming consultant (this is "genuine ridiculous foolishness)
3) naming your little girl Tallulah-Does-The-Hula-From-Hawaii. (He's serious)
4) Anything Frank Zappa would name his child. (Ok, I give you that one)
5) Marketing strategies, practicality, foolishness
6) Picking a name based on a whim and because it sounds good, because you will completely
uninspire your child if you name her Mary because you like it, and not because it fits in with
a larger worldview. I can't make this up, people. This is straight from the mouth of Doug Phillips, esq.
So what does the wise one suggest that we do?
Doug's good reasons for naming a child:
1) You want your child to be able to say "My daddy named me something that matters."
2) You want something that will be "able to disciple the recipient through his name." Doug points out that his name, Douglas Winston, is after Douglas McArthur and Winston Churchill.
Because of this name and knowing that his dad named him after them, he has became a great leader.
3) Even more important than the name itself is the context that the parents ascribe to it. "The way you craft the story behind the name is EVERYTHING." He says that his daughter Jubilee
was born when his family was given a brand new direction in life, liberation and freedom, and so they named their daughter Jubilee, and it is Such. A. Blessing. to be able to tell her this.
4) The great generations give their children great names. "When there is a great work, you see parents name their children great names." Other than Biblical names, in the rare cases that God tells the parents what to name their children(like "Jesus" and the symbolic story of Hosea), Doug has no examples of this.
Approaches to baby names:
1) Virtue names, like the Puritans. They went from traditional English names(john, arthur, mary) to "virtue names," like Remember, Humility, and Resolve.
2)Naming children after historical great people. Like George Washington. And Douglas Winston Phillips.
3) Names of Biblical honor(Mary, Joseph, Adam)
4) Names of generational honor. This is naming after members of your family that you want to continue. Especially if you are one of Dougie's descendents
There are other legitimate, but not overly important considerations, like how it sounds. Dougie also says that if you give names that speak great signficance to your children but that may be
somewhat strange, expect great resistance from other people, in particular grandparents. Because you know those grandparents have no vision.
So to sum up, when you name your child, forget how it sounds, what the initials are, and especially what may be popular or easy to pronounce and spell. Instead, focus on how great you are, how great your vision, purpose,and signficance is, and name your children that way. And then Dougie finishes with a shout out to his BFF, the Great Baby Namer Of All Time, Peter Bradrick himself.
Because we should ALL be naming our children Loyal Cromwell.
Continuing on in my review of the Vision Forum Baby Conference, I give you Doug Phillips' seminar on Baby Naming. This is just an outline, as I could not even make enough sense of it to actually do a logical and analytical review.
*Being epistemologically conscious when naming babies
Doug relates a story about going through his house at 4 am, waking his children up and telling them that their baby sister was born. They have a rule that all the children have to line up outside the door of their parents' room before coming in to see the baby. Then the lovely epistemologically-named children holds the new epistemologically-named child.
"A name that the parent gives a child is extremely important and has lifelong ramifications for the child." No kidding, so why did you name your son Providence Mather? Doug says that names reflect theology, worldview, and the priorities they have for their children. Doug also slips into his 200-year-vision thing, assuming that his descendents will name their progeny after Doug's, so when naming his children, he looks ahead to his future descendents and thinks about them when he chooses names. Basically, Dougie assumes that there will be many many Jubilees and Providences and Justices. He also thinks his future descendents will look back and thank him for epistemologically naming his children so they can name their children the same. (As a descendent of Dougie's heros, Cotton Mather, I a. will not name my child Mather and b. think my ancestor was completely insane. I think Dougie's descendents will have the same feeling)
So once again, I think Doug's just completely stuck on himself.
Doug lists some other country's rules about naming and the latest social security lists for baby names(Jacob and Isabella are number 1). None of this seems to be anything more than a time filler and excuse for Doug to hear himself talk.
Doug's bad reasons for naming a child:1) looking at popular names and using those to determine whether or not you want a popular name
2) hiring a baby naming consultant (this is "genuine ridiculous foolishness)
3) naming your little girl Tallulah-Does-The-Hula-From-Hawaii. (He's serious)
4) Anything Frank Zappa would name his child. (Ok, I give you that one)
5) Marketing strategies, practicality, foolishness
6) Picking a name based on a whim and because it sounds good, because you will completely
uninspire your child if you name her Mary because you like it, and not because it fits in with
a larger worldview. I can't make this up, people. This is straight from the mouth of Doug Phillips, esq.
So what does the wise one suggest that we do?
Doug's good reasons for naming a child:
1) You want your child to be able to say "My daddy named me something that matters."
2) You want something that will be "able to disciple the recipient through his name." Doug points out that his name, Douglas Winston, is after Douglas McArthur and Winston Churchill.
Because of this name and knowing that his dad named him after them, he has became a great leader.
3) Even more important than the name itself is the context that the parents ascribe to it. "The way you craft the story behind the name is EVERYTHING." He says that his daughter Jubilee
was born when his family was given a brand new direction in life, liberation and freedom, and so they named their daughter Jubilee, and it is Such. A. Blessing. to be able to tell her this.
4) The great generations give their children great names. "When there is a great work, you see parents name their children great names." Other than Biblical names, in the rare cases that God tells the parents what to name their children(like "Jesus" and the symbolic story of Hosea), Doug has no examples of this.
Approaches to baby names:
1) Virtue names, like the Puritans. They went from traditional English names(john, arthur, mary) to "virtue names," like Remember, Humility, and Resolve.
2)Naming children after historical great people. Like George Washington. And Douglas Winston Phillips.
3) Names of Biblical honor(Mary, Joseph, Adam)
4) Names of generational honor. This is naming after members of your family that you want to continue. Especially if you are one of Dougie's descendents
There are other legitimate, but not overly important considerations, like how it sounds. Dougie also says that if you give names that speak great signficance to your children but that may be
somewhat strange, expect great resistance from other people, in particular grandparents. Because you know those grandparents have no vision.
So to sum up, when you name your child, forget how it sounds, what the initials are, and especially what may be popular or easy to pronounce and spell. Instead, focus on how great you are, how great your vision, purpose,and signficance is, and name your children that way. And then Dougie finishes with a shout out to his BFF, the Great Baby Namer Of All Time, Peter Bradrick himself.
Because we should ALL be naming our children Loyal Cromwell.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Return of the Daughters
Anna Sofia and Elizabeth, in their first real "documentary," begin by discussing how "militant feminism" has destroyed America. They state that if we follow Biblical principles, daughters will live at home until marriage under the protective hedge of their daughters. At the end, the say that this is historically normative, which is a very difficult case to make, but as is usual with the Botkins, they state something authoritatively and don't back it up. Nor do they once provide any Scripture references to what Biblical principles and/or verses they are referring to in order to make their case. Instead, they turn to anecdotal, modern day evidence in the form of interviews with stay-at-home daughters.
Katie Valenti
"At age 23, she is well established in business"--then they explain that she works as an interior designer for her father, a "well-re-known builder" in Louisiana. Katie states that it is good training as she "learns to submit in this particular way to a man." Her father says that the Bible clearly teaches that the main focus of women is to be their home and helpers to their fathers and husbands. He insists that it is based in the Scriptures, but never once gives a Scripture reference to back up these claims. He does quote the Deuteronomy passage where it says to teach your children truths, when they lie down and get up and walk along with them on the road. However, since this verse is clearly using hyperbole, the claim he is trying to make(that you cannot constantly teach your children if they are not constantly with you) is invalid. It just isn't there. The intent of this verse is not that you have to constantly be with your children, but instead to be consistently and daily teaching them truths.
Jasmine Bachman
Jasmine talks about her desire to be a screenwriter, to go to NYU, to be a successful, single, powerful woman. Jasmine had dreams, but she and her father "reevaluated her ambitions according to their Scriptural discoveries." Jasmine says she and Voddie have been studying together the "role of father to daughters," in the Bible, but once again, no Scripture references are used. Voddie says that the Bible nowhere commands women to become independent, but to be submissive. He references back to the Genesis curse, saying that Eve's sin was actually independence, and the curse was that Eve would desire her husband's position. This is up for much Scriptural debate, but Voddie takes it for granted that we would all just accept this point blank. Voddie continues that as Jasmine "works with and serves her father," she is developing her own abilities and gifts. He brings up a point that Katie Valenti made in the previous segment--why would you go out and support another man and contribute to his dreams and vision when you could be helping your father? Jasmine says that it's been very hard for her, especially because she has family members who deride her choices and tell her that she's thrown the torch down, instead of pursuing the opportunities given to her by generations before, for both African-American and women.
Melissa Keen
Melissa's father works as an over-the-road truck driver, so unlike Katie and Jasmine, she doesn't have opportunities to work with her father. Instead, she says her father wants her to be entrepreneriul and focus on businesses she can do from home. Melissa apparently organizes the Vision Forum Father-Daughter retreat, which she talks about in detail(booking the venue, planning a traditional high tea, handle registrations, decorating, etc). To me, it seems to be stretching to show that Melissa has gainful skills and useful projects. However, I have a hard time seeing that organizing one event can fill a 25-year-old's time. Plus, where in real life do you need to know how to plan a traditional high tea?
Lourdes Torres
This opens with Lourdes target shooting. She's a little different from the others--she only has one sibling and lives in a mobile home. Both of which are immediately mentioned. Her father, Alfredo, is a janitor. Lourdes says that even though her father doesn't have a business, she can still be serve his vision of her as a servant. In order to accomplish this, Lourdes spends a lot of time helping others in her church and community. I totally applaud community service, but again, I can't imagine that living in a trailer with one sibling, plus service to your community, takes a great deal of time. Lourdes does say that her priority is to invest in her family. She does this by "serving God and (my) father."
Kelly BradrickKelly talks about being a helpmeet, and praying for someone with a "mission and a vision." Someone, she says, like her father, who was "going places." Peter and Kelly's courtship story is once again rehashed, with Peter answering hard questions and writing theological papers and spending months having interviews with Kelly's father. The questions that lingers in my mind is the one that is always asked when hearing one of these courtship stories--who was Peter wooing? Kelly, or her father?
Kelly and Peter are once again held up as courtship's poster children. Scott Brown, Kelly's father, spent months vetting this young man and requiring ridiculous things, like Peter's theological position in twenty-page papers. Kelly, at the age of 22, says that the transition from daughter in her father's home to wife in her husband's home was easy, since it was all she had been trained for. Peter says that Kelly was receiving a Ph.D.-level education in homemaking, which, personally, I find offensive to those of us who can cook, clean, raise a child, balance a checkbook, grocery shop and menu plan, and went to graduate school.
Kelly brings up 1 Corinthians 7, which talks about singles not throwing away their time, but using their single years to better themselves and contribute to the Kingdom of God. How, I ask, is spending your time in your father's house, "serving" your father, contributing to the Kingdom of God? Would it not be better, if this is your goal, to be serving God instead of Daddy?
Ah, yes, and nothing would be complete without thepompous idiociy joy which is Jennie Chancey. Jennie talks a hundred words a minute, waxing eloquent on her favorite subject--why women shouldn't go to college. Why, she asks, does a woman have to develop her gifts in an institution? Why can't a woman develop her gifts where they are going to be used, at home? Jennie says that she gets a lot of letters from highly educated women with college degrees and don't even know how to boil water. Because it takes four years post-high school serving your father to learn how to boil water.
Cut to Voddie talking about an epidemic of unprotected women, blaming promiscuity, mistreatment and abuse of women, and failed marriages, on sending these "helpless creatures out their on their own." Trying to make this connect logically makes my neurons explode, so I'm not even going to try.
"Return of the Daughters" is another in a long line of Vision Forum's beautifully produced and articulate products. By highlighting three obviously very well to do, upper class daughters(Kelly, Jasmine and Katie) who have multiple things to do at home in their father's business, including learning marketable skills, and skimming over Melissa and Lourdes, Vision Forum once again shows that it is interested only in the upper class of society. Though I believe this is probably inadvertant, by not offering suggestions to those who families (a) can't afford to support their grown daughters indefinately and (b) have a father who does not have a business he can offer his daughters work in, VF quickly alienates much of their audience. Instead of offering practical advice to the daughters whose families don't fit into VF's neat little model, Anna Sofia and Elizabeth neatly ignore the issue. They are quick to say that you're sinning if you are not a stay-at-home daughter, but those who can't are summarily ignored.
It fails in attempting to defend its position, that daughters should stay at home until marriage, in any form, but especially Biblically. The very few Scripture references cited, when taken in context both linguistically and historically, have nothing to do with what Anna Sofia and Elizabeth are trying to prove. There is absolutely no Biblical precedence for women staying at home, serving their fathers. In fact, with all the emphasis on serving fathers and not God, it appears that the fathers are confusing themselves with God. The Biblical precedence for that is called idolatry, and it is a violation of the very first of the Commandments. This is also all in direct contrast to Jesus' teachings, who repeatedly taught that our purpose is to love and serve others, particularly the "least of these." With the possible exception of Lourdes Torres and her community ministries, none of the women featured in this movie are living out Jesus' very clear commands to serve the poor, the needy, and the lost. Instead, they are living at home, sheltered in their (often well-to-do) father's home, serving man instead of God.
Katie Valenti
"At age 23, she is well established in business"--then they explain that she works as an interior designer for her father, a "well-re-known builder" in Louisiana. Katie states that it is good training as she "learns to submit in this particular way to a man." Her father says that the Bible clearly teaches that the main focus of women is to be their home and helpers to their fathers and husbands. He insists that it is based in the Scriptures, but never once gives a Scripture reference to back up these claims. He does quote the Deuteronomy passage where it says to teach your children truths, when they lie down and get up and walk along with them on the road. However, since this verse is clearly using hyperbole, the claim he is trying to make(that you cannot constantly teach your children if they are not constantly with you) is invalid. It just isn't there. The intent of this verse is not that you have to constantly be with your children, but instead to be consistently and daily teaching them truths.
Jasmine Bachman
Jasmine talks about her desire to be a screenwriter, to go to NYU, to be a successful, single, powerful woman. Jasmine had dreams, but she and her father "reevaluated her ambitions according to their Scriptural discoveries." Jasmine says she and Voddie have been studying together the "role of father to daughters," in the Bible, but once again, no Scripture references are used. Voddie says that the Bible nowhere commands women to become independent, but to be submissive. He references back to the Genesis curse, saying that Eve's sin was actually independence, and the curse was that Eve would desire her husband's position. This is up for much Scriptural debate, but Voddie takes it for granted that we would all just accept this point blank. Voddie continues that as Jasmine "works with and serves her father," she is developing her own abilities and gifts. He brings up a point that Katie Valenti made in the previous segment--why would you go out and support another man and contribute to his dreams and vision when you could be helping your father? Jasmine says that it's been very hard for her, especially because she has family members who deride her choices and tell her that she's thrown the torch down, instead of pursuing the opportunities given to her by generations before, for both African-American and women.
Melissa Keen
Melissa's father works as an over-the-road truck driver, so unlike Katie and Jasmine, she doesn't have opportunities to work with her father. Instead, she says her father wants her to be entrepreneriul and focus on businesses she can do from home. Melissa apparently organizes the Vision Forum Father-Daughter retreat, which she talks about in detail(booking the venue, planning a traditional high tea, handle registrations, decorating, etc). To me, it seems to be stretching to show that Melissa has gainful skills and useful projects. However, I have a hard time seeing that organizing one event can fill a 25-year-old's time. Plus, where in real life do you need to know how to plan a traditional high tea?
Lourdes Torres
This opens with Lourdes target shooting. She's a little different from the others--she only has one sibling and lives in a mobile home. Both of which are immediately mentioned. Her father, Alfredo, is a janitor. Lourdes says that even though her father doesn't have a business, she can still be serve his vision of her as a servant. In order to accomplish this, Lourdes spends a lot of time helping others in her church and community. I totally applaud community service, but again, I can't imagine that living in a trailer with one sibling, plus service to your community, takes a great deal of time. Lourdes does say that her priority is to invest in her family. She does this by "serving God and (my) father."
Kelly BradrickKelly talks about being a helpmeet, and praying for someone with a "mission and a vision." Someone, she says, like her father, who was "going places." Peter and Kelly's courtship story is once again rehashed, with Peter answering hard questions and writing theological papers and spending months having interviews with Kelly's father. The questions that lingers in my mind is the one that is always asked when hearing one of these courtship stories--who was Peter wooing? Kelly, or her father?
Kelly and Peter are once again held up as courtship's poster children. Scott Brown, Kelly's father, spent months vetting this young man and requiring ridiculous things, like Peter's theological position in twenty-page papers. Kelly, at the age of 22, says that the transition from daughter in her father's home to wife in her husband's home was easy, since it was all she had been trained for. Peter says that Kelly was receiving a Ph.D.-level education in homemaking, which, personally, I find offensive to those of us who can cook, clean, raise a child, balance a checkbook, grocery shop and menu plan, and went to graduate school.
Kelly brings up 1 Corinthians 7, which talks about singles not throwing away their time, but using their single years to better themselves and contribute to the Kingdom of God. How, I ask, is spending your time in your father's house, "serving" your father, contributing to the Kingdom of God? Would it not be better, if this is your goal, to be serving God instead of Daddy?
Ah, yes, and nothing would be complete without the
Cut to Voddie talking about an epidemic of unprotected women, blaming promiscuity, mistreatment and abuse of women, and failed marriages, on sending these "helpless creatures out their on their own." Trying to make this connect logically makes my neurons explode, so I'm not even going to try.
"Return of the Daughters" is another in a long line of Vision Forum's beautifully produced and articulate products. By highlighting three obviously very well to do, upper class daughters(Kelly, Jasmine and Katie) who have multiple things to do at home in their father's business, including learning marketable skills, and skimming over Melissa and Lourdes, Vision Forum once again shows that it is interested only in the upper class of society. Though I believe this is probably inadvertant, by not offering suggestions to those who families (a) can't afford to support their grown daughters indefinately and (b) have a father who does not have a business he can offer his daughters work in, VF quickly alienates much of their audience. Instead of offering practical advice to the daughters whose families don't fit into VF's neat little model, Anna Sofia and Elizabeth neatly ignore the issue. They are quick to say that you're sinning if you are not a stay-at-home daughter, but those who can't are summarily ignored.
It fails in attempting to defend its position, that daughters should stay at home until marriage, in any form, but especially Biblically. The very few Scripture references cited, when taken in context both linguistically and historically, have nothing to do with what Anna Sofia and Elizabeth are trying to prove. There is absolutely no Biblical precedence for women staying at home, serving their fathers. In fact, with all the emphasis on serving fathers and not God, it appears that the fathers are confusing themselves with God. The Biblical precedence for that is called idolatry, and it is a violation of the very first of the Commandments. This is also all in direct contrast to Jesus' teachings, who repeatedly taught that our purpose is to love and serve others, particularly the "least of these." With the possible exception of Lourdes Torres and her community ministries, none of the women featured in this movie are living out Jesus' very clear commands to serve the poor, the needy, and the lost. Instead, they are living at home, sheltered in their (often well-to-do) father's home, serving man instead of God.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Quiverfull
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(finally) 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.
Translated: I haven't slept in two weeks, and Baby has come very, very close to being an only child.
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.
We are not 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.
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.
Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD:
and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man;
so are children of the youth.
Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them:
they shall not be ashamed,
but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.
Psalm 127:3-5 (KJV)
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.
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.
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.
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.
And it will be God's time, not ours.
Translated: I haven't slept in two weeks, and Baby has come very, very close to being an only child.
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.
We are not 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.
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.
Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD:
and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man;
so are children of the youth.
Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them:
they shall not be ashamed,
but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.
Psalm 127:3-5 (KJV)
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.
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.
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.
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.
And it will be God's time, not ours.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Homeschool dropouts
About 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.
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 not be viewed as an option, but "Biblical homeschooling and education" should instead be viewed as mandatory. 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
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.
Six traps that await the second generation:
1. We Don't seek God for ourselves
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 not be viewed as an option, but "Biblical homeschooling and education" should instead be viewed as mandatory. 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
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.
(Monaghan, E. Jennifer. "Literacy Instruction and Gender in Colonial New England." American Quarterly 40 (March 1988): 18–41.
Sugg, Redding S. Motherteacher: The Feminization of American Education. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1978.)
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.Six traps that await the second generation:
1. We Don't seek God for ourselves
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 love Christ, but that one must live a life according to Christ's word.
2. Deliberate lawlessness
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
3. Pride
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.
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.
4. Not knowing how to engage the world
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.
5. Laziness and complacency
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 against.
6. We are bitter instead of grateful.
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 honor.
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 why. 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.
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. 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. 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 not 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."
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.
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 honor.
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 why. 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.
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. 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. 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 not 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."
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)