This post has moved to HERE.
To join my mailing list, send a blank email to robin (at sign) atgsociety.com with “Blog Me” in the subject heading. Click HERE to friend-request me on Facebook and get news feeds every time new articles are added to this blog. Visit my other website Alfred the Great Society
67 comments:
Thanks for drawing attention to this very necessary book. In fairness to the author, I should point out that the quote you cite about "coffee with Jesus" is not McFarland's words but mine; it is from a guest post I contributed to her blog which she kindly included as an appendix. (The original can be found here.) In fairness to myself, it's not even entirely my words but a riff on Jesus' words in John 15:15--"I no longer call you servants... instead I have called you friends" (philous).
As for your review, I must say I find it a bit odd that you begin by (rightly) decrying those who "abuse under the guise of biblical authority" and conclude by calling for more and stronger authority! Ideally of course, a healthy church leadership intervening positively would indeed go a long way to helping in these kinds of situations. However, in the real world, far too many pastors and elders would respond just like your quote from Lindvall. Where authoritarianism is the problem, "stronger authority" is not the solution, unless by "stronger" you really mean "more gracious and Christlike."
When authority fails at Christlikeness, as even "God-ordained" churches or fathers can do, sometimes it really is just one person and Jesus contra mundum. "Though my father and mother forsake me, the Lord will take me up" (Psalm 27:10). That's what I see as the core of McFarland's philosophy, and why we need more books like this.
Grace and Peace,
Eric P.
Hi Eric,
Thanks for helping to put that quote in more context. I have read your article and am in agreement with much of it and I have added the link into my review so people can see the context. My main problem with your article would be the omission of anything to do with Mother Church. It is through the Church that Jesus nourishes his people with food and drink and provides the means of grace. It is also through the visible, institutional church that Jesus’ friendship is mediated to us, so a well-orbed discussion of Jesus’ love needs to take this into account, especially given the anti-institutional, emergent, individualistic tone of the contemporary evangelical community (something I have explored further in my article on Gnostic Myths at http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2010/06/gnostic-myths-you-may-have-imbibed.html).
It find it very revealing that my juxtaposition between abusive authority and Biblical authority is heard by you as merely being a contrast between abusive authority and stronger authority. But the difference is not quantitative but qualitative. The problem by those abusive fathers claiming "patriarchy" (I say “claiming” because, taken literally, "rule by father", it is a fundamentally Biblical concept, so long as the ultimate Patriarch is realized to be God the Father, and not the father of any particular family; that is to say, God's law is the ultimate authority, not daddy) is that their authoritarian paradigm is rex lex, as opposed to lex rex. They fail to recognize that God's law is supreme over all spheres of life, and an unlawful command given by any human authority, father, priest, or magistrate, has no force of obligation upon anyone, including a child. A command by a father to do evil must be disobeyed in obedience to God. In fairness to many of the spokesmen in the Patriarchy movement (including R.C. Sproul Jr., Doug Phillips, Geoff Botkin, and the Reformed guys generally), teach sphere-limited authority, and therefore that Patriarchal authority is subject to God's law. So their teaching of Patriarchy is not what is flawed, even if some of their followers abuse it.
We might usefully outline the basic issues as follows:
- God created the world covenantally, and there are authority structures, primarily the family, church and state, in which the head has a real divinely ordained authority over limited aspects of their subordinates' lives.
- Fallen men as rebellious sinners are prone to rebel against God's law. Sinners in authority have a tendency to use their authority to use their authority to rebel against God by sinning against their subordinates and recruiting them into rebellion against God.
- Subordinates in a divinely ordained authority relationship have a duty to respectfully disobey unlawful orders from one in authority and to interpose themselves to defend others from such abuse of authority.
- In such cases, the subordinates can and ought to appeal to other spheres of God-ordained authority, whether the church or the state. That is to say, a girl who is being raped by her father ought to call the police.
This doesn't make a lot of head way to helping these victims, since few girls who are being abused are going to understand this, but this does give us a theological framework that needs to be kept in mind when proposing solutions.
Someone involved in the patriarchy movement wrote to me yesterday to say that Phil Lancaster wrote about "false patriarchy" in Patriarch Magazine way back in 2000 - 2001 and that the real leaders in the Patriarchy movement have always decried authoritarianism in patriarch's clothing. (Has anyone read that article? I haven't yet). Unfortunately, these Reformed leaders have never had as broad a following as Lindvall and Gothard who are loved by the masses because their fuzzy individualism and "leading of God" emotional manipulation which is quite attractive to most Americans.
Robin, just to clarify a point in your review, you mentioned "Even Steve Schlissel’s objections to body piercing is thrown into this network of patriarchal ills." This was actually part of my article about authoritarianism and isolationism, first published in the Christian Research Journal, and reprinted in Plain Truth Magazine. This was not written specifically for McFarland's book.(The notes in the back of the book clarify this.) She was not throwing this issue in with patriarchal ills. In my article, I was addressing problematic tendencies when it comes to cultural confusion in relationship to isolationism. Because she identified with much of the first part of my article in relationship to neo-patriarchy, the article was included with permission.
Hope that helps clear up this issue.
Rachel Ramer
[Not sure if this went through last time-- If so, disregard.]
Thanks, Robin. I get the feeling that at least some of our disagreement is over semantics--for instance, I avoided the word "church" (not the concept!) mostly because it can carry incredibly negative baggage for spiritual abuse survivors--but I don't have time to explore that any more fully.
The great danger I've seen is when someone takes a doctrine of "biblical authority" (valid or otherwise) and steps from "My position of authority is ordained by God in the Bible" to "To obey me is to obey God and the Bible, and to disobey me is to rebel." From there it takes no effort at all to devolve into outright Spiritual Abuse.
Of course, every spiritual abuser and cult leader also claims to have "biblical authority," so differentiating quantity and quality takes careful clarification of terms. Hence my misgivings: Any teaching that gets people too close to that point is a dangerous one, even if it's true (which is debatable but I won't). The documented abuses are all the more reason to handle it with caution at best.
At some point, don't we have to question whether what we see is the abuse of the doctrine or the fruit of the doctrine? There's a terrible consistency to all the stories. If one person follows someone's teaching and abuses their child, it could be a misunderstanding; if 100 do, something's very wrong.
Also, I'd emphasize that any teaching on authority cannot be biblical (or even valid) unless it can be understood entirely in the light of Jesus' clear teaching in Matthew 20:25-28--"Their leaders exercise authority over them; it is not to be so among you."
My other points would mostly be quibbles that I don't see a reason to get into. Thanks for responding.
Grace and Peace,
Eric
Thank you for this review, Eric. I have the book and I plan to review it as well very soon. I found your thoughts helpful, fair, and well articulated.
I especially appreciated this portion:
"But what about situations where a girl is simply rebellious and is all too willing to interpret any parental censure as an assault on her individuality? What about situations where a rebellious daughter takes all criticism from her father as a case of her thoughts being ridiculed? What about situations where a daughter feels she is being treated as a slave because she is asked to do her chores or to help with the younger siblings? What about a situation where a daughter feels her privacy is being violated because she can’t have a bedroom to herself? What about a daughter who claims she is being verbally abused when her parents merely correct her?
"I raise these questions because of my concern that portions of this book could prove less than helpful in the wrong hands. If a daughter is merely proud, stubborn and unsubmissive, she may find much material in this book to sanctify her rebellion."
I haven't read the book yet; but, after reading portions of the author's blog, I had some of the same concerns you expressed in your review. I wrote this elsewhere, but thought I'd repeat it here:
Notice the baiting nature of Hillary's "Letter to a Quiverfull Daughter" from her blog. Any adult child, Christian or non-Christian, quiverfull or not, male or female, can look back and find instances of just about any one of these things from their childhood - specifically if they are struggling with discontent or bitterness for whatever reason, real or imagined.
Again, Gloria Steinem did the same thing when she sent out her "questionnaire" to her fellow "housewife" classmates after a reunion. She asked baiting questions and stirred up bitterness and discontent (and even rebellion) in the hearts of wives and mothers everywhere.
Here are Hillary's points in her "Letter to Daughters:"
- It is not okay when your feelings and individuality are not
respected. (Who gets to define what this means?)
- It is not okay when your privacy is invaded. (Privacy as in a father
getting into bed with his daughter, or privacy as in I don't have my own room? Because the fact is, girls will read into this what they want.)
- It is not okay when your thoughts are discounted, either in private, or in front of everyone. (Who among us hasn't felt this way?)
- It is not okay when you are compared to other siblings, whether it is by family, extended family, or friends. (Again, when I was a teen, I can remember feeling this way and hearing my friends complain about the same
thing.)
- It is not okay when you are expected to continually be responsible for the younger ones. (Again, who gets to decide what is "continually?"
- It is not okay when more is asked of you than appropriate. (Again, my son Caleb may think that being asked to take the garbage is asking more of him than is appropriate - again subjective).
- It is not okay that mom and dad don't have enough one on one quality time with you. It is not bad to wish you did. (This may be a parenting weakness, but it's not abuse. And many times, the measuring stick on "how much" quality time is necessary is based on a family of 2.4 children.)
- It is okay to feel tired each time a new baby is placed into your
arms. (This one had me rolling my eyes. Every time we've had a new baby, the children are fighting over who gets to hold the baby, and complaining about all the baby-hogs we have! LOL)
Please post your review on Amazon. I think it is an important perspective!
Hi Robin, I commented on your post last night and somehow lost it all. Ugh!
Let me try again. Thank you for your review. It was fair, well articulated, and reasonable. I have only read Hillary's blog (I have the book and plan to review it soon); but, I have some of the same concerns you do - on both sides, and you did a fantastic job of laying out the issues.
This portion of your review expressed my biggest concerns for daughters.
"What about situations where a girl is simply rebellious and is all too willing to interpret any parental censure as an assault on her individuality? What about situations where a rebellious daughter takes all criticism from her father as a case of her thoughts being ridiculed? What about situations where a daughter feels she is being treated as a slave because she is asked to do her chores or to help with the younger siblings? What about a situation where a daughter feels her privacy is being violated because she can’t have a bedroom to herself? What about a daughter who claims she is being verbally abused when her parents merely correct her?
"I raise these questions because of my concern that portions of this book could prove less than helpful in the wrong hands. If a daughter is merely proud, stubborn and unsubmissive, she may find much material in this book to sanctify her rebellion."
And that's one of the issues I have. This book is written "to" the "daughters of patriarchy," which like you have pointed out, is poorly defined.
If the book validates the feelings of 5 girls who have truly been abused, yet encourages/tempts 95 girls from healthy, Christian families to rebel against their parents, has it really been helpful?
Perhaps a book written to the church and addressing parents would have been better, since I believe that is really where the problem lies.
Blogger won't let me continue, so I'll try to put the rest in another comment.
Continued...
Perhaps a book written to the church and addressing parents would have been better, since I believe that is really where the problem lies.
I also appreciated what you said here:
"The solution to abuse within Christian families is not to replace the authority of the church with the autonomous spirituality of a Starbucks Jesus, but to have more of the right type of authority – in this case, the authority of the church which can step in and, if necessary, discipline parents who are abusing their daughters."
One of the bigger problems I see in the "patriarchy movement" (for lack of a better word) is the problem of rebellious husbands/fathers who think they are the ultimate authority, and are accountable to no one besides God. They want their wives to submit and their daughters to obey, but they demonstrate no obedience or accountability themselves.
While this happens in some circles, it does not represent true, biblical "patriarchy" (of which I am a part). And our detractors (specifically those promoting Egalitarianism or Antinomianism) would like to use these examples of abuse, as well as some of the more bizarre teachings of Lindvall and others, to paint a distorted picture of biblical authority.
I also wanted to encourage you to put your review up on Amazon. Yours is a much needed perspective.
May the Lord give you clarity and bless your efforts to promote Truth and defend the Gospel.
Hey now--this isn't my review! Though it's looking like I'm probably going to have to post one sometime soon.
It's perhaps worth noting the "pointing out abuse will make non-abused people rebellious" doctrine was already anticipated in Hillary's book and her blog, for instance in this article from May and this comment thread.
Robin,
Since you mentioned the quote of me that Hillary used regarding my use of the word “ecclesiocentricity,” I thought I would clarify its meaning as well as give you a working definition of “patriocentricity.”
Ecclesiocentricty means that all of church life revolves around the leadership of a local church or as in a Catholic church where the entire parish revolves around the local priest. I do not hold to a chain of command perspective, rather I believe in church leadership but also in the priesthood of all believers, that the church is the body of Christ but is not a hierarchy.
Similarly, patriocentricity is when everything in the home revolves around the father of the home and no one has callings from the Lord except for him. Karen “Spunky” Braun made a great observation in the interviews I did with her on this subject. She said that we ought to be “Christocentric” in that Jesus Christ is the hub of the wheel and we are each a spoke going out from that hub, all equal but connected to Christ. In practical application, all believers would encourage each other to use their spiritual gifts, talents, and abilities to glorify God in the callings they have each been given as brothers and sisters in Christ.
I would agree that the word “patriarchy” is used to label anything and everything and is basically a nebulous label. When I reviewed Kathy Joyce’s book Quiverfull, this is one of the things I pointed out. We have to be sure we are defining things correctly.
Where I would differ with your solution, if I am understanding you correctly, is that, while you think that there is abuse in some of these homes but that we can’t label patriocentric homes as all abusive, I would disagree. I believe that the patriocentric system practices the sin of partiality, that the system IS the abuse, that the attitudes toward daughters and wives ARE the abuse. I would encourage you to listen to the series of podcasts I have placed on my blog during the past few weeks to place into perspective the things Hillary is writing about in her book. (I also am in the process of airing an interview with Hillary if anyone is interested in hearing our discussion where we are looking at this issue.)
As far as the notion that the solution to this problem lies within church leadership, I think this really misses the core of the whole problem. Those parents I would consider “abusive,” that is, those who are practicing the sin of partiality by placing these unbibilical standards Hillary discusses, on their daughters, wouldn’t attend a normal church. They would scream “feminists” or “white-washed feminists” and run out the door in scenarios most Bible-believing Christians would find not only normal but edifying.
In my own church, for example, last Sunday our Sunday School class was taught by a single woman missionary who is heading to Turkey after getting her degree from Dallas Seminary. The only thing in her presentation that even remotely resembled patriocentricity was the young woman she asked to come to the front of the room and wear a burka to represent the Muslim nations needing the Gospel of Christ! Everything about this teacher represented all those things that the patriocentrists rail against. Here is a quote from podcast #4 that shows exactly what patriocentrists teach. Note that the woman who taught my Sunday school class would be considered to be blaspheming God’s name, is not following what they call the “creation order mandate” etc:
(con.t)
(con't)
Where I would differ with your solution, if I am understanding you correctly, is that, while you think that there is abuse in some of these homes but that we can’t label patriocentric homes as all abusive, I would disagree. I believe that the patriocentric system practices the sin of partiality, that the system IS the abuse, that the attitudes toward daughters and wives ARE the abuse. I would encourage you to listen to the series of podcasts I have placed on my blog during the past few weeks to place into perspective the things Hillary is writing about in her book. (I also am in the process of airing an interview with Hillary if anyone is interested in hearing our discussion where we are looking at this issue.)
As far as the notion that the solution to this problem lies within church leadership, I think this really misses the core of the whole problem. Those parents I would consider “abusive,” that is, those who are practicing the sin of partiality by placing these unbibilical standards Hillary discusses, on their daughters, wouldn’t attend a normal church. They would scream “feminists” or “white-washed feminists” and run out the door in scenarios most Bible-believing Christians would find not only normal but edifying.
(con't)
(con't)
In my own church, for example, last Sunday our Sunday School class was taught by a single woman missionary who is heading to Turkey after getting her degree from Dallas Seminary. The only thing in her presentation that even remotely resembled patriocentricity was the young woman she asked to come to the front of the room and wear a burka to represent the Muslim nations needing the Gospel of Christ! Everything about this teacher represented all those things that the patriocentrists rail against. Here is a quote from podcast #4 that shows exactly what patriocentrists teach. Note that the woman who taught my Sunday school class would be considered to be blaspheming God’s name, is not following what they call the “creation order mandate” etc:
“The first book I want to examine that I believe has attempted to clarify the roles of women in their patriarchal world is Passionate Housewives Desperate for God written by Stacy McDonald and Jennie Chancey and published in 2007 by Vision Forum. Laying out what they call a “fresh vision for the hopeful homemaker,” the role they declare is “the glorious picture painted for us in Scripture” they use phrases like “rightful place in God’s created order,” “God-ordained womanhood” “biblical directives to women to be wives, mothers, and keepers of the home”, “our respective roles given to us by God” “God has created women to fulfill the unique role of homemaker. That’s all we need to know to rest in our callings.”
(con't)
(cpn't)
God has given women a sphere that is naturally and wonderfully their own to manage and wisely govern.” “Why is God’s role for women so important? Because God says when we reject it, we blaspheme His Word.” “We can walk confidently in the role God ordained for us since the beginning of time.” And homemaking is a woman’s “glorious duty.” All of these phrases make it clear that being a wife and mother in the home is God’s undisputed calling for all women without any qualifications or exceptions. If there is still any question about the role of women in God’s eyes, Jennie Chancey explains why not being a homemaker is a sin in an article she wrote for Vision Forum in response to Pastor Andrew Sandlin who has critiqued these teachings on several occasions. She said: ““What truly amazes me is that Rev. Sandlin can state so confidently that the Bible does not call a woman leaving her God-given, home-based occupation for work outside the home “sin”..…. blasphemy is sin, whether it is spoken verbally or lived before a watching world.” Please do not miss what is being taught…The role for women is being a housewife and not being one is blasphemous and therefore a sin.” There is no exception. All women have to be homemakers like Jennie and Stacy to be godly women.”
(c0ntinued)
(con't)
Those families who embrace patriocentric teachings like these gravitate toward family integrated churches where the leadership would also be teaching these things. If a young woman came to her pastor or elders and explained that she wanted to do X, Y, or Z, anything other than what the paradigm says is “godly womanhood” she would be marked as rebellious and she would most likely be excommunicated for her rebellion, being reminded that “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.” Is it any wonder that you see Stacy McDonald, author of this book I quoted, heartily endorsing your suggestion?
It then helps to understand why the 2009 Homeschooling Leadership Conference in Indianapolis hosted Vision Forum (publisher of Stacy’s books) founder Doug Phillips who stated that three of the stated goals for homeschooling families are to see all homeschooling families in family integrated churches, see daughters stay home until given in marriage, and close down the department of child and family services. I hope people are getting the whole picture.
Hope that clarifies my quote.
Karen Campbell (thatmom)
@thatmom, it's pretty difficult to digest your article-length comments and figure out exactly what you are responding to that Robin wrote. For such a tome, a link to a blog post would be more helpful.
I think Robin made it pretty clear that what Lindvall / Gothard teach is raw authoritarianism, as ultimacy of the father. And evil men love such teaching whether it is found in church, state or family. Lindvall shouldn't be trusted with crayons, much less write books or teach.
This problem is related to the one and the many. When anyone emphasizes the ultimacy of the one, you get dictatorship, whether it is in a family, church or country. Running to the ultimacy of the many leads to chaos. Trinitarian Christianity finds the balance between the one and the many in the person of God. Human covenant relationships must have this balance as well. The covenant head of any human relationship never has ultimate authority.
The feminists folks disingenuously group Lindvall and Gothard with Phillips, Sproul and Botkin as all the same thing, and further, recast the idea of the father led home as "patriocentric".
I think the person seriously interested in truth will find that Phillips, Sproul and Botkin do not teach authoritarianism; but teach sphere-limited authority as Robin has pointed out. Sproul is probably the most emphatic about this.
Regarding "spiritual abuse", the adherents of this fad term want to eliminate the word "church" because people who have suffered "spiritual abuse" have negative baggage. Well fine, lets also eliminate the word "father", "family" and while we're at it "police", "judge" and "prosecutor" because people have suffered abuse of authority by those institutions, too.
Abuse of authority is a real problem and always will be as long as there are two or more sinful people in the world. Evil things have been done in the name of God, and this will continue to happen regardless of what word you use.
Reject the family and you will find abuse in the church or in the state. You can't get away from the problem by rejecting authority, or the institutions of church, state and family.
We are humans. We form these groups, and the groups have heads. Some heads do good, others do evil.
Everyone has a duty to resist evil, even from a covenant head. Attacking the idea of headship won't get you anywhere, because there will always be a head.
"Is it any wonder that you see Stacy McDonald, author of this book I quoted, heartily endorsing your suggestion?"
Hi Robin, I'm struggling with how to respond to your commenter, or if I should respond at all. Many different examples, quotes from others, and things I don't believe have been sited here - and then presented as some sort of "there you go" for why I would comment on your article. How to graciously respond to such a confusing comment?
How about simply: I have been misrepresented. But, that's ok; I'm used to it. :-)
I apologize for helping to lead the comments off topic, but since I've been addressed, I pray you allow me to clarify a few things.
Let's see...I don't believe the world should revolve around the father...and I do believe that God is sovereign and that there are certainly times when He does not call a woman to be a wife or a mother.
Did I miss anything? Oh! I do believe that young women should be disciplined by the Church...if they are in actual unrepentant sin. So I guess it depends on what the XYZ is. :-)
As to what I believe in other areas, you're welcome to read my blog or my books - or ask me personally.
Also, you may want to read my most recent post entitled "Do Working Women Blaspheme God's Name?" to get a truer picture (in context) of my position on Titus 2:5. It was taken from a talk I gave at a worldview conference earlier this year.
http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2010/07/do-working-women-blaspheme-gods-name.html
Anyway, once again, I appreciated your post, Robin. Keep up the good work.
I think it’s fine for your to respond Stacy, because (A) discussions like this can be very helpful in exposing some of the thought patterns that go into the knee jerk reactions against authors like yourself, and (B) my wide-ranging blog audience deserves to hear both sides, provided the discussion remains gracious.
I haven't read your writings yet (your husband graciously offered to send me your book so I am looking forward to that) but I had a hunch that these criticisms of you were illegitimate since it seems to basically boil down to taking little snidbits from your writings and then saying, “See, Stacy is one of them!” I am ready to do business with any substantive criticisms from anyone who believes you represent the darker side of the patriarchy movement, but if the worst charges that can laid at your door is that you offer a “fresh vision for the hopeful homemaker,” or that “our respective roles given to us by God” are a “glorious picture painted for us in Scripture”, that there is a “rightful place in God’s created order,” for “God-ordained womanhood”, etc., then I am struggling to understand what the problem actually is and it seems rather like grasping at straws. If Mrs. Campbell is trying to lump you with the abusers identified in Hillary’s book merely because you hold certain views about gender roles that most of the church has held throughout the history of Christendom and which are clearly outlined in scripture (1 Peter 3:7; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Peter 3:1 & 5), then that would seem to a textbook case of the guilt by association fallacy which is a species of the ad hominem fallacy described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy.
Thank you for the link to your article “Do Working Women Blaspheme God’s Name.” I’ve just read the article and it does seems quite reasonable and Biblically balanced, and hardly represents an oppressive extreme.
Karen does raise an interesting point though that needs to be addressed when she says, “I believe that the patriocentric system practices the sin of partiality, that the system IS the abuse, that the attitudes toward daughters and wives ARE the abuse.” This would seem to invalidate the distinction that both of us have made between those in the patriarchy movement who are abusers and those in the patriarchy movement who are not, because according to Karen they are all abusive to the degree that they adopt a view of authority that is hierarchical and which denies the alleged reality that in Christ we are all equal. Assuming I have understood Karen correctly (and Karen, please correct me if I haven’t), then I would begin by first asking whether the twin concepts non-hierarchical authority and equality are even meaningful. With regard to the former, I would argue that to a non-hierarchical authority is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle, and so it cannot even satisfy the minimal requirements of refutation, namely intelligibility. As soon as you introduce authority of any kind, you have partiality. When Paul wrote to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:19 not to bring a complaint against an elder unless there were two or three witnesses, he was showing partiality to the church leaders. In Hebrews 13:7 where God tells us to obey those who rule over the church, he was showing partiality, which presupposes that in certain roles and tasks we are not all equal.
For more about equality, I would refer my readers to an article I wrote last year about equality which can be read at http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2009/02/ive-created-some-unintentional.html. In short, in order for something to be equal, three things are required:
1. Thing A
2. Thing B to which A is equal
3. Quality C that A and B share which renders them equal.
Karen’s contention that “we are all equal before God” is too vague to have any meaning because it doesn’t identify B and C. Are we equal in respect to being created in the image of God? Well, yes. Are we equal in respect to our role in the family and society? Well, no, and this is a point that even feminists (including the crypto feminists within evangelicalalism) are obliged to admit that we are not equal if pushed to it.
Karen, I want to comment on your following statement: “If a young woman came to her pastor or elders and explained that she wanted to do X, Y, or Z, anything other than what the paradigm says is ‘godly womanhood’ she would be marked as rebellious and she would most likely be excommunicated for her rebellion, being reminded that ‘rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.’ Is it any wonder that you see Stacy McDonald, author of this book I quoted, heartily endorsing your suggestion?”
Please help to clarify this for me because I am genuinely confused. What I’m confused about is this. Surely you would agree that if something really is rebellion against God laws, that if some pattern of behaviour really does depart from the paradigm of Godly womanhood, that it needs to be dealt with. Are you questioning the legitimate Biblical response to true rebellion in women, or are you questioning those things which Stacy would allegedly classify as rebellion? If it is the latter, then isn’t the burden of proof on you to show how Stacy’s definitions or applications of rebellion are unbiblical? But if it is the former, then isn’t it a bit inconsistent to so strongly oppose rebellion to God’s laws when the subject is abusive ‘patriarchal’ fathers who has departed from Biblical manhood (and who are therefore not properly ‘patriarchal’ at all, but see my earlier comments on that), but not then challenge someone who is simply applying the same categories to the opposite sex in saying that we must oppose those who rebel against Godly womanhood?
You criticize Stacy for endorsing my suggestions but you do not actually show how my suggestions are false. The suggestions that Stacy agreed with were that (A) elders should step in and discipline abusive parents, and (B) that it is possible that rebellion girls could accuse their fathers of abusing them when they aren’t. I assume, based on your criticisms of Stacy, that you think both A and B are false. Would I be correct in assuming that?
Kenneth,
Sorry for that confusion in posting. It WAS a mess. I was trying to work with Bloggers weirdness! I had thought about simply posting a link but kind of hate it when discussions are spread over several websites.
Robin
I am responding backwards because I am looking for a great definition I wanted to share on authority, leadership, and spiritual abuse and can’t find my book this am. I will get back to you!
You said: “Please help to clarify this for me because I am genuinely confused. What I’m confused about is this. Surely you would agree that if something really is rebellion against God laws, that if some pattern of behaviour really does depart from the paradigm of Godly womanhood, that it needs to be dealt with. Are you questioning the legitimate Biblical response to true rebellion in women, or are you questioning those things which Stacy would allegedly classify as rebellion? If it is the latter, then isn’t the burden of proof on you to show how Stacy’s definitions or applications of rebellion are unbiblical?”
I have not written a book but have journaled through blogs for over 5 years and have written and recorded 150 + podcasts so my position on what is and what is not rebellion is pretty clear to my readers and listeners. My website “about” page has a statement of faith if you are still curious. Absolutely I believe that daughters and sons, as well as moms and dads, do rebel against God’s laws and that needs to be addressed. I am not questioning the need for a truly Biblical response to those situations, though I think we might differ as to what a “truly Biblical response” would be. For example, William Einsechter, another Vision Forum author writes on their website about the need to bring back the stoning of unrepentant adult children and I would disagree with that and for the same reasons we are having this discussion.
continued in part two
part two
What constitutes rebellion? What constitutes true Biblical womanhood? I contend that being a housewife is not the only role for Godly womanhood and think I can make a case for that from Scripture. I also contend that I have not misrepresented the authors of Passionate Housewives in that phrases like this one “biblical directives to women to be wives, mothers, and keepers of the home” is pretty straight forward. Yesterday I quoted Jennie Chancey’s statement in response to Andrew Sandlan, which seems to say to me that if a woman chooses to be anything other than a homemaker, she is blaspheming God’s name, ie, sinning. Did Jennie say that or not? Then I read McDonld’s latest article? Is causing someone else to blaspheme sin? This all gets confusing and I am not sure what the end hypothesis really is. Can someone help me out? I am sincerely trying to understand what exactly I have misunderstood. (I have some really straightforward questions I have already asked several times but with no response. Don’t want to hog your blog, though, Robin.
(continued in part three)
part three
In order to establish a definition of “godly womanhood” we have to consider how the Titus 2 verse applies and fits into all the other passages of Scripture that talk about women and things they did while never mentioning their roles as homemakers. Also, I believe that for something to be labeled as “the Biblical directive” it would have to apply in all places at all times and in all cultures. Then we have to define what rebellion might be. As I showed yesterday, to some people within the body of Christ, a woman going to seminary and then the mission field could be considered to be rebellion because it is outside the “biblical directives” and outside the “creation order.” To others it would not. And of course I think when we think about “rebellion” we need to take into consider the boundaries of age etc. For example, is a 23 year old daughter bound to obey her parents if they tell her she must remain at home until marriage? I know of several situations where daughters chose to leave home at that age and were subsequently excommunicated simply because they chose to leave home. Where they in rebellion? Was that a legitimate use of ecclesiastical or parental authority? Would a daughter who is raised in a home that teaches that there is only one Biblical role for women and who believes the Lord is calling her to go to leave home to go to college or to go to the mission field be in rebellion if she did those things? Is this an area requiring church discipline? If she doesn’t “repent” of her beliefs is she then to be excommunicated? These are sincere questions I have.
I would like to see a working definition of “rebellion” and also of “godly womanhood.” I think defining these two words would clear up a lot.
One more thought, Robin.
One thing that has always bothered me about the notion of rebellion is how quick we are to label something as such without examining the reasons people might be “rebelling” in the first place. The human spirit is amazingly resilient and different people are able to withstand more than others. Think about John McCain’s time spent in prison camps. The accounts of what he was able to tolerate are humbling to me. And for what? For love of country, which humbles me even more as one of those citizens he fought for. (Disclaimer here: I am not making any political statement only giving honor where honor is due and, Lord-willing, making a point.)
I think the case can be made that some human beings are wired in such a way that they are able to tolerate emotional or spiritual abuse and blow it off, keeping in mind that one day they will be free of it. Others have melt downs and might even rebel in unrighteous ways. Our job,as more mature believers who ought to be approaching even our children as brothers and sisters in Christ, is to listen and to gently and with much compassion consider what we are hearing. And then I wonder, is there such a thing as righteous rebellion, where a person says “enough is enough” and makes other choices? Wasn’t the American Revolution a type of rebellion over political tyranny? Wasn’t the Reformation a type of rebellion over ecclesiastical tyranny? Did Jesus “rebel” against the Pharisees? And is questioning something you are taught considered to be rebellion? Is making a different life choice as an adult rebellion? Is it sinful only because a parent might say it is? These are all legitimate things to consider I think.
Robin, here is an article posted this am that I really think captures so much of this discussion on the role of the "priest" of the home. It really sums up where I am in this:
http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com/2010/07/stitches-in-veil.html
God gave mothers a brain & an innate love for their children for a reason--to protect & provide for their needs. Turning off your brain in order to submit to your husband when he is clearly violating God's laws is not what God intended. God intended for you to put your brain in high gear at that point & figure out what you can do to help your husband to see his sin & to protect your children. In some cases, that might mean leaving your husband if he is abusing you and/or your children.
The Bible is perfectly clear what constitutes an abuse of spiritual authority in God's eyes: Ezekiel 34.
(Which, by the way, being written several hundred years before Christ, shows that "spiritual abuse" is not the "fad term" some would like to suggest!)
When I see the facts of people being abused like this by "authorities" in the name of God, I'd think the last question on anybody's mind would be "Well, hypothetically, if they weren't doing that, would they be godly authorities or not?" They're not, end of discussion; now let's ask how we should tend to the wounded.
Jesus' teachings about leadership involved washing feet.
bsfmama is right – women are expected to be thinkers and should put their brain into high gear when they are being abused.
You raise some interesting points, thatmom (Karen), but if you don’t mind I would rather not respond until you have answered my earlier questions or at least offered feedback on my contention that your views on authority and equality fail to satisfy the minimum requirements of intelligibility. When people lapse into a pattern of discussion that amounts to little more than assertion, denunciation and reassertion, without actually engaging critically with the counter-arguments then have been offered, the discussion usually just becomes a waste of time. This is especially true if you are prepared to use my blog as a forum for making unsubstantiated criticisms against other Christians. Even your response about the definition of rebellion sidesteps what I was asking: I argued that the burden of proof is on you, who are bringing forward the accusation, to show how Stacy’s definitions of rebellion are unbiblical (and it certainly might be!) or how your alternative of a non-hierarchical authority is even meaningful, but instead of doing that (or responding to any of the other points I made in response to your earlier comments), you simply refer me to your own teaching on the subject and bring forward more criticisms against Stacy which just don't do business with the counter-arguments that have already been presented.
I just re-read my earlier comment and it sounded a bit harsh. Forgive me. It's my former school teacher mode coming out! But just so you know where I'm coming from Karen, I've been involved in too many discussions with people who just talk past each other, that I try to always encourage people not to introduce new arguments into a discussion if they haven't first replied to the previous counter-arguments. I normally don't worry too much about that, but because in your case it involves criticisms against another writer (and criticisms which seem to rest on the association fallacy already identified), I am a bit more conscious of the need for better form. But forgive me if I was too harsh.
I will be commenting further, but since Stacy McDonald has seen fit to cut-n-paste straight off another thread on Facebook as if there is no answer to what she's already said, I'm going to do my own cutting and pasting. Then, I'll proceed to more specific comments regarding Robin's review:
I am reading through the book now. I don't have the same impression as you do and believe it is perhaps a little premature for you to be so critical when you haven't even seen the book. I don't see on her website or elsewhere where ...she is "lumping everyone together, spreading discontent, or doing more harm than good." Please feel free to document and establish such a claim. I would love to see the actual evidence.
Secondly, I don't believe it's appropriate to refer to her writing as complaints as if all she's doing is expressing her personal dissatisfaction or spreading dissent. She has obviously taken the time to put her material in writing both on the web and in book form and it does not appear to me that she's working with a malevolent and overly critical perspective or without adequate documentation as if she's just another Gloria Steinem. Friend me on Facebook and I'll help you understand what a critical perspective actually looks like if you're having trouble and need help in that area.
It's a bit of grandstanding to invoke 1 Samuel 15:23 in condemning Gloria Steinem and then act as if McFarland's work is "the same thing". I just don't see the relevance of such rhetorical flim flam. For one thing, patriarchal leaders are not the same as kings and for another there is no hint of inappropriate rebellion in her book. Remember that a passage like that does not have universal application without regard to appropriate interpretation. I have been reading the book and haven't been able to think, "Gee, that happened to me and my sisters we must have been abused." I think perhaps it would be wise to avoid coming to too many conclusions not even having read the book--at the very least doing so is not exactly fair and to me anyway speaks to perspective that is hardly objective.
That said, for anyone familiar with cases of abuse we must also remember that what seems like just a normal event in the life of a child or other abuse victim can still be the focus and event of physical and emotional abuse. Some amount of freedom ought to be granted in allowing much of these things to be aired out and publicly so and especially without calls for condemnation and any fear of recrimination (or comparison to witchcraft, etc.).
What we should be doing is sitting up and taking notice--not to defend leaders and others who are strong and quite able to defend themselves but we should be helping 'the orphan and the widow'--those who are weak and in need of care in line with Ezekiel 34 and Luke 4--much of the reason for our Lord's coming. We should be speaking out against abuse wherever it occurs and no matter how distasteful or excessive published or other "complaints" seem to us. Call me crazy but I don't see even a hint of that in patriarchy circles.
I'm also a bit puzzled by your use of "young woman" to discuss the author and her book. Suffice it to say there are other documented cases by older and/or degreed women on the Internet (most notably on thatmom.com) - is her age really relevant to her writing? Is there some reason for you to think that women (young or old) may not publish works that move their heart and mind and in order to help others?
Stacy, do you think Paul was really speaking of all Cretans as liars and gluttons in Titus 1:12-15 or is it reasonable to suppose based on the context that sweeping statements are general and covenantal in nature and do not necessarily appl...y to everyone (especially given that he was having Titus appoint some of their own as elders)? Is there some reason why you can't extend the same courtesy to Hillary McFarland and allow her words to speak for her? I see her following a sort of biblical precedent here. Her words apply to the ones who must hear them and to others who need to be warned. You merely assume she is speaking of everyone. This method which you consider overreaching is not without precedent in the pages of Scripture. I can provide additional passages if you need more convincing.
But, we will likely disagree as to whether actual teen daughters ought to read this book. I believe daughters such as the Botkin sisters uncritically present a lifestyle that is not necessarily always in line with the truth of the matter or what the Bible says yet they are free to write and speak among families and churches in the movement nearly without question. There should also be room in the movement for critical voices as well including ones who are available to make clear that abuse is something to be avoided and that everyone ought to work hard to avoid it.
As to the perspective of how a teenager may view this--really, it's irrelevant since as a parent you ought to be guiding that perspective through critical interaction with this and other works and not just pretend because something is put in print that it is going to be uncritically accepted as more positive works by writers such as the Botkin sisters would be in patriarchal circles.
I posted here to voice my appreciation for a review that seemed to be very balanced and fair, and which hit on real issues where real solutions may actually be found. I then posted in response to what I suspected was an accusation of some sort by a commenter.
The comments I made regarding the "Letter to the Daughters of Patriarchy" (which I stated were posted elsewhere first) were in response to troubling portions of Hillary's blog, not her book.
I have found Hillary to be very gracious and reasonable, but that doesn't mean I agree with her methods (or her theology), and that is my focus.
I should probably refrain from posting here further until I have finished reading and reviewing Hillary's book. I have no desire to get into a debate.
As an aside, Kevin, I have known abuse up close and personal - we all need to remember that there are real people with real lives on the other side of these keyboards. I wrote an article/testimony specifically for those who are hurting: http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2009/08/his-bottle-of-tears.html
Believe me, I don't take abuse lightly - but I do want to approach it from a healthy, solution-focused, Gospel-centric perspective.
I also know numerous "patriarchal" families who sacrificially serve and minister to the orphan and the widow (even bringing them into their own homes), and who protect and defend those who are weak and needy. But, no, I won't call you crazy. ;-)
Robin,
A few thoughts:
First, I intend at some point to treat the essay in the front of Hillary's book separately, as I believe it unjustly marks Steve Schlissel (who I know personally) and his theological bent unfairly and then proceeds to set up categories that are not entirely accurate biblically speaking. To give you a taste, anyone ministering in Brooklyn can hardly be called an isolationist. I hope to address the article sometime in the near future and will likely do it on my own blog - http://www.highchurchman.com.
But, so far, I have found Hillary's book to be quite an appropriate exercise in noting the sorts of abuses common to patriarchal circles. I also happen to agree with Karen Campbell (thatmom.com) that they are systemic in nature and further that they represent a sort of fundamentalist error common to the American religious scene. So, on the whole I at least agree with your positive assessment of the book.
That said, I'm not sure you're playing fairly by placing the burden of proof on Karen Campbell to establish that Stacy's claims are somehow inaccurate. Stacy must establish her own case and whether or not Karen wants to disprove them is up to her. As far as I'm concerned, I don't agree with Stacy's article and I'll demonstrate why.
For my part, after reading Stacy's article on Titus 2 I believe there is a bit of equivocation going on. For one thing, contra her Jedi mind-trick handwaving, it is very important to talk about the definition of what it means to be a homemaker since honored Christian women like Lydia (cf. Acts 15) functioned much different than the sort of homemaking Stacy apparently envisions. First of all, the term is not a noun (as Stacy mistakenly uses it and implies thereby that such is the ontological calling of women as if a homemaker is what you are supposed to be as a woman). The word in the original is an adjective and can roughly be translated "carrying out household duties". But what is a household? In the ancient world, a household was more of an economy of sorts than it was a nuclear family in suburbia or some backwoods farming community. And, any definition of household must revolve around the biblical concept rather than a sort of Victorian ideal currently touted in Vision Forum and other circles.
Additionally, the focus here in the main is on young women being encouraged to love their husbands and not homemaking. The blasphemy of verse 8 is more properly seen in regards to the conduct/speech of the young men though by consequence we can add it to the conduct of other mentioned in the overall passage. See though if you can find Stacy McDonald rightly rebuking young egotistical bucks in the patriarchal movement more than she speaks to young women about giving an opportunity to blaspheme.
Look at what kind of singular peak is built on one inappropriately translated word ("homemakers") in one verse in a passage that speaks merely to young married women among a host of other practical advice. Are we really to ignore the vast mountain range of meaning attached to the biblical terms and the relevant passages while addressing a subject like this and pretend this all hinges on the mistranslated word in Titus 2:5 especially without taking the time to define it? It's tragically laughable that this sort of hermeneutic passes as legitimate in patriarchal circles but this is much of the problem.
(continued)
One also wonders why pastoral advice to specific situations is seen to be universal in application as if there is no room for attaching wisdom to what has been outlined on the part of Paul to Titus. Would war-time Jael qualify as a homemaker in Stacy's eyes (Judges 4:17 ff.)? Or the judge Deborah? Or, Lydia who is listed as one who owned a business and who's supposed singleness as an exception to the rule is only assumed by those who may want to discount any examples in Scripture contrary to their prejudicial view? What about Mary, Martha, Mary Magdelene and other women who followed Jesus around and likely neglected their homemaking duties in the process? What would Stacy say to all of these, "Back to milling corn, ladies, after all your husband works all day while you're following some prophet around Galilee"?
Ah. I've hardly gotten to the review. More to come.
Stacy,
I wish you would rise to the occasion and debate or at least discuss these issues instead of merely making pronouncements and providing links to previously written material.
To date, you haven't bothered to answer my objections to your statements in the main. Such a posture is regrettable if only because doing so would at least help others think through the legitimacy of your own statements were they actually true. It is the chief way that Christians have functioned over the two thousand year life of the Church. I find this "I don't want to debate" attitude among Christian fundamentalists quite revealing, however, and it only signals to me that you and others haven't really thought these things through sufficient to adequately defend your point of view (Proverbs 18:17). It also shows your radical departure from actual Christian practice over the life of the Christian Church and ought to be a clear signal to anyone just how far off American fundamentalism is from the truth of the Gospel and the main semper Reformanda spirit of the Reformation.
And, to your last point, caring for widows and orphans is just as much about caring for those who have been abused. Please quit throwing the conduct of patriarchialists in our face as if we need to see that you really are doing some good. This was a favorite trick of the Pharisees but all the righteous and appropriate conduct in the world doesn't make up for the tragedy of any abuse in Christian circles. Besides, our true righteousness (and any defense we deserve) is found in Christ and nowhere else.
Robin, thank you for this thoughtful and articulate review. While I disagree with Stacy's premature criticism of Quivering Daughters, I do agree with her that you have been fair, and above all very helpful.
I simply want to mention (since I am Hillary's editor) that she and I did work to anticipate the concerns you raised about church authority, and Stacy's concerns about misapplication. Part of the difficulty was that the intention of the book was really to offer the grace of Christ to women who have been abused in His name, and only as a consequence raise theological concerns. Hillary was concerned that direct theological engagement would distract from her stated goal--especially since so many women who have experienced the type of abuse she discusses have been abused with lots of theological discussion.
This is why I am profoundly thankful to you for concluding that "it is unrealistic to expect any book that is a polemic against certain excesses to be completely balanced, since a degree of wisdom and proportion must always be the responsibility of the reader. No book, least of all the Bible itself, can completely obviate against being misapplied." And I agree wholeheartedly with your hope that Hillary's book will begin some desperately need discussion in the church.
Woe Kevin, I think you’re reading a lot into Stacy’s comment about not wanting to be drawn into a debate! There are many reasons a person may not want to debate besides the fact that they haven’t thought through their views, so it seems unreasonable of you to assume the latter without specific evidence. To do so is actually to commit a species of ad hominem fallacy. Suffice to say, you seem to be reading a lot into Stacy’s remark and going on the accusative rather quick. I think it is perfectly reasonable that Stacy should want to finish Hillary’s book. And if the failure to engage in debate indeed reveals a “radical departure from actual Christian practice over the life of the Christian Church and ought to be a clear signal to anyone just how far off American fundamentalism is from the truth of the Gospel” then wouldn’t this criteria of yours also necessarily apply to Karen (“thatMom”) who, despite her voluminous comments never answered (A) my argument that her simultaneous avocation of authority and lack of hierarchy was unintelligible; (B) my request that her championing of equality was too vague until the two variables I presented were identified; (C) my argument that she had committed an association fallacy (see earlier comments for context to this); (D) that her argument that there is no “partiality” in God’s economy is, to the degree that it represents an egalitarian paradigm, contrary to certain scriptures I cited. A through D were never answered by Karen. She also never clarified whether she was questioning the legitimate Biblical response to true rebellion in women, or just questioning those things which Stacy would allegedly classify as rebellion. My point is simply that if you think that failure to engage with counter arguments is a sign that a person hasn’t thought through their views, then why do you single out Stacy and not Karen for censure?
Given that Stacy is being accused of some pretty serious things (after all, she is being associated with the abusers identified in Hillary’s book) by people who are not prepared to even clarify their statements, let alone construct arguments that amount to more than a “see, she’s one of them!”, I’m not surprised Stacy doesn’t want to be drawn in, especially if she has experienced this sort of thing before. But, from your point of view, since Karen (thatMom) just bypassed all those counter arguments to restate her original conclusion and bring up more complaints against Stacy, would it not follow that Karen (“thatMom”) fails your own test for credibility? Mind you, I am not acknowledging that I share your criteria, but I am asking whether you think this follows and, if not, why? (That is “question 1” for purposes of future referral)
Question 2 is whether you agree that argument A (above) is sound?
Question 3 is whether you agree that argument C (above) is sound?
Question 4 is whether you agree that argument D (above) is sound?
I’m labelling these questions because I would prefer for you to identify which question you are answering prior to answering it. I’d also prefer (actually, as the moderator with the power to block comments, I insist) that you answer these questions as well as question 5 (to be introduced shortly) before introducing any new argumentation or information into the discussion.
You raise an interesting point, Kevin, in suggesting that I’m not quite playing fair by placing the burden of proof on Karen Campbell (“thatMom”) to establish that Stacy's claims are somehow inaccurate. Well, let’s back up and review the context. Recall that Karen had criticized Stacy for allegedly labelling woman as rebellious who departed from ‘godly womanhood.’ Now obviously if a woman really is ungodly, then she is being rebellious and that is wrong. No Christian believes that real rebellion is good and no Christian believes it is okay to abandon godly womanhood. So by itself, there is nothing wrong with Stacy making these types of statements. So if Karen is prepared to criticize Stacy for saying these types of things, then she must first establish that Stacy is using these terms illegitimacy or applying them wrongly, since otherwise everything she said (in the snidbits Karen quoted, at least) is acceptable and merely a statement of very general Biblical truths. Put another way, offering a “fresh vision for the hopeful homemaker,” or that “our respective roles given to us by God” are a “glorious picture painted for us in Scripture”, that there is a “rightful place in God’s created order,” for “God-ordained womanhood”, (all of which Karen quoted from Stacy as if they ought to cause alarm bells to go off) should not represent objectionable truth claims to a Christian unless it can first be shown that what Stacy meant by these categories was unbiblical. It is in that sense that the burden of proof rests with Karen, since she was the one issuing the criticism. If you make a truth claim, then the burden of proof is on you to establish that your truth claim is correct. But if I come along and criticize you for a truth claim that you allegedly made, then I am actually making the truth claim (namely, the truth claim that your truth claim is incorrect) and therefore the burden of proof rests on me.
Do you agree with what I have just said about burden of proof? (That is Question 5).
With regard to Stacy’s article on homemaking, I think that Stacy’s blog is the place to leave comments about it, not here. But I will say, in defence of Stacy, that you have implicitly misrepresented her position when you say that “One also wonders why pastoral advice to specific situations is seen to be universal in application as if there is no room for attaching wisdom to what has been outlined on the part of Paul to Titus.” The reason this is a misrepresentation is because Stacy said in her article, “You can’t take a small portion of a general truth and try to turn it into a black and white rule…or doctrine. That just can’t be done. God is sovereign and so many factors are involved in each woman’s life; there’s no way in the world anyone should make such a blanket judgment.”
Kevin, I’d like to know your thoughts on questions 1-5 above.
nice review robin...good overall balance & content. as a father of 5daughters (32-21) and three sons my first concern was your nice summary:
"At best, the book runs the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater; at worst, it risks making all sorts of practices and patterns of thought (many of which are legitimate) guilty by association. Even church conscious families (“ecclesiocentric”) are thrown into the mix in a revealing quote by Karen Campbell on pp. 44-45:
the silly over-reach of those who ignorantly throw Pastor steve schlissell, rc sproul, jr, stacy mcdonald in with REAL abusers is tragic -- and bodes ILL for good Churches. it also does more harm in that it sets up the worst of both worlds...real abusers can and will hide behind such silly over-reach from truly frightened daughters, and rebellion daughters can falsely accuse good fathers and wreck good Chrisitan homes.
"Lord have mercy upon us" and make us wise and discerning...
David E. Rockett
Robin,
My comments are strong regarding Stacy's unwillingness to debate because she has had at least two opportunities to discuss with me about these things and has not only ducked the chance when it is presented to her but also seems quite willing to cut-n-paste direct comments from another thread as if I had never dealt with her comments at all in the first place. Furthermore, such behavior is a pattern demonstrated in general by folks who believe what Stacy believes as I outlined above.
I think you should remember this is not a Lincoln/Douglas debate, however, and to place such restrictions on the discussions such as 'I'm not going to address XYZ until you address what I have already asked' is a bit much. I don't understand the need for such control in these discussions and your direct contribution in this regard has already resulted in one apology. You might consider that there are more appropriate ways to proceed that allows everyone to speak as they feel led. Just my personal opinion.
I don't think it is accurate to paint Karen's response as an avoidance of what you have pointed out and so the comparison between Stacy and Karen on this point as if I expect more of one than the other is a bit unfair. Unlike Stacy, in general and over the life of my interaction with Karen, she has been more than willing to mix it up with others who disagree with her as the occasion calls for it. This is my answer to question one.
To answer your remaining questions directly, I say as follows:
Question 2) I don't believe Karen has been unintelligible or intentionally vague nor does it immediately follow that advocating a lack of hierarchy in certain situations where patriarchal abuse coupled with spiritual abuse on the part of church leaders is unintelligible or uncalled for. I'm not sure she's advocating a lack of hierarchy anyway--she has merely noted a problem that exists with depending on authority when the authority is clearly abusive.
Question 3) I'm sorry, I don't see where the association fallacy is, you will have to be more specific instead of just referring me to "earlier comments for context".
Question 4) Given what I understand of Karen's position, it is hardly egalitarian. It would do you well to listen to her podcast series and investigate some of the material she has accumulated on her blog (thatmom.com) over the last several years.
Question 5) Your presumption as to the burden of proof for Karen rests on the validity of your statements and whether or not Stacy has indeed presented us with ideas that every Christian believes and has already accepted. For one, I don't agree with you that Stacy has presented general paradigms that every Christian agrees to as if her view can be spoken of without serious qualification. I have already in previous comments shown you why her article on homemakers and Titus 2 is in error (which you have deftly avoided responding to) and to act as if Stacy's presenting a view of womanhood and submission that all Christians agree to is just prima facie ludicrous when we start to get to the particulars.
Now, to go the extra mile and to avoid this near parliamentary procedural wrangling, I endeavored to demonstrate why Stacy is in error at least in regards to the Titus 2 article--which she brought up by the way and hence entered her argument into the discussion as a result. But all that demonstration has engendered from you in terms of a response is a forwarding of that particular discussion elsewhere. So, really, what does Karen have to gain from establishing her point of view when it seems clear to me at least that you may summarily ignore the justification of her viewpoint contra Stacy's claims?
As it is, I would appreciate a response to what I have already written, but I find it remarkable that this discussion has so far devolved into an argument about how it should proceed rather than a continued discussion on the merits of what anyone has actually argued in terms of theology and practice. You, of course, have the power to change that and I hope you do so we can get back to discussing each view - I still have a number of comments to make about your review and would like to get to them but here I am discussing the legitimacy or lack thereof of Karen's comments at *your* request.
As to Stacy's comment about black-n-white rules, she can talk all she likes about not making them up but when she uses the Scriptures as she does with Titus 2 she is doing the very thing she decries. You might also consider that in addressing that particular article and commenting as I did about universal application that the comment was intended to be addressed to a wider audience of patriarchialists than just Stacy and her comments. Notice that particular sentence did not specifically refer to just her, but it is an overall hermeneutical problem within the movement (and really within conservative/Reformed evangelical circles today).
Kevin, this blog is not the place to air your grievances with Stacy about things that have happened elsewhere. And if the past grievances you have with her are orienting you to see things out of perspective – like all the unnecessary inferences you make from the fact that Stacy cut-and-pastes some comments from another thread (my reaction was, “so what?”, and in fact I had read those comments of hers earlier and they had helped me in writing my review, so I was glad she copied and pasted them) – then it might be best for you to stop posting comments. There are Biblical ways of dealing with grievances, but using my blog as a forum to discuss your private controversy with another Christian is just gossip.
I try to control discussions intentionally so they don’t lapse into the skooshy, ultra-subjective, evangelical goo of everyone just sharing what they are led, which is just into a series of assertion-denunciation-reassertion. But I appreciate that I can come across as overbearing in the process! My academic friends expect that type of rigorous debate from me and can sometimes even take offence if one does not proceed with the rigours of systematic logic, whereas my non-academic friends can sometimes find it off-putting. I’ve never learned how to adequately determine in advance of a discussion which type of person I am dealing with, or how to find the golden mean between the two approaches, so I am often having to go back and apologize!
With regard to Questions 1-5, I appreciate you giving some answers. Unfortunately, some of your answers address the conclusions of arguments A-D without responding to the premises leading up to those conclusions. Just so I know we aren’t talking past each other, I would find it helpful if you could put arguments A-D into your own words. (I find that in our day and age, many people only listen to the conclusions and screen out the argumentation leading up to it, and often you can tell if that has happened by asking someone to summarize your own argumentation in their own words.) I hope this will not come across as a clever exercise in dodging the issue, because I really do intend to reply, but first I need to know that my earlier comments were understood. If your summaries misrepresent my position, then that would alert me to the fact that I need to reformulate some of those arguments.
@Kevin, if you don't like Robin's terms of moderation, no one is forcing you to participate.
Furthermore, Mrs. McDonald doesn't owe you anything. If you crave an audience, I suggest you get your own website and see how you fare. Demanding responses, however, may not work for you anywhere.
Robin,
I'm going to decline your request to reframe arguments which I didn't make just so you can be satisfied with my answers. If that ends our discussion here, so be it. Thank you for considering my position thus far.
And, to your charge of gossip, I just say such is ludicrous as my objections to Stacy McDonald's work are exclusively public and not private at all nor do they represent anything other than dealing with her public positions and public actions directly--which she becomes responsible for when entering the public square to converse about these things.
You and others are welcome to disagree with the issues I have brought to the table, but I bring them for open and public consideration and without malice. In fact, if anything, it is out of a concern for the truth and a love for the Body of Christ that I mention these things and to pretend otherwise is to impute motives that are not present in my challenge to Stacy and others.
Robin said:
1. Thing A
2. Thing B to which A is equal
3. Quality C that A and B share which renders them equal.
Karen’s contention that “we are all equal before God” is too vague to have any meaning because it doesn’t identify B and C. Are we equal in respect to being created in the image of God? Well, yes. Are we equal in respect to our role in the family and society? Well, no, and this is a point that even feminists (including the crypto feminists within evangelicalalism) are obliged to admit that we are not equal if pushed to it.
Maybe it would help, Robin, if I explained what I think is the problem in trying to answer you here. I absolutely believe that all people, even those who are not “elect” are image bearers of God. That is one reason that we respect human life, all human life. Joni Earekson once said “we are to love people simply for the preciousness of their souls” and I think that is absolutely the correct way to think about others. Scripture commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves, which means everyone. Our neighbors are everyone.
Further, as believers, we are given one purpose, that is to glorify God. That purpose never changes and is the same for all people. We are then also given callings, ones that can change over time or can be expressed in various ways. I believe all callings are equal. The man who is called to pastor a church has a calling to do so. A woman who has been given children is called to be a mother. Both are equal callings before the Lord and both are sacred. There is no such thing as a secular calling for a Christian.
(con't)
part two
Finally, there is the notion of “roles” and this is a word that I can’t find in Scripture so I don’t really know what it means in terms of being a Christian. Perhaps some people think of it in the same way they think of the Trinity in that the word Trinity isn’t found in Scripture but a description of the three aspects of the Godhead is there. So when you ask me if we are equal in respect to our role in family and society, I am not sure what you are asking. I would need to know your definition of “role” and how you think that is to be applied in real life.
Using my definition of “role,” which is defined this way in the dictionary:
1. also rôle A character or part played by a performer.
2. The characteristic and expected social behavior of an individual.
3. A function or position.
I would have to say that I think roles are things that change from time to time and circumstance to circumstance. For example, I have played the role of “mother of the groom” four times but it certainly isn’t my calling, though it is one aspect of my calling as a mother. It also isn’t my purpose in life, though I hope that through that role as I fulfilled my calling as “mom” I brought glory to God.
I am guessing, though you will have to clarify this for me, but I would imagine that you are using the #3 definition, in that you believe there are various functions or positions in the family and society assigned to certain people, particularly as related to gender. I would need to have you define that for me before I could really answer regarding equality. Different “roles” don’t necessarily mean unequal, they are just different.
con't
part three
As I wrote to you privately, I believe you can have authority without having hierarchy. I believe that Jesus clearly condemned the notion of hierarchy in relationships in Matthew 20: 20-28:
“Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Furthermore, I Peter 2:9 says “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” We are a priesthood of all believers, we do not need an earthly priest to mediate for us. The past couple of weeks, our family Bible reading has been in Hebrews and this truth has repeatedly been made. Jesus Himself is the one time sacrifice for our sins and when the temple veil came down, the Old Testament priesthood was done away with.
Our church wisely has a balance of powers that keeps everyone accountable. There are elders, there is the pastor, there is the congregation and both personal and corporate accountability is encouraged and practiced.
One of the problems I have with patriocentricity is all of the role playing that goes on. There is the assumption that ALL men and ALL women will act out certain roles based on someone’s preferences, not based on Scripture. As I spoke about in the recent series of podcasts, James 2 states that one aspect of ungodly wisdom is “hypocrisy” which, as I understand my concordance, is the same Greek word as is used for actors who are playing a part in a play.
con't
part four
Our church wisely has a balance of powers that keeps everyone accountable. There are elders, there is the pastor, there is the congregation and both personal and corporate accountability is encouraged and practiced.
One of the problems I have with patriocentricity is all of the role playing that goes on. There is the assumption that ALL men and ALL women will act out certain roles based on someone’s preferences, not based on Scripture. As I spoke about in the recent series of podcasts, James 2 states that one aspect of ungodly wisdom is “hypocrisy” which, as I understand my concordance, is the same Greek word as is used for actors who are playing a part in a play.
But all that being said, I think that the various roles that people perform as they fulfill their callings, are also equal. There is no role that is higher than another role. Roles are how we exercise our spiritual gifts within the body.
Secondly, you wrote this:
“You criticize Stacy for endorsing my suggestions but you do not actually show how my suggestions are false. The suggestions that Stacy agreed with were that (A) elders should step in and discipline abusive parents, and (B) that it is possible that rebellion girls could accuse their fathers of abusing them when they aren’t. I assume, based on your criticisms of Stacy, that you think both A and B are false. Would I be correct in assuming that?”
Yes, I believe that there might be a situation where church discipline would be needed to address unrepentant behavior, either on the part of parents or on the part of daughters. Yes, it could be possible that girls might accuse their fathers of being abusive when they aren’t. (I will say, however, that I believe it is rare for someone to accuse another of sexual abuse and it isn’t true. I had an attorney tell me that not long ago in reference to a situation we had discussed and his take was that, statistically, that rarely happens, whether it is incest or sexual abuse between clergy or what have you.) But, as I stated before, I believe the whole system of patriocentricity is abusive. One of the core teachings is that wives and daughters have no callings of their own, they are created to fulfill the callings of the husband/father. That is spiritual abuse as far as I am concerned. Also, the notion that a godly woman is called to be a homemaker is also spiritually abusive. So I would not trust in the judgment of pastors or elders in churches that teach this stuff. Robin, I guess I would like to know if you agree with those two positions.
Perhaps I can answer more efficiently if you can answer my questions, too.
"I believe the whole system of patriocentricity is abusive. One of the core teachings is that wives and daughters have no callings of their own, they are created to fulfill the callings of the husband/father. That is spiritual abuse as far as I am concerned. Also, the notion that a godly woman is called to be a homemaker is also spiritually abusive." - Karen
Robin's rules of logic have been useful in distilling what Karen is saying down to the meat of the matter.
Given that Karen's core beliefs are an outright rejection what the Bible teaches about the purpose and role of men and women, and the authority of fathers in the home, there is no point in further conversation. Karen rejects the Bible, or at least the parts she dislikes.
The original sin was brought about by the serpent, leading the woman to lead the man to reject God's word. It was a rejection of God the Father's authority. Karen's message is the same message as the serpent.
She has said enough to be rejected out of hand as a false teacher by Christians who follow the Bible as the Word of God.
Christian should reject abuse of authority by anyone, including fathers. But we also reject the teachings of people who reject the Bible. That includes you, Karen.
"I would rather die (and enter Jesus' presence) prematurely because of my obedience than live a long life wondering if God might have been more pleased and glorified if I had taken the risk to surrender all to him, even my life." I can completely relate to that quote from my own experience.
Thanks Karen. Since you contend that there is a “problem in trying to answer [me]” before you go on to simply restate your conclusions, I think I’m vindicated in my earlier contention that your method of dialogue amounts to little more than assertion, denunciation and reassertion.
I’m confused why there is this alleged problem answering my counter-argument about equality. I had pointed out that before your contention that “we are all equal before God” can have meaning, you must first identify the quality that all people share in common which render them equal. This is because there are clearly many respects in which all people are equal (I gave the image of God example) and also many respects in which all people are not equal (height, talents, hair color, etc.). When you “explained what I think is the problem in trying to answer you here” you said that it was because (A) all people are God’s image bearers; (B) that scripture commands us to love our neighbours as ourselves and (C) all the callings God gives us are equal. Now although I agree with A B and C, I am struggling to see how they constitute a reason why you can’t answer my counter-argument about equality.
At the same time, thank you for responding to counter-arguments B and D (I’m still waiting on C as on A though!). I want to respond to your comments about these arguments, beginning with roles. In the definitions of roles that you offered, I think 2 and 3 come closest to describing what I was getting at (as you correctly anticipated, at least with 3), although I would want to add a normative or ethical dimension to the definition. That is, when a female acts the part of a mother or when a male acts the part of a protector, they are not merely conforming to “expected social behavior of an individual” but to God’s normative pattern laid down in scripture. And I agree with you that the application of these roles change from time to time and circumstance to circumstance, but not the role itself. So in a hunter society, a man’s role as protector can manifest itself in a man sharpening his spear and many other things, whereas in modern Western society a man’s role of protector can manifest in fixing the car engine and many other things. The role is not what changes but the application does change. (John Piper’s book on manhood and womanhood is good here, although I haven’t read all of it) It follows that men and women are not equal in respect to their roles. God designed women to have the ability to become pregnant and be a mother, but he did not design men like that, and this is only one among dozens of examples of gender inequality. (And just to toot my own horn, I have written an entire book defending gender inequality which you can buy at http://www.amazon.com/Decent-Drapery-Life-Robin-Phillips/dp/1435744934/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280675884&sr=8-1). Hence, I am in dispute with your comment that “Different ‘roles’ don’t necessarily mean unequal, they are just different” if we are talking about equality in respect of roles and functions. To deny this would be to deny that men can’t get pregnant. Obviously if we talk about equality of other things, then there are plenty of examples where men and women are equal (image of God, two legs, morality, etc.), but since those are not the issues under discussion, I think it is fair to say that I am vindicated in my earlier contention that you have unwittingly fallen prey to the modern idol of egalitarianism.
Incidentally, your point about James 2 and hypocrisy doesn’t seem to apply to my position as long as I stick to the definitions of “roles” already given.
With regard to the homemaker issue, I’m kind of confused about your position. You claim that “There is no role that is higher than another role” since “Roles are how we exercise our spiritual gifts within the body”, you do apparently think that it is demeaning for women to have to have the role of homemaker underneath the patriarchal authority of the man. You think this is so demeaning that you have argued it amounts to “wives and daughters hav[ing] no callings of their own” and that “the notion that a godly woman is called to be a homemaker is also spiritually abusive.” Now before I point out the contradiction, I want to just ask whether you are really saying that the calling of homemaker equals no calling? Taken at face value, that seems very illogical to me. It may not be a calling that you like, but unless it is always sinful, I don’t see how you can argue that it is never a calling. But let’s follow your position out further to its logical implication. If no role is qualitatively higher than any other role since they are all different functions within the same body (as you argue), then it logically follows that it is NOT abusive or even demeaning for women to have the role of homemaker underneath the patriarchal authority of a man, anymore than it is demeaning for a foot to be a foot and not a head (remember, this is your argument I am using here, not mine!)
I am not here arguing that all women have the calling of homemaker, but I only point out that you can’t have it both ways. That is to say, you can’t argue, on the one hand, that all roles and callings are equal and that no role is higher than any other (as you do argue), at the same time as arguing, on the other hand, that one particular role (namely, the role of homemaker) is demeaning, as you also argue (I don’t think you used the word demeaning, but you describe it in very demeaning terms, talking about a homemaker as merely an ajunct of the father’s agenda, talking about wives who embrace such a lifestyle as virtual automatons who have no will of their own, etc).
And this leads into what I would say about your recent comments regarding hierarchy. The passage from Matthew 20 simply establishes that those who rule must also serve, like Jesus. It does not establish that authority can be divorced from hierarchy. Hierarchy simple means any system of persons or things ranked one above another in respect to authority or position. By definition authority involves that. If I am running a business, then my employees are underneath me in rank. If they weren’t, then my authority would be meaningless. I think that your egalitarianism (see above) as well as your bad experiences within the family reform movement may be what is leading you to try to erroneously separate authority from hierarchy, but it cannot be done. It is like trying to have a square circle and is just as meaningless as a square circle. I challenge you to provide a definitions for both authority or hierarchy that both does justice to the sense of common usage while excluding the other.
But not only is it meaningless to speak of a system of authority without hierarchy, since the notion of authority presupposes hierarchy, it is also unbiblical, and it is interesting that you have not even attempted to present counter-interpretations to the scriptures I cited to establish hierarchy, non-equality and partiality of persons within the church.
Finally, I want to respond to your point that “the whole system of patriocentricity is abusive.” As I pointed out before, “Patriarchy" literally means "rule by father", and those within the Patriarchy movement use this term to simply mean the rule of the ultimate Patriarch, namely God the Father, and not the father of any particular family. That is to say, God's law is the ultimate authority, not daddy, but God’s law does establish certain subordinate authorities to which we must be subject (but not in an unqualified sense), both within the state, within the church and within the family. Now how is saying that abusive?
When you say that “the whole system of patriocentricity is abusive” do you mean that the teaching of patriocentricity is abusive, or that everyone who holds to this teaching abuses people? If you mean the first, then someone could be abusive who lives all his life alone in a cell without ever interacting with another person since the viewpoint alone constitutes abuse. But this is absurd, since by definition abuse requires the presence of two people. A viewpoint itself cannot be abusive, but a viewpoint can certainly lead to abusive actions. Let’s assume that when you say “the whole system of patriocentricity is abusive” that you mean the teaching leads everyone who subscribes to it to abuse others. To hold such a position, however, is essentially legalistic, since it is putting people into a box based on external criteria. It is like walking down the street and seeing a lady with a bunch of daughters who are all wearing long hair and long dresses and then pointing to them and saying that their household must be legalistic. To know whether or not they are legalistic you would have to see what their home life was like. Similarly, to know whether someone who believes in patriocentricity is abusive you would have to visit their home and actually observe. You cannot assume a priori that they are abusive. That is what I appreciated about Kenneth’s comments when he said, “They don't actually have degrees in psychology or psychiatry, but they revel in using the terms from those fields to publicly diagnose people they've never met (which no ethical medical professional would ever do).” Your sweeping statements about everyone within the patriarchy movement being abusive is just judgmental.
Robin, I wonder if you could help me understand the general application of the inequality of men's and women's roles. Would you say that I am under all male authority to some degree (not by virtue of their applications, but by virtue of their sexual nature)?
Scripture is clear that my husband is my head, and that I am subject to him. Our roles are most definitely unequal. But I don't see how it follows that my role is unequal to yours, because you are a man and I am a woman. They are most certainly different, but I am not related to you (to use your own example) as an employee is to a boss.
I have read John Piper's explanation of a general heirarchy and I think he does a really admirable job showing how we all relate to one another, in absolutely every way and in every circumstance, as sexual beings. I find that to be a compelling starting point. But where I get stuck is his generalizing of Gen. 2:18, that Eve was a suitable helper for Adam. This certainly proves that the heterosexual union is normative, and even explains how men's and women's roles are necessarily different. But this passage illustrates that a wife is a helpmeet to her husband. If we generalize this to mean that women are helpmeets to men, we do away with distinctions that protect human relationships.
The reason this bothers me is that I think we have not done a good enough job examining the full impact of patriarchal assumptions in Western culture. In our history women have been denied a college education, have not had the same property rights as men, and have lost valuable opportunities in the marketplace with domestic skills because men and industry have taken those jobs over. And these examples are only a few obvious ones. Feminism was the unfortunate response around the turn of the century, but to echo Rushdoony, I’m amazed it took so long. Women haven’t universally fared well under even Christian patriarchalism, and the patriarchy hasn’t done a good job addressing this.
Please don’t misunderstand me, because I am not saying that history is just a timeline of men oppressing women, or that the patriarchy is the root of all evil. But I am saying that there are sad, and still existing, consequences to assuming that women generally are unequal to men. Perhaps they are unintended consequences, and perhaps this is simply men living out the curse by dominating women. But Dr. Steven Tracy has pointed out that complementarians have been extremely slow to address male abuse in any detailed way, and I think this goes doubly for patriarchalists. I’m afraid the patriarchy will continue to lose credibility until it does. And I admit to being skeptical that it even can.
Robin:
You are obviously not interested in a sincere dialogue between a brother and sister in Christ. Instead, you want to put me “in my place.” I am not interested in playing those sorts of games. As I pointed out in an e-mail to you, I am also not interested in debate. Christ like communication involves listening to what another person is actually saying. It is also not just saying what you think but is being certain that you put things in terms that the listener can understand. And it is also not misconstruing what another person has said in order to make your point.
Since it IS your blog, you have established the rules and it is certainly obvious that you are not willing to have them apply to everyone. You have attached an agenda to me that is not fair and have tried to make me into a raving psychobabbler who thinks that men leading their families is wrong and have tried to make it sound as though I demean the role of homemaker. You have allowed Kenneth to claim guilt by association without making him prove it. Actually, by doing these things, you have committed the sin of partiality!
Perhaps you are only basing your perspective of my views on our exchange here which is too bad. I have spent the past 35+ years of my life as a homemaker and would not choose any other life. I have given thousands of hours to Bible study and writing and recording podcasts with the goal of encouraging women who are homeschooling moms. To say that I demean the role of homemaker is ludicrous and anyone who knows me personally or who reads my blog or listens to my podcasts knows just how silly you sound.
If this is how you are approaching those who promote patriocentricity, ie, only looking at a few comments on your blog without placing it in context of the whole body of their work, you have made a grave error. You have also aligned yourself with an abusive system, whether you realize it or not.
Robin, I have decided that it is not a good use of my time to continue this conversation with you. When we began our discussion, I erroneously thought that you and I were on equal ground but have come to realize that you do not believe that at all.
Good question Megan. The inequality of men and women is just another way of saying that they are dissimilar, that they have different roles in the home, that they have different strengths and weaknesses, that they have different anatomical structures, different natures (after all, to be masculine is not the same as to be feminine) different obligations in the home and so forth. A man cannot become pregnant, but a woman can. A man is not required to submit to his wife but a wife is required to submit to her husband. And so forth. Those are the sorts of inequalities I’m talking about, and I discuss more of these in my book. The problem is that we are so accustomed to attaching pejorative connotations to inequality, as if it means that one person must be better than another.
“Would you say that I am under all male authority to some degree (not by virtue of their applications, but by virtue of their sexual nature)?” No I would not. Women in general are not required to submit to men in general, but a married woman is required to submit to her husband. Doug Wilson has a good discussion on this in his book Her Hand in Marriage. Although you and I are unequal in many respects, we are not unequal in that respect because I have no covenantal authority over you. I only have covenantal authority over those in my own household, and even that authority is limited and qualified by God’s law.
Karen, with regard to your last comment, I am a bit confused what I could have said to have warranted your recent string of diagnoses. I grant that I may have misunderstood your comments about homemakers, and if you are not demeaning the position of homemaker then I am only too glad to hear it. I was simply going on the basis of your own comments that “the notion that a godly woman is called to be a homemaker is also spiritually abusive” and that “wives and daughters hav[ing] no callings of their own” if they embrace this lifestyle. If those things are true, then it certainly seems that an implication is that such a role is demeaning for the woman. I can’t think of any other examples of a vocation which is not demeaning if it is also spiritually abusive, but I am open to being proved wrong. Perhaps you were only referring to certain types of homemakers, but that is why I asked for clarification. In reply, all you do is to pontificate about my psychological state. If anything, that seems to confirm some of Kenneth’s concerns. Even assuming that your diagnosis of me is correct, can you really conclude all of that from my comments so far – comments which have attempted to take your arguments very seriously? I raise that question for your consideration because it seems to me rather like walking down the street and seeing a bunch of girls in long dresses and long hair and then concluding that they must all be legalists.
Returning to the book that was reviewed here, Quivering Daughters...
Reading this book definitely made me feel sorry for Hillary and what she and others have gone through in families like this.
But I have also been around evangelical Christianity longer than the homeschooling movement has been around, and have seen these same things in conservative Baptist and Pentacostal churches that have nothing to do with Quiverfull or Patriarchy.
I think her narrow experience has led her to attribute old fashioned fundamentalist legalism with Patriarchy and Quiverfull because in her family they were mixed together.
If you take unlimited authority, continuing revelation, and lack of boundaries add them to any kind of authority, church, school or family, you get a big stinking mess.
Quiverfull and Patriarchy are limited propositions. People who practice them come with a wide variety of other beliefs and practices. I know quite a few families that hold Patriarchy and Quiverfull beliefs that are not like the family Hillary described here.
And I am sure that many are very similar to Hillary's family because they bring their fundamentalist belief system with them.
My conclusion from reading the book is that it is sad, and she makes some good points. But she is confused and confusing because she doesn't seem to have a big enough picture of the Christian world to understand which beliefs come with which package. So she mixes them up and paints with too broad a brush.
It is strange to see her pointing the finger at Patriarchy and patriocentricity when she made it pretty clear through her descriptions that her mother was the one who was nuts.
I have now had a chance to read and review Stacy McDonald's book Passionate Housewives. The review can be read either on this blog at http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2010/09/review-of-passionate-housewives.html or at Alfred the Great Society at http://atgsociety.com/2010/09/review-of-passionate-housewives/
Mr Phillips,
I greatly enjoy your blog and find your writing to be very balanced, Biblical, intelligent, and in many cases, eye-opening.
I am a 33 year old single daughter of patriarchy. When I read this book, I felt as if walls were crumbling in my mind. I carried it with me and read sections over and over.
Hope and healing? Yes, there is a Balm in Gilead and this book has changed my life. Where did it take me? Straight to Jesus and His massive Grace.
The problem with patriarchal parenting and life philosophy is that the end result may look good but is rotten inside.
The patriarchal problem is real. The spiritual bondage is real. The twisting of Jesus' words is real. The oppressive home life is real. The crippling effect on relationships is real. The "bonded thinking" is real.
Don't think for a minute that there is anything good within patriarchy.
Hilary McFarland shows the other side.....which is just as extreme as what she is exposing. Yes, perhaps individualism can be wrong to focus on, but in this case, it is the balance that is needed to provoke healing.
Thank you for your review, Robin.
I am a little late to the table on this one, but I have to admit that I had to comment on one thing, even though I doubt I will be back to this page and doubt that anyone is still reading it. :)
I do not see a precedence in Scripture for the "but someone might take this the wrong way and use it to sin" argument, found here in the comments about "rebellious" daughters using Quivering Daughters as justification for their "sin."
We could argue back and forth for days about what constitutes rebellion or even what constitutes God's prescribed roles for men and women, and how far you go from them for it to be "rebellion" or "sin."
The problem I have is that I never see Jesus conditioning His grace. He never seemed to change the truth based on "what might happen."
People take advantage of His love and His forgiveness every day - Christians of all beliefs, shapes and sizes. It is amazing to me that He allows us to reject Him, allows us to ridicule Him, allows us to reject His sacrifice and love.
My brother asked me "Well, if you start letting your children request things because they feel the Holy Spirit leading them (speaking of older children here) then they could start using that excuse for anything!"
Yes. Yes they could. Yes, "rebellious" daughters could use the excuse that they feel abused. Yes, they could take advantage of the width and breadth and depth of grace.
But does that mean we do not preach the full truth?
I can't imagine you would think we should stop teaching the Law because it might prick someone or hurt their feelings?
Why then would we attempt to mediate the truth of what IS abusive just in case someone would misuse it?
It's not just the ideas of rebellion/biblical womanhood/etc that need to be addressed, but the deeper issue of fearing the outcome so we control.
For more on this subject, visit www.steadfastdaughters.com
Post a Comment