A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words

January 17, 2008 — Jen

Thanks to Cindy Kunsman for pointing this out.

About these ads

Posted in Doug Phillips, Vision Forum. 68 Comments »

68 Responses to “A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words”

K. Says:
February 3, 2008 at 12:38 am
I found some words of wisdom this evening . . .let me share it here:

“Due to the complexity of many contemporary issues confronting the church, there will be a multiplicity of responses on the part of believers. We may therefore not all agree on how to respond to these challenges. Therefore, it is vital for believers to regard one another with love in spite of our differences, to agree to disagree uncontentiously on certain issues and to pledge to one another not to speak ill of a brother or sister in Christ (or of anyone) with whom we may not agree. Let our guiding principle be: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity” (Eph. 4:29; 1 Cor. 13:4-7).”

Reply
Cynthia Gee Says:
February 3, 2008 at 7:04 am
Magnificent piece of scripture, K., and very sound advice.
Happy Sunday to y’all!

Reply
Psalmist Says:
February 3, 2008 at 7:08 am
Obviously, disagreement with someone is not speaking ill of them, nor is it “picking.” I’m glad to see that, apparently, you’ve rescinded your accusation, K. It’s good to see evidence that you’re giving others the benefit of thinking the best of them, as I’m sure you want them to give you.

Reply
Cynthia Gee Says:
February 3, 2008 at 7:17 am
Oops… That came out upside down!
I should have said, “Magnificent piece of advice, K, and very sound Scripturally.”
BTW, does anyone know where the quote, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity” (In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis (or, dubiis) libertas, in utrisque (or, omnibus) caritas) comes from? For many years is has been attributed to Augustine, but recent scholarship attributes it to “Paraenesis votiva pro Pace Ecclesiae ad Theologos Augustanae Confessionis”, by Rupert Meldenius.

Reply
Cheri Says:
September 30, 2008 at 8:51 am
Now that you guys have moved on to bigger and better things, I hesitate to even bring this up, but I wonder if they considered for one moment that the relationship that they were portraying between Guinevere and Lancelot was not one of a young virginal woman, but of a married Queen in an adulterous relationship. Some accounts say that she was childless, but other accounts of the legend say that she had two sons! A fine example of a wife and mother! (See Wikipedia/Google.) I recently watched The Other Boleyn something-or-other (because the Boleyns & Careys are in my family tree ;0) and the pious Catherine of Aragon would have been a better role model. (But then Henry wouldn’t have been… ;o)

Reply
Jeffrey Says:
October 17, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I don’t see any problem with revising a piece of public domain art. And is there really anything wrong with having a picture where the man is above the woman? Is there anything wrong with having a man be taller than a woman?

The picture thing is certainly interesting, but I don’t see how it is wrong.

Reply
Editormum Says:
October 18, 2008 at 8:51 pm
My first thought was exactly that of the commenter above: They are using an adulterous woman and her paramour to illustrate a book that is clearly about fidelity and purity? How ironic!

And I am just disgusted by the desecration of that beautiful piece of art! How DARE they? It’s just as appalling as the feminist revision of the old hymns to use gender-inclusive language! UGH!

Reply
Addison Says:
October 19, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I’ve just come across this topic and it’s quite old.. but I’m going to comment anyways.

I find this blatant perversion of a beautiful, classic painting offensive and horrific. I find it offensive as a woman, and also as a Christian. Are we not all equal in God’s eyes? Surely God has seen the pain and unfairness suffered by woman for millenia at the hands of male-dominated societies, and surely he does not condone it.

This picture just epitomizes the historical sexism found in religion. I feel we must ask: Why? Why has the female position always been so pitiful in religion and religion-dominated society? Well.. basically all of human culture throughout the ages has been orchestrated with the purpose of controlling women sexually. A man’s most important interest is securing an heir to his fortune or dynasty, and the only way to insure legitimate heirs is to control the sex organs of the societies females. Naturally, an efficient way to achieve this is to tie sexuality to morality.

Also, throughout the history of the male-dominated church, women have been cast as evil. Females are cast as lewd and vicious temptresses.. conveniently excusing men from any blame for sexually immorality.

But I digress. The pervetted rendition of the painting above suggests that a Godly woman will submit to men, her husband, father, etc…

I will submit to no man or any number of men. I WILL KNEEL BEFORE NO ONE BUT GOD. I am strong, and independant, and intelligent, and free. And I am woman. I am God’s creation, and I am beautiful. And I believe that my independence and strength are beautiful in God eyes.

When I get married, I will not be “given.” I will choose my own mate, and he will be my equal.

Reply
- elfda Says:
  September 15, 2011 at 9:44 pm
  Addison: You go girl!
  
  Reply
Jim Says:
November 6, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I think that I am beginning to see why you got excommunicated from Phillips’ church.

Reply
Patriarchy Movement’s Reinterpretation « Reformed Baptist Fellowship Says:
December 18, 2008 at 5:57 pm
[...] A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words [...]

Reply
Twisted « The Redheaded Skeptic Says:
May 24, 2009 at 10:05 pm
[...] Found via Jen’s Gems. [...]

Reply
Accolade Says:
January 9, 2010 at 1:38 am
The picture is called The Accolade. It was painted in 1901 by Edmund Blair Leighton. It does not depict Guinevere and Lancelot as some suppose. Instead …

“Thus his well-known picture “The Accolade,” derived its inspiration from a French work on chivalry, which mentioned that even ladies occasionally conferred the order of knighthood on worthy men.”

The quote comes from the following article:

http://www.artmagick.com/articles/article.aspx?id=11813

Reply
One of these is not like the other « Ye Have Heard Says:
June 8, 2010 at 3:07 am
[...] tell, this was first blogged by Vision Forum and “patriarchy” critic Jennifer Epstein, A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words, Jan. 17, 2008. Yet Epstein herself said someone else told her about the very interesting [...]

Reply
Sandiseattle Says:
September 11, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Interestingly (or sadly depending on how you look at it) this picture caught the attention of an Atheist blogger. Go figure.

Reply
guest Says:
September 14, 2011 at 7:55 am
That’s a quick way to put a good woman down!

Reply
yewnique Says:
November 8, 2011 at 1:30 am
WHAT is she pointing at??

Reply
hscl5 Says:
April 30, 2012 at 9:30 pm
I find it interesting that Dougie is an “expert” on this situation of how things should go, when he, himself has never had a child go through a courtship experience!

Reply