Lynn brought this up in a comment and I wanted to show the entire context of this statement on the Vision Forum website that “God does not allow women to vote.”
Until the twentieth century, Americans almost universally held to this doctrine of representation in some form or the other. The reason why women were not allowed to vote had nothing to do with women being considered “inferior” or “too emotional” (these values arose during the Victorian era and were themselves theologically and socially deviant) but rather because the husband and father was ASSUMED to represent the family to the broader community. By definition, there could only be ONE representative of the family just as there could only be ONE representative of the Human Race to God!
However, by the end of the 19th century, American Christians had largely stopped thinking in theological terms. Instead, an emotive, subjective religious “experience” (called Pietism”) emphasizing individual conversion replaced the comprehensive Christian worldview of the Reformation. As Christians failed to think biblically about all of life, they were unable to withstand either the new philosophies gaining ground in the universities or deal effectively with the changing social conditions of the Industrial Revolution. By the 20th century, American Christians saw the “height” of Christian activism as banning alcohol while at the same time affirming a woman’s right to vote. Both ideas were unmitigated disasters; God has not allowed the civil magistrate to outlaw wine and God does not allow women to vote (cf. 1 Tim 2:11ff). But by ignoring God’s law, American Christians both destroyed their own credibility (the Prohibition era is STILL a matter of public ridicule and repealing prohibition set the legal precedence for pornography, sodomy and the acceptance of other moral failures) and the integrity of own families.
In regards to a woman’s right to vote; if husband and wife are truly “one flesh” and the husband is doing his duty to represent the family to the wider community, then what PRACTICAL benefit does allowing women to vote provide? If husband and wife agree on an issue, then one has simply doubled the number of votes; but the result is the same. Women’s voting only makes a difference when the husband and wife disagree; a wife, who does not trust the judgment of her husband, can nullify his vote. Thus, the immediate consequence is to enshrine the will of the individual OVER the good of the family thus creating divisions WITHIN the family.
Jen's Gems -- Doug Phillips' Ecclesiastical Tyranny and Abuse 
August 29, 2007 at 9:45 am
And also, Jen, what kind of sense-deficient moron or self-deceived sheep do you have to assume a girl is, in order to sell herself so short that all it would take was a pretty necklace for her to love her dad?
Seems like women can be demeaned even by anti-patriarchalists. Unwittingly, I am sure. But think about it.
August 29, 2007 at 9:53 am
“I do think many of you are completely illogical at times, which frustrates me, but, it’s no crime. :-)”
It oughta be!
August 29, 2007 at 10:36 am
Uh oh… quick, somebody separate those two! If Mike and Sarah get together, there’s no hope for the rest of us poor schmucks! 😀
August 29, 2007 at 11:00 am
🙂
August 29, 2007 at 11:39 am
OK, Sarah, let me try this again. Did your father buy you bling or did he just do that for your mother?
August 29, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Jen, let me try this again. Now that I have clearly explained EXACTLY what my “bling” comment meant, with no room for misunderstanding this time, it seems to me you have no right to expect an answer to that question.
No, I’m not afraid of the answer. But since ALL your previous speculations were, as I clearly outlined, unwarranted in light of my original intent, you have not demonstrated that this line of questioning has ANY validity or bearing at all. If you were to read my original statement as it was meant to be read, instead of how you read it at first, that question will not even come up.
So, your re-posing of the question is now reduced to the level of your morbid curiosity. Something I am under no obligation to satisfy. But, I might answer you anyway if you give me a good enough reason, AND admit that you were out of line with your loaded questions.
Sarah
August 29, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Sarah said – “And, finally, I don’t know why you care what a stupid teen-authored article says anyway. Either the Bible PLAINLY TEACHES one thing or it PLAINLY TEACHES another, right? Why not let the Bible speak for itself and let people compare its teachings with what I wrote in my article? The Bible alone is the rule, isn’t it?”
Just as some people cannot understand the use of ebonic slang by a white girl as a simple joke, some people actually DO elevate the “stupid teen-authored article” above what the Bible DOES plainly teach, because the content of the article backs up what they THINK or WANT the Bible to be saying.
I agree, Sarah. Why DO people care about the article!?!?! That’s what I’ve wanted to know for years. Your above quote echoes my sentiments exactly. I HAVE wanted to know why certain people take it to heart as a dearer gospel than the one that Jesus gave us and PLAINLY told us to spread.
But that’s just it. There are people who don’t understand the context enough to know that the use of a word like “bling” in a semi-serious document like your explanation is humor; they are too disoriented by a word from another culture to read between the lines. But much more disturbingly, there are semi-intelligent people who cannot differentiate between a teen-authored article that serves as further proof of their beloved skewed worldview and what the Bible NEVER says; they are too blinded by the novelty that even a 15 year old girl can get it…
But if this 15 year old girl author gets it, why can’t their own teenage girls get that they are the “property” of their parents, that they are in God’s place and thus get to make ALL the decisions regarding this young woman’s life? This leaves them with the obvious conclusion (<— note the sarcasm): There must be something defective or rebellious with their own daughters, and the perception of this girl author is naturally elevated to prophetess/seer status, thus giving their daughters the idea of what they are to aspire to.
Truly, Sarah, you have no idea how I WISH the Bible alone was the rule!!!!!! Because the scenario in the previous paragraph has happened and is STILL happening in families today, and my heart is breaking for the girls whose futures are in the hands of parents who are only too happy to have the excuse to get their way… because if the Bible alone WAS their guide, they’d have to let their children grow up into mature, self-governed believers… and that’s just too uncomfortable for some parents; imagine… their daughter might want to got to college!!!!
August 29, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Sarah, I do have a purpose in focusing on the bling. Let me try to explain. My husband is Jewish and most of the Jewish women I know enjoy being called a Jewish American Princess. Jewish men treat their women (wives, daughters, others) like princesses, hence the name. It is NOT a bad thing. I like the way you described it as cherishing them. I think that all men should treat the women in their lives as princesses. I don’t think they should necessarily spoil them with material possessions, but that all men should cherish their wives and daughters; they should make them feel special. Some men make them feel special by buying them bling. Some women don’t necessarily want that, though, and would prefer other material possessions, such as all of Corrie’s high-tech gadgets and books. And then there are those women who don’t want material possessions at all, but they want to be made to feel special and treasured in various other ways. The manner of showing how a man treasures a woman can be as varied as any relationship.
So, I completely agree with you in your thinking that a man should cherish, or treasure, the women in his life, namely his wife and his daughters. While the Bible commands a husband to do so, a father’s natural affection for his daughters often leads a man to treat his daughters in this fashion as well.
Unfortunately, there are many fathers who do not cherish their daughters, though, or they don’t know how to express their love and affection toward them. And this is where I think our disconnect lies.
Try to picture a father, even a Christian father, who wants a godly life for his daughter. He especially doesn’t want her to have experience all the difficulties in life that he had to go through in order to be where he is now. BUT, this father didn’t have a good role model for a father. This Christian man just simply doesn’t know how to be a loving father. He doesn’t know how to spend time with his daughter in a meaningful way.
And along comes patriarchy. I am going to generalize here, but this generalization is based upon many personal observations of this very thing. This Christian father, who desperately wants a different life for his daughter, latches on to Doug Phillips’ vision of patriarchy. He hears that he is supposed to lead the household, but he doesn’t know exactly what that should look like. He hears that he should lead family worship, but he doesn’t know exactly what that looks like. But these “visions” are constantly drummed into his head, so he passes them on to his children, teaching them what a father’s responsibility is. This gradually morphs into the father being the center of the family.
The teenage daughter, meanwhile, hears these passages, but she doesn’t “feel” her father’s love. She just experiences authoritarianism. Her father tells her what to do and she does it. Her life is built around her serving her father. The focus is now on what she does for her father and not her father lavishing his love on her. Her father doesn’t know HOW to spend time with a teenage girl other than read the Bible to her. Don’t get me wrong here; it is vitally important that he read the Bible to her, but if that is all that she knows of his love and affection for her, will she catch that same patriarchy vision? A few teenage girls will, but most will not. And, I dare say, none of them would willingly write an article about their fathers owning them.
I don’t want to belabor the Jewish angle, but I do think it is significant in your situation. You may not even realize it, because it is who you are and probably all you know. It is not uncommon for Jewish men to say that they “own” their wives or daughters. And part of that thinking may be that they buy them lots of bling, or whatever.
In our circles, though, Sarah, we would never DREAM of saying that another man owns us. By us, I mean most Christians NOT from a Jewish background. To us, that is reminiscent of slavery. We chafe against being relegated to the level of being a slave, whether as a wife or a daughter. So much of patriarchy lends itself to women leading lives similar to slaves rather than women being cherished and treasured. And women are certainly not cherished for their opinions or their minds in patriarchy. (Again, this is just a broad generalization and does not apply to all patriarchy families.)
So, if we consider this young girl whose father loves her but doesn’t know how to show it, and who comes across as being more authoritarian than doting, we are trying to consider from her perspective what she might think when she reads your original article. She does NOT in any way feel joyful about saying that her daddy owns her. She doesn’t feel that God should take a backseat to her dad, although it might seem that it works out that way in real life because her father is always making decisions for her, including who she will marry (although she may have the last right of refusal — technically). If she has convictions of her own in this area of patriarchy, she is probably resigned to this life of servitude, as she sees it, but she is not excited to tell the world that her father owns her.
However, if she is like the typical teenage Christian girl, she is making her own plans for her own life, maybe privately still. And then reading your article, she now starts to feel guilt. “Why don’t I feel the way Sarah does? Why is she so glad that another man OWNS her?” And your article either depresses her with a load of guilt or it strengthens her resolve to get away from that lifestyle as soon as she can.
Sarah, this is all about knowing your audience. When I write on this blog, my intended audience is Christian homeschool families. I write specifically to them. I explain anything that might be slightly out of their own experience.
Buying bling is NOT normative for your intended audience. If you were writing that article to other Jewish teenage girls, then it might be understood that that was a part of your life. But that article had a much wider audience and your frame of reference needed to be spelled out in detail.
Let me explain. Why did you say that your father owned you? (I am not quoting you, I am writing this from memory.) Do you think that a daughter who doesn’t feel treasured and loved would say such a thing? So what makes you different? Obviously, you FELT loved by your father, so you responded naturally by returning that affection. How did your father make you feel special? How did he treasure you? How did he cherish you? We are not even questioning whether or not he did love you. That is very obvious to us.
Now we are back to the bling. Was one of the ways your father showed his affection that he would buy you bling? Was it only at birthdays or other holidays, or was it just because? Were you rewarded with bling when did well in school or accomplished some chores?
I am sure that your father showed you his affection in many other ways as well, but you brought up the subject of bling. I fully realize you brought it up in context of a husband/wife relationship, but, hey, a JAP is a JAP, married or not, and we both know it! 😉
August 29, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Hi Jen,
I appreciate your taking the time to write a thoughtful response. Nice try. 🙂 But, no cigar.
If you were writing that article to other Jewish teenage girls,
I think you mean “Christian teenage girls with a Jewish background.” I was not Jewish, nor have I ever been.
then it might be understood that that was a part of your life. But that article had a much wider audience and your frame of reference needed to be spelled out in detail.
Which I did here, if you recall. Oddly enough, in order to do that, I didn’t need to include any information as to how many gifts or how expensively my dad purchased for me. You see, the explanation of my background was ALREADY different enough from your described scenario without adding income level, blood type, employment history, racial composition of my neighborhood, or other NOYB items.
“How did your father make you feel special? How did he treasure you? How did he cherish you? We are not even questioning whether or not he did love you. That is very obvious to us.”
I was made special by being honored, respected, my opinions sought out, my ambitions nurtured. My dad was VERY loving and said “yes” to every request possible. He has always wielded his authority in a loving (meaning, for our good) way and not to flex muscles or prove how manly he is. My dad thinks women are capable of excelling just about anything, sees no reason why they shouldn’t try, and thinks women are the foundation of civilization and a national treasure.
Hmm, does what I just said seem like déjà vu to anyone else? Oh right, it’s because I just quoted myself from earlier comments in this thread. Jen, your question still doesn’t appear to be relevant or make any further headway in getting where you are going. You and I can still prove the point without the answer you crave. Point being: I was not raised in a patriarchal home. I was not raised with a dictatorial father. I was not raised with someone who didn’t know how to love a teenager. Right, right, right. Therefore, as I already stated in my very first comment above:
The reason my article was one-sided was because I was completely (at least in practice) unaware that abuse of power was so common – being that I did not experience it at home. It can be misleading, but if you put it in a context with all the qualifiers you can think of, it could start to make more sense. Obviously if someone from the opposite end of the spectrum reads it, they will get a much different feel than I had when I wrote it. I freely admit that is a fault of the article as written.
Communicating means trying to put yourself in the readers’ position and determine the best way to get your point across. I was basically writing to myself and anyone in my type of situation. Anyone else would be hopelessly confused by or maybe even really harmed by the article. So insofar as I did not express my thoughts in a universally coherent manner, I do regret what I wrote.
Jen wrote:
Let me explain. Why did you say that your father owned you? (I am not quoting you, I am writing this from memory.) Do you think that a daughter who doesn’t feel treasured and loved would say such a thing? So what makes you different?
I wrote that my father owned me because, typically a normal Christian girl who is asked to a party and says she has to check with her dad will be subjected to the kind of response from her peers, “What, does he OWN you or something?” So to that extent the “ownership” argument was a device to disarm someone who would have used that as a retort, to stun them into listening. Well obviously it was more confusing than anything else, and I don’t think it was a particularly effective rhetorical device either. I didn’t then, nor do I now, actually believe a person can be “property.”
Hmm Jen, seems like you still haven’t come up with any questions or thoughts that I didn’t already adequately answer in my first two big posts on this blog. So, your bling question remains inappropriate, or as Perry Mason would say, “Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, your honor!” It’s starting to look like mere idle curiosity. Well, I shouldn’t say starting. But, the more you explain, the less I see why even you think it’s relevant.
Feel free to try again. 🙂
Sarah
August 29, 2007 at 3:39 pm
“Just as some people cannot understand the use of ebonic slang by a white girl as a simple joke, some people actually DO elevate the “stupid teen-authored article” above what the Bible DOES plainly teach, because the content of the article backs up what they THINK or WANT the Bible to be saying.”
It is not that they can’t understand “ebonic slang”. It is that it is hard to tell with some people just when they are joking and just when they are not because it keeps on changing. I was hoping for a little more seriousness and maturity considering how flat and one-sided that article was and how it is still being used to this day and how it has been used as a source of derision towards Christians. No one reading that article understands that there is this whole worldview behind it.
First the Chalcedon article was a silly article done by a silly girl. Then it was a serious article. Then it was silly. But, all along it was backed by Chalcedon who is NOT in the habit of publishing silly little articles that are not meant to be taken seriously. I would think if it was a “joke” like some would have us believe (depending on the hour of day), I would think that Chalcedon would have put a disclaimer on it.
“I agree, Sarah. Why DO people care about the article!?!?! That’s what I’ve wanted to know for years. Your above quote echoes my sentiments exactly. I HAVE wanted to know why certain people take it to heart as a dearer gospel than the one that Jesus gave us and PLAINLY told us to spread.”
Because it was published by a serious, reputable Christian publication. How Sarah can even ask that question is beyond me. I have half a mind to write Chalcedon and ask them if that article was truly a joke that was not meant to be taken seriously.
“But that’s just it. There are people who don’t understand the context enough to know that the use of a word like “bling” in a semi-serious document like your explanation is humor; they are too disoriented by a word from another culture to read between the lines.”
I don’t think that is it at all. I think it is the flippant attitude concerning an article written in a serious publication that people are having a problem with. I have written many things that I am not proud of in my hyper-patriarchal days and I would, in a minute, set my words right if given the chance and I wouldn’t be sarcastic, flippant and accusatory in the process and then take up an offense when my “jokes” get misunderstood.
“But much more disturbingly, there are semi-intelligent people who cannot differentiate between a teen-authored article that serves as further proof of their beloved skewed worldview and what the Bible NEVER says; they are too blinded by the novelty that even a 15 year old girl can get it…”
Yes, it is disturbing but it is going on even now with the Botkin girls’ book. Kevin Swanson is pushing that book. Will we hear in 10 years that this book was all a joke and they really didn’t mean what they said and that their words were tongue in cheek and that they had this whole secret worldview that the rest of their readers have no idea about and they were nothing but silly little girls?
You are right about the damaging affects that an article like that can have on girls when their parents mistake their lack of wanting to be owned and lack of wanting God to take the backseat as being in rebellion. Most of the girls are not growing up in homes with the same worldview (ie., “bling”- still don’t know what part of that is a joke- maybe someone could explain that to me. Was bling part of the worldview or was it not? Please excuse my inability to understand and appreciate the joke. I usually don’t have such a problem.)
It is not the word “bling” that disorients. It is the context and the explanation that has disoriented some people.
August 29, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Corrie,
I understand what you are saying (I think… this head cold isn’t doing me any favors in the thinking/computing dept!). I can understand how you could interpret levity surrounding such a serious subject to simple lack of concern over it; but then, Sarah did mention that the subject isn’t concerning her, while it obviously does concern many others… it’s ancient history for her, while some of us are still dealing with the extent of it’s reach.
While this is a subject that hits rather close to home for me (read: I actually take it very seriously), I somehow was able to appreciate a little levity amid such stuffy subject matter. I felt it contributed to her clarification, showing that she came from lighthearted, witty people (since she was sharing her context/world at the time of writing), something that too many Christians and especially patriarchists are sadly lacking in… which come to think of it, is probably WHY they take Sarah’s article and her father’s piercing article so stinkin’ literally (maybe he fully intended for it to be, I don’t know, but it’s received strong reactions for the vivid illustrations it makes as well).
I wasn’t trying to put down the people that aren’t able to appreciate the whole “bling” thing, but rather use it as an illustration of how far words can be taken from the author’s intentions
When I exclaimed my frustration over people’s infatuation of the article, I wasn’t referring to people here, because I know why WE care about it: Because OTHER people treat the “stupid teen-authored article” as gospel and are ruining their own and their daughters lives with it. Trust me, I know about all that. Which is why I was shouting my frustration over THEIR fascination of what SHOULD be dismissed as the naive musings of a 15 year old girl.
I think Sarah was wondering the same thing (correct me if I’m wrong)… hence my empathy in the sentiment.
Lastly, I don’t know anything about Chalcedon, nevertheless, Sarah’s article was never presented to me as anything less than a glowing endorsement/commercial for patriarchy and a parent’s exclusive right over their daughter, grown or otherwise.
And oh, don’t get me started on the Botkin’s book. It just brings to mind several strong words that might be considered uncharitable, so I’d better not go there. =o)
August 29, 2007 at 7:47 pm
“I understand what you are saying (I think… this head cold isn’t doing me any favors in the thinking/computing dept!).”
Hi Alisa,
I think we have the same head cold! I don’t know if I understand what I am saying right now. 🙂
“I can understand how you could interpret levity surrounding such a serious subject to simple lack of concern over it; but then, Sarah did mention that the subject isn’t concerning her, while it obviously does concern many others… it’s ancient history for her, while some of us are still dealing with the extent of it’s reach.””
Exactly. Sometimes ancient history has a way of catching up to us and I it is my position that we do everything in our power to right any wrongs and to do all we can to clear up any misunderstandings and to make it known as much as we can that we no longer stand by those beliefs.
If it was just some silly teenage girl writing on her MySpace blog, I would have shrugged it off. But, it was published and therefore backed by a well-respected Christian publication. I think that because it was published and it is still being used to teach young girls the way they should think and act, I would hope that we could all be straight shooters and try not to add things that will only further confuse the matter.
My problem is that I am still left trying to figure out what is truth as far as world view and what is joke/levity. Anyone who knows me knows that I love a great sense of humor and I am hardly stuffy. In fact, I frequently crack way too many jokes and I really have to watch it. Also, I am no slacker when it comes to our culture and modern terminology but I guess it is like the term “fanny pack”. We Americans throw that term around like nothing and we know that it is a purse one snaps around one’s waist. Australians use the term “fanny” for some other part of the anatomy and they would look at you with shock, wondering what in the world a “fanny pack” was and why aren’t you blushing when you say it.
“I felt it contributed to her clarification, showing that she came from lighthearted, witty people (since she was sharing her context/world at the time of writing), something that too many Christians and especially patriarchists are sadly lacking in… which come to think of it, is probably WHY they take Sarah’s article and her father’s piercing article so stinkin’ literally (maybe he fully intended for it to be, I don’t know, but it’s received strong reactions for the vivid illustrations it makes as well).”
I don’t know how one is supposed to take the piercing article if not the way it was intended? IMHO, the whole piercing analogy and the assertion that it is okay for women to have pierced earrings because women are in subjection and men are not and women are pierced in intercourse and men do the piercing is so thoroughly disturbing to me because of what the scripture actually does teach about the act of sex. I never got that picture from reading the Song of Songs. 🙂 Also, we are ALL bondslaves, therefore to be logical, pierced ears are perfectly acceptable in both men and women. Pierced ears have nothing to do with one flesh union. That is a picture of mutual giving and taking. It is NOT a picture of one person exerting dominance over another person.
I have to wonder why these things are being written if they are not really believed? How am I, an average person, supposed to know if the author was just kidding or not serious about what they are writing, especially when it comes to me in the form of a Chalcedon article?
“I wasn’t trying to put down the people that aren’t able to appreciate the whole “bling” thing, but rather use it as an illustration of how far words can be taken from the author’s intentions”
I didn’t feel put down by your words at all. I do see that this is what you were trying to express. I think this has happened on all sides. Patience and understanding are a two way street.
“Which is why I was shouting my frustration over THEIR fascination of what SHOULD be dismissed as the naive musings of a 15 year old girl.”
I agree. Like I said, I think it has more to do with who was backing that article than who wrote it.
“Lastly, I don’t know anything about Chalcedon, nevertheless, Sarah’s article was never presented to me as anything less than a glowing endorsement/commercial for patriarchy and a parent’s exclusive right over their daughter, grown or otherwise.”
And this is exactly the reason why it should be taken very seriously. I received the issue of Chalcedon with that article in it and also the piercing article. That was before there were lists like this that I could go and find out if all Christians believed it. I was a relatively new believer and I found it shocking but since it was in that publication that was hailed as very respectable in the groups I knew, it held a lot of clout.
“And oh, don’t get me started on the Botkin’s book. It just brings to mind several strong words that might be considered uncharitable, so I’d better not go there. =o) ”
And look who is backing that book? It is not that these girls are writing it but who is backing it. Doug Phillips. Kevin Swanson. Their “prophet” father. Along with many other adults. It is really the same thing with different packaging and a different face and a different father behind the face.
Ideas have consequences and we will be held accountable for what we say. And those that teach will be held very accountable.
I hope you feel better. I do appreciate your view on this and I didn’t take it the wrong way. I am having a hard time expressing myself and you have succinctly expressed some of my main concerns.
Thank you.
August 29, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Corrie,
I’m glad I’m not the only one who feels they have a hard time expressing themselves!!! Sometimes I seriously feel verbally/communicatively handicapped. You have no idea how many times I use my little pop-up thesaurus to try to find the right word!!!
Personally, I’ve never agreed with the whole piercing argument. I have heard it used to provide a “theological” explanation for people’s cultural preferences, which I think all those opinions can ever really be – preferences, not dogma. I certainly have my own preferences, so I’m not going to fault others for having theirs.
Boy it’s funny how the translation and perception of words can effect so much… can you say Tower of Babel? I was aware of the whole Australian thing, though I found out about the whole “fanny” thing after I was raising my eyebrows at THEM for using words that made ME blush… they had no idea that that word was taboo here!
August 29, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Corrie,
Another thing I missed… I already had had reservations about the Biblical veracity of the belief’s of those that introduced me to Sarah’s and her father’s article, and therefore was in no danger to taking them for dogma, but to examine them next to what the Bible PLAINLY teaches as Sarah suggested. This obviously was not your background with Chalcedon at the time, so I can see how our experiences would differ there.
August 29, 2007 at 10:30 pm
“Another thing I missed… I already had had reservations about the Biblical veracity of the belief’s of those that introduced me to Sarah’s and her father’s article, and therefore was in no danger to taking them for dogma, but to examine them next to what the Bible PLAINLY teaches as Sarah suggested. This obviously was not your background with Chalcedon at the time, so I can see how our experiences would differ there.”
Alisa,
Right! But, now we are being told that we are not supposed to be looking at our Bibles and we are not supposed to be Bereans who check what the church is teaching against what scripture teaches. We are supposed to elevate church teaching above the teaching of scripture or else we are not truly part of the one true church. We are in rebellion to authority when we disagree with the church teachings when they go against what the scripture teaches.
When I first became a Christian, I studied my Bible and was encouraged to take every teaching and compare it with what scripture taught me. I can see why the the church didn’t want every person to be able to read the bible for themselves and why they chained it the church so only a select few could read it. Look what happened with Luther when he read about God’s grace and how that figures into salvation. It totally changed everything for him. No longer did he see buying indulgences as a way to get to heaven. No longer were people stuck in purgatory, waiting for enough novenas to be said on their behalf to free them from their need to be further purified before they can enter into heaven. No longer did one have to self-flagellate to be acceptable to God.
A few years later, I was introduced to ATI and we joined and I forgot about checking what I was taught against scripture. I was caught up in this new way of life. A life that only those who are truly serious about being righteous want to have.
It is then that I read these other things and even though they disturbed me, I felt helpless. I didn’t agree with them but I was surely not going to blow my cover and let all the other pod people know that I was not one of them! 😉
And now I am called all sorts of names and accused of all sorts of things (talk about being psychoanalyzed!!! ha!) because I DARE to question these very same teachings.
This last week on this blog has shown me that I am stuck between a rock and a hard place.
August 30, 2007 at 12:08 am
Corrie,
Hmm, maybe it’s just cause it’s late and I need sleep, but my brain didn’t pick up on which was the rock and which was the hard place. Could you spell it out for me, because that is apparently how dense I am at the moment.
And while I’m Protestant and understand what you are saying about Luther and the history surrounding him, I must have missed whatever brought this up, besides the Hodges conversion to Catholicism and I think David brought up some church history. If that was it, forgive me, because I glossed over it, both because my knowledge of it doesn’t go as deep as it obviously was going, and also because I just don’t care all that much about it. Yeah, I have my opinions and beliefs, but I know too many Catholics who love God with all their heart, and since Jesus considered that the greatest thing, it’s good enough for me. Of course I’m sure there are some things we disagree on, but I prefer to stay on common ground whenever possible. Otherwise… well, that’s why I don’t go there. =o) Plus, I think I’m able to appreciate some of the beautiful liturgical qualities in Catholic church history. For all it’s imperfections, there are still some extremely beautiful things to be found, like St. Patrick’s Breastplate Prayer; I was just reminded of it today, but it’s an old favorite.
Sorry if that was a tangent and came off as a soap box, that’s just where I am with the whole thing. Though don’t ever mistake me for saying we shouldn’t have our noses in our Bibles!!! I don’t think history is a very reliable source. It may work in case law, but not in theology. Too many well-intentioned people in too many denominations in too many centuries have made such an awful mess out of too many things for me to take my cues from them.
August 30, 2007 at 6:57 am
Sarah and others,
The problem with the article and where it currently stands is this….because it is still in circulation and because it makes statements that people can only take at face value, and given the fact that Sarah is not an otherwise published author, as far as I know, ALL we have to go on, until this dicussion, is that article. Period. And I would believe that the majorty of people who have read or will read that article will never see this exchange.
Not long ago I had the terribly frustrating experience of dicussing something similar with a woman I know. She was trying to tell me that we cannot really know what someone believes by reading his blog or even by reading a book that he wrote. We have to sit across the table from him and get to know him. This woman’s conclusion was that blogs are uesless and even dangerous.
My response was that I believe just the opposite is true….when you sit across the table with someone and chat, you might learn a little of that person. But if he is an author of a book or published articles or even a blog that publihses essays and articles of substance, then we have a written record of what that person believes and typically the thoughts and writings run much deeper than dinner banter.
I then mentioned to this person that I had read several articles on a website that had been taken down and it caused me consternation. Her response to me was “can’t you allow for people to change?” And my responose was this “of course, I can allow for that. However, just because articles are removed from a website does not mean that the author has changed his views. All it means is that he doesn’t want others to read them now, for whatever reason.”
Sarah, the same is true of your article. All we have to go on is what you wrote in that one article at that time in history. Unless someone reads what you have written here, there is no other side to what you said and unless it is spelled out, there is no context. Because of the horrid things that are being done to others and the fact that your article has been used to encourage those things, I would hope that you might consider writing something for Chalcedon and ask that it be widely circulated.
And, I agree with Corrie that Chalcedon bares a great part of the responsibility for that article. They were not teenage girls and they knew what they were doing and what agenda they were promoting by publishing it. Have they ever stated otherwise?
Also, Corrie, I, too, said and wrote many things in my patriocentric days that I only wish I could retrieve.
August 30, 2007 at 7:20 am
Hi Alisa,
Oh, I agree with your “tangent” about staying on common ground. Remember, I am a “cradle Catholic” and I am from a very large Catholic family. 🙂 I have many friends that are Catholic and I don’t at all doubt their love for God or their standing before Him.
It is obviously not good enough, though, for some convert Catholics. I would much rather discuss Catholic doctrine with a cradle Catholic. I am more apt to listen and they are less apt to be so zealous and extreme end erudite in their language. In fact, a lovely Catholic family just knocked on my door the other day to let me know they were going to break ground on a new parish. I had a very nice and long conversation with them concerning many issues.
I was confirmed in the Catholic church by Rembert Weakland. 😉 I have discussed Catholic theology with relatives who are/were priests and nuns. I lived with the nuns during the summer. In fact, I had thought about becoming a nun for a period of time. When it comes to Catholic teachings and practice, I am only too familiar.
I also appreciate the liturgy and the “highness” of the mass.
So, again, we are on the same page. It was some things that were brought INTO this discussion that have caused me to think and have taken me aback.
August 30, 2007 at 8:00 am
I’ve been gone from jen’s Gems for a few weeks, and catching up on this thread has caused my head to hurt! 🙂
Anyway, for Cindy Kunsman, here’s a link you might want to try out:
http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/
I have not thoroughly vetted this site yet, but it seems interesting. So I won’t take any blame or credit for what’s written there, nor will I endorse or reject anything there. (Did I cover all my bases? 🙂 )
For Sarah Faith, you wrote:
“The Holy Spirit doesn’t lead in two different directions (which is why I’m Catholic now)”
I find this funny, only because I happen to agree with the logic, which is what led my wife and I to leave the Catholic Church! 🙂 Lately, I’ve been thinking that the Holy Spirit is “omnidirectional”, in that perhaps He does not lead us into a particular denomination or sect as much as He leads us towards Christ, and uses the most appropriate human means (e.g., particular denominations or sects) to build His Church one member at a time. It seems that we sometimes get “hung up” on ecclesiatical authority, instead of focusing on Divine Authority. But then again, that’s what led to the creation of this blog to begin with!
Just musing out loud here (in writing, silently!)
August 30, 2007 at 8:52 am
Thank you, Bryan.
Oddly, in the event that you only skimmed this section, you are the only one who has responded to my request for more info on “reformed Catholicism” or about what specifically would prompt a Protestant to convert. I really would like to understand the specifics of the whole Catholic argument so that I can appreciate it without prejudice. This is much needed, because I was informed yesterday that we Protestants are all really Catholic to greater and lesser degrees. Scroll down through the comments here. I must be as ignorant as I am beautiful.
August 30, 2007 at 9:10 am
I’ve been considering the benefits of continuing to try to persuade Sarah to understand that the culture she grew up in affected her worldview to the point that she had a unique perspective on a daddy/daughter relationship. It is apparent that Steve Schlissel loved his daughters very much, bling or no bling. I think that Sarah said certain things in her article that made sense to her as a fifteen-year-old in the world she grew up in. I don’t relate to that thinking.
But, I think we have both explained our sides and further argument on the subject would be unproductive at this time. This article, although directly related to patriarchy, is a side issue on this blog. I don’t mind addressing side issues now and then, but I think ample opportunity has been given for both sides now and it is time to let this particular subject of Sarah’s article rest.
Dave and Sarah, you are quite welcome to continue commenting on this blog, should you care to join us, but let’s not have any further comments on this issue, please.
And if anyone is interested in what all this has to do with Doug Phillips, here is a link you might be interested in.
August 30, 2007 at 9:22 am
I guess what worries me about this ‘having as many babies as one can’ is the ultimate health of the mother both physical and psychological
The view on birth control espoused in the linked article is a very Roman Catholic one..and a Federal Vision one…and a Dominionist one and on and on.
While I do not agree with having children for the sake of greater christian numbers…it is a personal choice between a wife and husband and I believe that choice should be left in that personal marriage sphere instead of a public theological or political one.
August 30, 2007 at 9:56 am
Jen, I totally agree with you. Thanks for allowing our perspective, and thanks for shutting down the topic when it was time.
Sarah
August 30, 2007 at 10:53 am
The view on birth control espoused in the linked article is a very Roman Catholic one..and a Federal Vision one…and a Dominionist one and on and on.
The Catholic Church does not teach that you must have as many babies as physically possible. It says that for serious reasons (which are left to discernment) you can choose to abstain from relations if needed, in order to not have a child.
This periodic abstinence goes along with abstaining for a time of prayer and fasting, as well as “a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.”
August 30, 2007 at 11:03 am
When I was growing up in the Catholic church, we were taught that it was OK to use natural family planning (abstinence or the Rhythm Method) to limit the size of one’s family for economic or health reasons. We were NEVER taught to have as many children as possible — this is an aberration introduced by ultra-traditionalist elements within Catholicism, who have more in common ideologically with dominionist hypercalvinists than they do with Rome.
August 30, 2007 at 12:01 pm
“I must be as ignorant as I am beautiful.”
Cindy K,
ROFLOL!!! This should be embroidered on your sofa pillows! 😉
What exactly is a Reformed Catholic? Is that like a “jumbo shrimp”? Are Reformed Catholics accepted as full and true Catholics by the non-reformed Catholics? How can a Catholic reform when they are not allowed to break from any of the church’s teachings and remain in good standing?
I do read over at Johnson’s Reformed Catholicism blog but I really don’t know what that term means. I will have to do some more reading.
August 30, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Corrie,
The first time I ever heard the term was on Sandlin’s list serve. One of the people that moderated for him was “Reformed Catholic.” From the link Bryan posted, those folks basically sound like Reformed folks who identify with the term catholic as universal. It also seems like they use much Latin and prefer liturgy which would essentially make them Anglican, but perhaps they don’t like the Anglican church (due to the homosexuality mess and their advocacy of ordaining women). They don’t sound at all Roman Catholic.
I could be entirely wrong. It didn’t happen when I read on that site today, but often, I feel myself slipping into altered states of consciousness (with or without congnitive dissonance) when I read on the topic of Reformed Catholicism. I suspect that there are different varieties, just as there are about a billion different denominations and schisms among Protestants (who are all “little c” catholic as part of all those who receive Christ as their Savior.) That said, I don’t agree with David Hodges’ interpretation that we are all Catholic but in varying degrees of denial about actually being Romanist. But he comes from the perspective that he is in 100% right standing through his faith in RC, and I come to things from a very different worldview. From his perspective, he is absolutely right and his logic sound, however, I do not share his presuppositions about the topic.
I’ll keep reading on the topic, but I will quit when I feel myself slipping into an altered state of consciousness (the not good kind). Sometimes this is due to lighting or lack of sleep, etc, but I find that since I’ve developed an ability to identify shifting into a weird, placid-like state of mind, that it is more oft than not due to cognitive dissonance. (Confusion over contradictory statements or quibbling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.)
August 30, 2007 at 1:13 pm
The Catholic Church does not teach that you must have as many babies as physically possible. It says that for serious reasons (which are left to discernment) you can choose to abstain from relations if needed, in order to not have a child.
I stand corrected, thank you.
August 30, 2007 at 2:27 pm
ON JUMBO SHRIMP
Quoting myself : That said, I don’t agree with David Hodges’ interpretation that we are all Catholic but in varying degrees of denial about actually being Romanist. But he comes from the perspective that he is in 100% right standing through his faith in RC, and I come to things from a very different worldview. From his perspective, he is absolutely right and his logic sound, however, I do not share his presuppositions about the topic.
and
I really would like to understand the specifics of the whole Catholic argument so that I can appreciate it without prejudice. This is much needed, because I was informed yesterday that we Protestants are all really Catholic to greater and lesser degrees.
For those interested, Dave said I interpreted his meaning incorrectly as stating that we are all basically Catholic, but I think I got it right in my understanding of our differing assumptions. If this is of interest, hop on over to http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2007/02/open-comment.html
I did not intend to distort what he said.
August 30, 2007 at 2:34 pm
“It also seems like they use much Latin and prefer liturgy which would essentially make them Anglican, but perhaps they don’t like the Anglican church (due to the homosexuality mess and their advocacy of ordaining women). ”
Now hold on… there are Anglicans and then there are Anglicans. 😀
Theologically, conservative Anglicans (of which I am one) are very similar to Roman Catholics, although they tend to a more Protestant, rather Lutheran-flavored soteriology; like mainstream Catholics, most of them use little if any Latin. Many are against the ordination of women, and very few favor the ordination of homosexuals (unless, of course, they are celibate.)
The people who are into the screwy stuff is the liberal Episcopalian Church, which is a member of the worldwide Anglican Communion; and thanks to them the AC is on the verge of schisming over these very issues.
August 30, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Cynthia Gee,
If you look at that reformed catholic site, they do not talk about baptismal regeneration and describe Protestant ideas but prefer “high church” litergy. The Latin comment was meant to describe the language used on that website by those who declare themselves “Catholic.” They don’t talk about RC eucharist or RC baptimsal regeneration, so with the exception of the Latin (and liturgy which is also followed by Anglicans and Lutherans), they sound Protestant. I could have just as well said that they were Lutheran, although the Anglican liturgy is somewhat higher than the Lutheran one, so I said “Anglican” because they also observe apostolic succession as this group professes.
Omni quondo flunkus mortati.
September 2, 2007 at 5:33 am
Lynn wrote:
The net result of white men being able to vote . . . was the perpetuation of slavery and the Civil War [sorry, cut and past is not working here]
Actually, people tend to underestimate the power of the unenfranchised female. It is no secret that Abraham Lincoln was able to overcome his pro-slavery opponents at the polls largely by the power of female persuation. And of course, only the power of female persuation can account for the vote to enfranchise women in the first place.
This is a good discussion to have. Hopefully I’ll have more time to devote to it now that I’m back.
September 2, 2007 at 11:36 am
“And of course, only the power of female persuation can account for the vote to enfranchise women in the first place.”
Why would you say that, RefCal? There were MEN who were in favor of female suffrage, and it was MEN who finally voted to allow female suffrage.
(This just goes to show you that even a bunch of rich old white male politicians can do the right thing, given enough time and enough persuasion by the Holy Spirit (as well as by their wives! 😀 )
September 2, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Lynn:
“The net result of white men being able to vote . . . was the perpetuation of slavery and the Civil War” [sorry, cut and past is not working here]
RefCal:
“Actually, people tend to underestimate the power of the unenfranchised female.”
I was being somewhat sarcastic when I said that. I can’t remember exactly, but some people blame societal ills on the fact that women were allowed to vote, and I just found something to blame on the men. I wasn’t being serious.
But what you said reminds me of Bill Gothard — he talks about the power of position and the power of influence, and he claims the power of influence is greater, so if you are in a subordinate role, you still can be powerfully influential — the neck that turns the head kind of thing.
September 5, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Mike wrote:
******
I found the quote about the slave owners’ votes. It came from REFCAL. I have asked — twice — for a citation for this claim, or for a clarification. I believe it is in error as it stands.
Please, REFCAL — maybe you’ve been gone from the blog for a while. If you happen to come across this post — please check up above for the discussion between Spunky and me about your statement — and help us out.
Could we get a cite or a clarification, please?
******
Yes, Mike, here I am again. I really have been gone from this thread for almost 3 weeks. Of course you caught my mathematical error; it was the 3/5ths compromise not the 2/3rds. So I believe I have nothing further to add to what has been already discussed on this other than I sure wish I had written five-thirds and caught YOU in the math error!
September 5, 2007 at 12:28 pm
“So I believe I have nothing further to add to what has been already discussed on this other than I sure wish I had written five-thirds and caught YOU in the math error!”
HAH! Fat chance! But I will provide plenty of grammatical errors to keep all the grammar trolls happy. LOL!
Thanks for responding, Refcal.
September 6, 2007 at 2:31 pm
RefCal wrote:
“And of course, only the power of female persuation can account for the vote to enfranchise women in the first place.”
Cynthia Gee responded:
‘Why would you say that, RefCal? There were MEN who were in favor of female suffrage, and it was MEN who finally voted to allow female suffrage.’
I’m always coming across information so I can’t always cite sources but I remember hearing about how the vote went on the female sufferage amendment. It was very close, down to one man who was sure to vote against it. It all had to do with what color of rose he wore in his lapel. But at the last moment he was pressured by his own mother, switched roses, and voted to end the male monopoly.
So in conclusion, men only voted to give up their monopoly on voting because the women in their lives convinced them to. I guess they got what they deserved–now women rule over them (irony alert).
September 6, 2007 at 2:36 pm
That should be ‘female persuasion’. You were supposed to catch that when you quoted me.
And I was supposed to catch it when I quoted you quoting me.
OK Mike, you can relax now.
September 6, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Interesting article. Especially interesting was how many times the biblical text was mangled and twisted in order to fit the hyper-patriarchal worldview.
http://www.letslearntheology.com/content/view/79/50/
“Male passivity is the root of all evil. Is that statement stretching it a bit? Not by much. Sin would not have entered the world but for Adam’s lack of masculine leadership. And the ravages of sin would be much more contained even today if most men in most homes would seize the day by seizing the reins of family leadership.”
Sin wouldn’t have entered the world but for Adam’s lack of masculine leadership????? Well, all the masculine leadership in the world is not going to thwart God’s plan and God’s plan was “Jesus Christ crucified from the foundation of the world”. Male passivity is the root of all evil? LOL! Someone thinks way too highly of themself.
“God made man to take dominion, first of himself, then of his family, and then of some portion of this world (Gen. 1:26ff.). This is a chief way in which men exhibit the image of God. Passivity is a denial of what it means to be a man. The original man ceded control to his wife and ultimately to Satan. By God’s grace Christian men today can reclaim godly control of their families. This in turn will prepare them for dominion in other spheres and is the ultimate strategy for wresting control of this world away from the Evil One and returning it to the rightful heir of the world, our Lord Jesus.”
God never made anyone to take dominion of another person. Where does this come from? And where does it say that Adam ceded control of his wife? Adam was given control over his wife?
“In the words of William Merrill’s great hymn:
Rise up, O men of God!
Have done with lesser things;
Give heart and soul and mind and strength
To serve the King of kings.
Author: Philip Lancaster ”
I had always thought that hymn included women, too?
September 6, 2007 at 7:20 pm
“Male passivity is the root of all evil” ?
Wow, somebody better say a quick prayer and tell Jesus about that — HE says that it’s the love of money that’s the problem.
Come to think of it , this also means that war, rape and murder must not be evil, since they are, in the main, caused by male aggressiveness.
Sheesh….. who knew???????
September 6, 2007 at 7:35 pm
“Come to think of it , this also means that war, rape and murder must not be evil, since they are, in the main, caused by male aggressiveness.”
It is true that male aggressiveness has caused a lot of death and destruction throughout the ages. It is also true that without male aggressiveness, it is doubtful that the human race would have survived for very long.
This whole “Adam’s passivity was the problem” theme is another big bugaboo that I would like to address in another message — at some length.
September 6, 2007 at 7:48 pm
“This whole “Adam’s passivity was the problem” theme is another big bugaboo that I would like to address in another message — at some length.”
Yes, please!
September 6, 2007 at 8:10 pm
“Male passivity is the root of all evil” ?
“Wow, somebody better say a quick prayer and tell Jesus about that — HE says that it’s the love of money that’s the problem.”
A better translation of that passage would be: “The love of money is the root of all sorts of evil.” It is not really saying that it is the root of all evil. But neither does the Bible say what Lancaster is saying.
In fact — Lancaster contradicts himself in that article. He says that the woman sinned first, but that it was the man’s sin that plunged the whole race into sin. So far, so good. But later on, he says that if it were not for male passivity, the woman would not have sinned.
This clearly implies that male passivity is a sin; therefore, since male passivity preceded the woman’s sin — the man was the first one to sin, not the woman.
OOPS! Better take a refresher course in logic, Phil!
September 6, 2007 at 9:40 pm
“This whole “Adam’s passivity was the problem” theme is another big bugaboo that I would like to address in another message — at some length.”
Mike, I wish you would address it.
If they blame so much on “male passivity”, that could explain why they place so much emphasis on male assertiveness, and act as though it is the cure for most of the world’s ills.
Supposedly though, male passivity disappeared soon after the Fall, and only re-emerged again with the advent of feminism the 20th century. So, even if male passivity did get the sin-ball rolling back in Eden, upon what do they blame the problems which have plagued mankind throughout the rest of human history?
September 6, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Mike,
I saw the same problem in Lancaster’s argument, too. It WAS man that sinned first when he stood there passively allowing Eve to step out from underneath his covering.
““Male passivity is the root of all evil. Is that statement stretching it a bit? Not by much. Sin would not have entered the world but for Adam’s lack of masculine leadership. And the ravages of sin would be much more contained even today if most men in most homes would seize the day by seizing the reins of family leadership.””
There is more fallacial reasoning on his part in the above paragraph.
For thousands of years men in homes were “seizing the reins of family leadership” and look at all the horrendous sin and atrocities committed during thousands of years of very hyper-patriarchal rule. The ravages of sin were just as bad then as they are now. There is nothing new under the sun. God had to wipe out the entire human race except for Noah and his family when patriarchs fully had the reins of family leadership. Lot barely escaped from Sodom that was infested with gangs of raping perverts and that was under patriarchal rule. In fact, if it were not for the two angels, Lot would have thrown out his virgin daughters to appease the lustful and disgusting appetites of the gang of rapists.
We could look at the book of judges for just how much the ravages of sin was curbed under patriarchal rule.
We could look at the history of Rome or just about any society.
Yep, again, it is NOT man who will save the day and make things better. It is God. This is just one of many reasons why I view the hyper-patriarchal system to be one of idolatry.
The focus is NOT on God or His remedy-Christ Jesus. It is on man and how man is elevated above all beings and how man is the key in making all things more godly. They put man on the throne. He is master of his own destiny. He is the dominion-taker who is to subue not only beast and plants but also he is to subdue his wife and children and any other human being he feels is under his authority or lesser than himself.
Christ is our ONLY hope to stem the ravages of sin. And Christ was not an after-thought. He was planned before man was ever created. If Eve hadn’t sinned, Adam would have or one of their children after them.
Also, the Fall was not about Eve’s sin against her husband (HUH?????) but about mankind’s sin against a Holy God. The patriocentrics always like to point out that the Fall is about the first feminist- Eve- who stepped out from under her husband’s leadership and covering and usurped his authority and sinned against him by rebelling against his authority. Where they get this stuff is beyond me. They certainly have to read this INTO the text because it just isn’t there. In order to prop up their system, they MUST read this stuff into these texts.
Again, they have put themselves at the center and God is relegated to the outer circle. This is why they can also claim to initiate covenant with God.
September 6, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Cindy G good point.
I also would like to know why for men who are born again and have been converted are still considered passive because of the sin of Adam? I don’t get it. This has been a relatively new teaching for me . I did not learn of this in my prior fundamentalist churches before now attending a reformed church.
September 6, 2007 at 10:13 pm
““God made man to take dominion, first of himself, then of his family, and then of some portion of this world (Gen. 1:26ff.). This is a chief way in which men exhibit the image of God. Passivity is a denial of what it means to be a man. The original man ceded control to his wife and ultimately to Satan. By God’s grace Christian men today can reclaim godly control of their families. This in turn will prepare them for dominion in other spheres and is the ultimate strategy for wresting control of this world away from the Evil One and returning it to the rightful heir of the world, our Lord Jesus.””
Funny how they never quite get this scripture right? I wonder if it is just a mistake that they continually ignore what the scripture ACTUALLY says? I suppose this makes it easier to claim that women should not vote since men are the ones who are called to take dominion and rule. But, since we are not voting for beasts or fish, I am not sure what that mandate has to do with voting. 🙂
“26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.””
THEM….man as in MANKIND, which includes male AND female. Hence the word “THEM”.
THEY, mankind, male AND female, were told to RULE over the fish and the beasts and creatures that move along the ground.
We so absolutely no orders for man alone to take dominion over his wife and children.
” 27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.”
So, vs. 27 tells us who the “them” is in vs. 26. That is why we have the “so” at the front of vs. 27 because we are to refer back to vs. 26.
” 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.””
There is that pesky word again- “THEM”. Here, again, we see God telling THEM, Adam and Eve, to rule and subdue.
“29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.””
This is an aside but I had never noticed that this verse said that God had given them EVERY TREE that has fruit with seed in it and that they wil be theirs for food.
Obviously it was not every tree that was given to them for food.
September 6, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Nice posts, Corrie.
You know…. God made Adam and Eve, and He pronounced them to be Very Good. They remained Very Good until they sinned by eating the Forbidden Fruit.
So, IF Adam was indeed passive BEFORE he sinned and ate the fruit, it follows that Adam’s passivity was a God given trait and was therefore also good, since Adam had not yet acquired a sin nature.
September 6, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Another thing —
Lancaster says,
“God made man to take dominion, first of himself, then of his family, and then of some portion of this world (Gen. 1:26ff.). This is a chief way in which men exhibit the image of God. Passivity is a denial of what it means to be a man. ”
So according tho Lancaster, when men are passive, they are NOT exhibiting the image of God, and are NOT seeking to be like Him; and he says that such passivity contributed to the Original Sin.
Yet, the Bible says that Adam and Eve ate the Fruit because they WANTED to be like God, knowing good and evil. Doesn’t sound very passive to me– quite the opposite.
September 7, 2007 at 12:16 am
Corrie: “Rise up, O men of God!
Have done with lesser things;
Give heart and soul and mind and strength
To serve the King of kings.
“I had always thought that hymn included women, too?”
Not at BCA. That was often sung by the men only.
Corrie, I loved your comments expositing the dominion verses. But shame on you for expositing Scripture on a blog where there are men present. You should know better than that! What if Doug were to read that? He might learn something biblically accurate from a woman! 😉
That passage is one of my pet peeves in this whole patriarchy/dominion theology debate. Men and women were told to take dominion over the animals. In other words, take your dog to obedience school and housebreak him! Don’t let him jump up on visitors. Don’t let your cat sleep on the dining room table. Or whatever. Be in charge!
Also, we see in Psalm 8 that we are to have dominion over the works of God’s hands. I think that means whatever God created – except other people. We obviously couldn’t go around taking dominion over other people just as we wished. But we are to take care of the earth – not worship it – just take care of it.
Sometimes I think the environmental wackos are obeying the dominion mandate more so than the dominionists. I am definitely opposed to that sort of environmentalism, but I think God is telling everyone, both men and women, to take good care of the gift of creation that He has bestowed upon us.
November 5, 2007 at 10:27 am
Jen,
I know this is an old thread, but it happens to be a very timely issue considering the political season springing to life. I was doing a little homework today, researching candidates (specifically how they stand on issues related to homeschooling) and I stumbled on this:
“October 29th, 2007
Jennie Chancey- homeschooling mom of 7 and co-author of Passionate Housewives Desperate for God
“Unlike other candidates for President who claim to be pro-homeschooling, Ron Paul understands that the greatest thing the federal government can do to help home schooling is to get out of the way. He is the only candidate campaigning for the complete abolishment of the federal Department of Education and all other unconstitutional education spending.””
Interesting to me for no other reason than she is very publicly endorsing a particular candidate when much of the teaching swirling about her would actually discourage women from voting. I thought this to be quite hypocritical and wanted to point it out.
Should you desire to go check it out for yourself, here’s the link. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/homeschoolers/endorsements/
And now for the disclaimer…this post and it’s content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the poster, the blog-owner, or the good folks at WordPress. HA!
Have a pleasant day,
Jean
November 5, 2007 at 10:52 am
Hi Jean! Thanks for pointing that out. I wonder why Jennie Chancey is allowed to have public opinions about politics, but other women are not? Do you think she’ll actually VOTE this election?
Now this is interesting to me because Ron Paul is running as a Republican and Doug Phillips is a Constitution Party-only advocate. What happens if Ron Paul gets the Republican nod and runs against the CP nominee? (Hillary wins.)
One of the things I’ve noticed in the patriarchy camp regarding politics is their desire to make gigantic changes all at once. What would really happen if we abolished the Department of Education all at once? Where would all those government employees and public school teachers go? What would happen to the children? Is there a transition plan in place? Of course not, or it would just be another government program. I think these people sometimes have their heads so high in the sky, they can’t see reality.
What’s the best way to do away with the Dept. of Education? How about a little competition? (OK. I’ll get off my soapbox on this issue now.)
I agree that a candidate’s stand on education is important, but let’s look at a much bigger picture other than just homeschooling. Most of America will NOT be voting based upon that issue.
November 5, 2007 at 11:17 am
Jen:
Not at BCA. That was often sung by the men only.
Morgan; SERIOUSLY???????
November 5, 2007 at 11:44 am
We have supported the Constitution Party since 1995, in 2004 I voted for Shrub -er – Dubya, simply because I could not bear the thought of President Kerry. I will do the same in 2008, whoever the GOP candidate is (even if it’s McCain – yikes!) I have come to realize that we should work hard to reform the GOP and not abandon it. What if Ronald Reagan had formed a third party in 1976?
Ron Paul is a good man, but he has no clue on foreign policy. My ideal candidate this go-round is Duncan Hunter. Huckabee is a liberal (ask Phyllis Schlafly), so is Romney, and Thompson has no pulse. My ideal 2008 ticket would be Giuliani-Hunter. As liberal as Rudy is, he appeals across the board, and I hope he’s serious about appointing strict constructionists to the judiciary. Any step that doesn’t elect the Republican but results in electing the Democrat will ultimately (permanently?) set back any gains made in the fight against Roe v. Wade, US sovereignty, individual Second Amendment rights, etc., etc.
Gotta think long term!
November 5, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Jen,
I certainly don’t want to stir the political pot here on your blog, so I won’t go there. I do think that Jennie’s endorsement raises some legitimate questions in light of this whole hyper-patriarchy focus, though.
You were chastised for voicing your political opinion. Is Jennie?
Men (according to Doug et al) are supposed to direct the political leanings of their households, wives are to follow. Where’s Matt Chancey?
Women (according to Doug et al) are not to vote. Will Jennie?
And Jen, I would agree with you about vast sweeping changes. We didn’t get into this mess all at once, and we won’t get out of it that way either. Seems like incrementalism got us here and could serve to get us back on track, too.
I will be looking to see if Jennie’s endorsement mysteriously disappears like so many other pesky hypocrisies that rear up for DP. Can’t have any of the soldiers talking out of turn now. There are appearances to maintain don’t you know.
Have a pleasant day,
Jean
November 5, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Morgan, yes, “Rise Up O Men of God” was often sung just by the men at BCA.
Bryan, Doug would say that you are basing your decision on pragmatism and pragmatism is a sin!
Jean, good question about why isn’t Matt Chancey endorsing Ron Paul rather than Jennie. It’s probably because Matt has been a political campaign manager and he doesn’t want to jeopardize his chances at future campaigns. Or maybe it’s because they would have to describe him as “Matt Chancey, author and independent investigator of Mrs. Binoculars.” 🙂
November 6, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Well, Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party’s VP candidate in 2004, is on the stump for Ron Paul! He sent out this missive today:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071106.html
Evidently, my take on Ron Paul’s foreign policy is different than Chuck’s … but I think the “War and Foreign Policy” blurb on Ron’s website is horrible! It comes across to me as simplistic and naïve in a post 9-11 world.
If Chuck’s view of Ron Paul’s plan to deal with terrorism and foreign policy is accurate, Ron could do himself a lot of good if he articulated it better! I might even be persuaded to take a serious look at him!
And if the Constitution Party’s own VP candidate is stumping for a GOP candidate, has pragmatism invaded the Party? (Not to mention all the fuss about Howard Phillips’ alleged “shenanigans” regarding the CP’s abortion plank, but alas, I digress. I guess bringing that up is about as relevant as discussing Brad Phillips and his alleged theft of a Sudan video. If the topic is Doug Phillips’ ecclesiatical tyranny, I suppose I should not be lumping his family members’ alleged transgressions in with him simply because they are all related! The next thing you know, people might start lumping RC Sr. in with RC Jr., and so on, etc. Highly unfair.)
Anyway Jen, sorry for “hijacking the thread”! 🙂
November 6, 2007 at 6:45 pm
A CP guy stumping for a Republican? I smell something! Kind of reminds me of the voting letter I wrote to Doug, when I suggested that his candidates should work from within the Republican party instead. Hmm. This makes me even more leery of Ron Paul.
But I digress from this blog’s aim. I voted today, and I hope that everyone here who has the PRIVILEGE of voting took the opportunity to be heard and voice their OPINION. I thanked God for a brain to make wise decisions and as I read through the 17 proposed amendments we were voting on today, I didn’t see one attempting to change who has the God-given right to vote in America. (Did God give the men the right to vote? Just wondering, if He doesn’t allow women to vote.)
As for Howard, I think the case is stronger than just “alleged.” 🙂
May 30, 2010 at 9:30 pm
[…] https://jensgems.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/vision-forum-god-does-not-allow-women-to-vote/ […]