I always thought the home school community was split into two camps: 1) Very prepared, capable and intelligent men and women who really can properly educate their children better than the public school system -and then we have the- 2) Gullible Gomers!
The whole thing is just creepy. It is like drawing a beard on the Mona Lisa but only this is worse.
There are many good old pictures that depict a father and daughter in NORMAL poses. But, why this? It is just so not right.
The man is clearly not old enough to be her father. I would love to hear the thoughts on the one who messed with this piece of art. What is this depicting? Is the father supposed to be taller than the daughter (clearly the dimensions of his shoulders and such show us that this man is no bigger than this woman) or is she kneeling before him? And what is going on with her hand? What are they looking at? Where did the sword go? And why is the crowd watching them?
Does anyone know what the parable is about? Maybe that is the key to the picture? Maybe she is giving him the key to her heart but, if that is the case, her aim is quite low. Or maybe she is helping to dress him?
So many questions I have!
It doesn’t look good for homeschoolers and our appreciation of fine art.
Of course, she IS a monstrous woman with a sword to boot! Everyone knows that women should not rule so maybe they felt it necessary to change this artwork to depict a woman’s rightful place before a man?
Light, the copyright expired and this piece of art is now in the public domain.
Corrie, here is the description from Vision Forum: “In Sleeping Beauty and the Five Questions, Doug Phillips challenges fathers on the importance of guarding their daughters’ hearts at all costs, how to shield them from the pressures of a peer-oriented society and inappropriate romantic relationships, and how to prepare them as a bride — a godly young woman of purity for the young man of their dreams whom God is preparing.”
I heard this message a couple times, but I’ll have to refresh my memory on what it was.
Sleeping Beauty — what a great analogy for how a young woman is raised in Patrio-Land. No higher education, no dating, no working outside the home, just waiting at home and serving her father until Dad releases her into the custody of the young man of his choice.
Anonymous: “I don’t get it. I can appreciate how offensive the King Arthur legend must be to your sensibilities, but what’s “inappropriate” about it?”
“Anonymous” is the only name that is not allowed on this website. Please make up a name if you don’t want to use your real name. Otherwise, I will make up one for you. Thanks.
Why would the King Arthur legend offend me? It doesn’t in the least. True chivalry never goes out of style. What is inappropriate about taking a beautiful work of art and altering it to make the man higher than the woman, to take the sword out of the hand of the woman and make her appear as if she were extending her hand in some odd way to the man instead, to take one man out of the audience and make it appear as if he were the father who guided this couple into matrimony, to make it appear as if a young lady who gives her heart to her father will someday be blessed with a knight in shining armor, and that all she has to do is to be a sleeping beauty in this whole process, having no emotions about it at all, just fully trusting in her father to pick out a wonderful knight just for her? I guess you should tell me if there’s anything inappropriate about that. 😉
You would think that the original picture would have been almost perfect for a young man to be kneeling in front of the woman to ask for her hand in marriage if they had just removed the sword.
Cynthia: “No higher education, no dating, no working outside the home, just waiting at home and serving her father until Dad releases her into the custody of the young man of his choice.”
Bingo! And no having romantic thoughts until Dad approves of your knight in shining armor either. That is the sleeping part. I have actually heard messages that the romantic part of you should go to sleep until you are married. And let’s not forget the beauty part either!
Hutch – great comment about dominion! Yes, they are taking dominion over the culture by revising art that is non-normative. And nude art is definitely out! I have seen others (no one at VF that I know of) put clothes on pictures of naked statues.
Maybe someone who knows about art should take a trip through the other covers of Doug’s messages and see if we find any more revisionist art. Perhaps that dominion-taking art revisionist has been busy. 🙂
Well, they HAD to move the woman’s position lower and remove the sword from her hand. If they had not, it would have shown a woman with some modicum of authority over the man, and that would of course never have been acceptable.
You’d think they could have found SOME work of art, or commissioned one, that actually illustrated the book’s topic. Or maybe the topic’s simply too “out there.”
Me, I don’t like nude art–I take literally the Biblical commands about modesty and such. But while I’m not going to have it in my house or set out to go stare at it, I’m not getting my all stressed out about it.
You know, I have been thinking a lot more about this “cut-and-paste” job. Perhaps, Doug could develop a software package for enterprising young journalists or illustrators/layout designers. He could market it in his next Vision Forum catalogue.
The Dominionist Designer: Your son can have hours of fun with this latest product offered by Vision Forum. Learn how to take dominion over your culture by modifying images of monstrous feminists as portrayed by popular culture and putting them in their proper place!
Wait a minute. We may be all wrong on the meaning of this modified illustration. I think sleeping beauty still has the sword in her hand and this is illustrating how modern day feminists are trying to “neuter men” making us into the “new castrati”. She really is in fact a monstrous feminist herself putting her suitor in his proper place. Grin.
This is so disturbing and horrid on sooo many levels…some of which aren’t appropriate to discuss here.
I just think this shows a real LACK of respect on the part of Vision Forum and whoever okayed the design for this cover. What were they thinking? Even if the work is in the public domain, as far as I’m concerned they have NO right to mess it up like they did. The positioning, expression, and pose of the figures just does not look right. At all. It’s incredibly awkward, tacky, and actually suggestive, and I’m amazed that the art director for this piece didn’t see that.
And the typography and color scheme…just bad. You can hardly see the “Douglas” against her sleeve, the colors are that similar.
I’m a graphic designer, so I notice these things…if I showed an idea like that to my teacher in all seriousness, she’d laugh me out of the building. The entire thing is just one big bundle o’ horrid. I’d give it a failing grade!
Oh, and about nude studies…you’ve got to do them if you really want to be good at figure drawing. Nude sketching helps you work out the proportions of the human body…how the muscles move and flex, how the skin folds and tucks. There is a world of of difference in each human figure as to proportions and how the veins, muscles, and joints show up under the skin, and you have to do nude studies, as well as a lot of looking at anatomy books, to see that and understand it. Ideally, if you draw someone with clothes on, an artist should be able to look at that drawing and extrapolate how the muscles are positioned under the clothing.
To me as an artist there is a BIG difference between pornography and a nude sketch, and there are a lot of good resources out there for an artist that do not involve porn. I see no shame, personally, in looking at the naked human figure. We are a beautiful creation, after all, even though we are marred by sin.
I don’t know if this fits in the same category or not . . .
(now you see it, now you don’t)
The San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival has announced the categories for this year’s competition:
* Best of Film Festival
* Best Narrative Short
* Best Documentary Short
* Best Creation Short
* Best Biblical Family Short
* Best Political Short
* Best American Historical Short
* Best Young Filmmakers Short
* Best Film Trailer
* Audience Award
* Best Film Treatment
Missing from the list this year is “Best Animation,” a category that appears to have been specially created 2 years ago in order to award a homeschooler for his 31-minute Lego stop-action re-enactment “Winston Churchill: Escape from Pretoria.”
Is Doug, or is he not, encouraging the creation of animated films?
Yes, I guess he is. Doug’s Blog for October 2006 has a link to a 3-minute Computer Animated pirate brickfilm made by the Botkins.
What concerns me is that the definition of “Christian Film” has now degraded to anything that meets the following criteria:
1) No foul language (but lying to the prison guards is OK)
2) No gratuitous violence (but blowing up pirate ships is OK)
3) No kissing except by spouses (but swordfights are OK)
4) No immodest attire (even on pirates)
5) Made by someone inside Doug’s sphere of approval
RefCal, thanks for all your research and noticing disappearing categories. I believe that you have hit the nail on the head regarding the creating of the animation category. Unfortunately, it appears that similar things happen at that Film Festival in many, although not all, of the other categories as well (see #5 on your list of “Christian” criteria).
Cynthia, kissing became immoral when Doug found that he could make a huge display of witnessing the “first kiss” between couples on their wedding day. Since young unmarried people in Doug’s version of patriarchy are encouraged not to even think about romance, kissing on screen might lead to “unwholesome” thoughts.
“Cynthia, kissing became immoral when Doug found that he could make a huge display of witnessing the “first kiss” between couples on their wedding day.”
Keeping in mind that the Holy Spirit guides the church (and dwells in all Christians, transforming us by the “renewing of our minds”), I really have to wonder why, in the last 50 or 100 or 500 years of Christian history, no one else has made quite such a big deal of this.
Sometimes, it seems as though Phillips and all of these other “bright young things” think that they invented Christianity.
“Sometimes, it seems as though Phillips and all of these other “bright young things” think that they invented Christianity.”
Oh, but they did! It’s a unique pick-and-choose mix of a little proof-texted Scripture in support of highly unscriptural cultural preferences for a former time that never really was. Kind of like a Broadway version of Camelot: anachronistic, artificial, and audaciously self-serving (if you’re the top dog, that is).
Huh. My husband and I saved our first kiss (and hug and hand holding and . . .) till we were married good and proper–and we DID IT IN PRIVATE! We didn’t figure it was anyone else’s business–it was special and private between US. Long before I ever found Jen’s site, I read one of Doug’s waxing eloquent posts about watching a couple’s first kiss and I was like, “Oooohhh–Yuck!” I’m SO thankful we kept ours our own business.
WOW, thanks for your creative poetry, but I do ask that you still treat Doug with Christian charity. I did edit your poem slightly.
Cynthia, I think you bring up a good point. The Bible does not say, “Thou shalt not kiss anyone before your wedding day.” Now, that might be a nice memory between the couple and it certainly can be good not to have any memories of your spouse having a relationship with someone else, but it is just not a biblical command in any way. There are many commands against sexual immorality and if you are doing something that would lead to sin, then you shouldn’t do that, but we cannot arbitrarily draw the line at never having kissed, when God Himself does not draw that line.
Happymom4, I’m curious. If your first kiss was after you were married, but was in private, how did you manage that? Didn’t you kiss during the ceremony?
Psalmist, I do think you are correct in that this version of patriarchy is promoting a preference for a former time that never really was – and then we call it biblical. I wonder if Doug’s version of patriarchy means that everyone who came behind him for the last 2000 years was deep in sin in all areas of patriarchy in which they were not so enlightened. It is something to think about, isn’t it?
I wouldn’t presume to guess what Doug Phillips’ version of patriarchy means, Jen. (smile) I do know that he and some of his philosophically-matched brothers (and a sister or two) accuse egalitarians of ignoring 2,000 years of tradition, yet they’re instituting stuff that has never been done before. What’s up with that?
I thought that was interesting about your and your husband’s first kiss, Happy. I’ve recognized for quite a while now that the all-important kiss, just like almost everything in a “traditional” wedding ceremony, has nothing to do with the Christian faith. I don’t mean that the kiss and all the other stuff is CONTRARY to the faith, only that there’s virtually nothing in the ceremony that is REQUIRED by the faith. It’s mostly legal and secular ethical concerns.
Example: The “giving away” of the bride is completely extrabiblical. The practice is rooted in a culture that said a man can give his daughter to whatever man he chooses (which was usually following a hefty price paid by the father to the prospective husband). This is somewhat at odds with the later addition of the consent, which is a legal requirement. Essentially, it says that both husband and wife consent to the marriage and are not being coerced into it. (Goes against arranged marriages that brides/grooms don’t want, wouldn’t you think?) And then there’s the whole issue of attendants, who really only entered the picture because of the old legal requirement for witnesses, and the bride’s attendant also came out of weathly brides’ having a servant or friend near by to assist with her fine attire. And the kiss? A relatively recent addition required by neither law nor tradition.
Now, there’s a nasty old custom, for which I forget the French name, in which the overlord of the couple could claim the right to “have the first time” with the bride. (Trying to be delicate here.) For the high and mighty “authority” of pastor/elder to have such an inordinate “witnessing” of the first kiss…well, I know it’s not the same, but it gives me the same creeped-outness as the overlord’s prerogative.
Anyway, weddings have only gotten to be these big extravagant productions in the past century, with the earlier exception of the weddings of royalty and other very high-ranking people. At the essence, a couple marries each other and declares their intention to enter into the marriage and their vows before witnesses. When weddings occur in the context of Christian worship, the intention and vows are considered to have been made before God and the worshiping community, but it’s the same simple, basic components: intention, vows, and declaration of validity of the marriage by someone legally authorized to do so. Rings are not mandatory. Special attire is not mandatory. Kisses and “give-aways” and attendants and processions/recessions and flowers and photography and videography and flower girls and bride’s/groom’s sides and all that stuff are fluff. Most people think a lot of that is nice fluff, sure. But that’s not what Christian weddings are all about. There was a time here in the U.S. when Protestant ministers served circuits and were at a given church relatively rarely. When he (occasionally she) was there, couples would all get married at the end of the worship service, or if a judge had performed the wedding, those already married would have their marriages recognized (solemnized) at that time. Like so many other practices, we have complicated weddings an awful lot beyond what’s essential. I think earlier generations and cultures had the right idea: simple wedding and as elaborate and fun a party as the couple’s families (bride’s and/or groom’s, as that culture dictated) could afford. Is it more important for everyone to see the bride be queen for a half-hour, or to celebrate afterward?
I just noticed something else about “The Accolade,” and with all the other Photoshopping they did, I think Phillips’ people should have fixed this, too:
Lancelot (or should I say, the finace?) is pretty clearly wearing a heraldic design that incorporates a very prominent crescent moon. Funny how they were so careful to get that sword of authority out of Guinevere’s hand, but left Lancelot wearing a heathen symbol. Maybe they’ll fix that in the next printing.
Jen and all . . . we had a pretty simple wedding. 😉 I ascribe to a lot of what Jim Elliot had to say about weddings. 😉 (Which fits in with a lot of what Psalmist said too). We didn’t get escorted up the aisle by attendents, kiss in public, get rice or seeds thrown at us . . . etc. It’s not that I would say those things are necessarily wrong in and of themselves–just that yes, we didn’t have to have them to get married, and we wanted our wedding to be simple and more focused on spiritual things rather than emotional and earthly traditions. As to the non-public kissing . . . after we exchanged our vows at the front of the church the pastor had us kneel for prayer and prayed a blessing on us, and then when we arose he presented us to the church as husband and wife! There was no need to kiss to prove we were husband and wife . . . 😉 We walked down the aisle together and left immediately. Prior to heading to the reception site (which was a couple miles from the church) we found a nice little country side road to pull off on and park for our own private hugs and kisses before proceeding on to the reception. Much better than having to do it in front of all the peeping eyes! 😉
A funny story along this line . . . Many years ago, an older gent of our aquaintance told me that he’d asked my husband one day if we had a “hand’s off” courtship. He said my husband had gotten very quiet for a while, and he finally gave up on the idea of an answer from my husband. My husband finally said to him, “yes, we did–and we sure made up for it afterwards!” 😉
Psalmist, I know exactly what Doug’s version of patriarchy is and that is much of what this blog is about! Start with the “Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy” and fill in with the stories I provide. It’s fairly up front.
As far as weddings go, I prefer the simplicity myself. Thanks for the history lesson, Psalmist. It’s good to be reminded that none of those things are actually necessary.
Nice story, Happymom4. I guess you are entitled to choose whether you would like to kiss publicly or privately. Any public kissing at the reception then? 😉
Nope, we didn’t do any public kissing at the reception either. . . . held hands underneath the table though! LOL! 😉
No flower or garter tossing, no toasts . . . . like I said, it was PRETTY SIMPLE. But it was great–and I’m happily married for 16 years since!
Ewww, yuck…the garter thing! One of my absolute least-favorite wedding traditions.
To give a little perspective, I’m my church’s wedding coordinator. I’ve only been doing it about a year, but let me tell you, I’ve SEEN some stuff! (shudder)
Here in Texas, it’s popular for brides to pose for a bunch of pictures with the groomsmen. IMO, NOT good taste. The worst is the also-popular pose with the men holding the bride up at about their shoulder level while she’s on her side, legs straight out, head propped on her hand, as though she’s a canoe they’re all lifting together. IOW, their hands are holding up her elbow, ribcage, hip, thigh, and calf. Again, I find it in very poor taste. (For THAT, they kept the reception guests waiting??) >:P
K, do you consider courtship vs. dating to be a minor issue? Do you think it is worth discussing? There is a difference between picking and having a discussion about various aspects of getting to the altar. You are welcome to give your opinion here, K. I would like to hear what you think. If it’s not a subject that interests you, though, you don’t have to participate.
I think Harris jumped on a religiously-popular bandwagon, set up a highly artificial and legalistic method, and made a bunch of money off it. I wasn’t impressed with the book, personally. He broad-brushed dating with the worst possible spin, then essentially proposed a system in which women have very limited autonomy in meeting their eventual husbands, all on flimsy or non-existent biblical grounds.
If that’s “picking,” I’m guilty. I think it’s a lot more accurate to say that I have reasons that I don’t mind stating for thinking a lot of things taught in the church are just so much hot air. I’m not going to let someone else dictate what I should consider to be “minor issues that just don’t matter” or silence me about expressing valid opinions on even secondary and tertiary issues.
It appears that you “pick” at partcipants here quite a bit, K. Why is that?
When I was young, dating was how the young people in a community got to know one other, and how they learned with whom they were compatible enough to persue a more serious relationship, with marriage as the ultimate goal.
Our parish priest back then said that there was nothing wrong with dating as long as the dating couple didn’t do anything wrong while they were out on a date!
(…and for the record, I am 49 years old, and both sets of my grandparents dated, and my parents dated, and NONE of them divorced, their whole lives long. My husband and I dated too, and we have been married since 1980.)
I have been married for almost 25 years, my parents for 45 and my grandparents for almost for almost 65 years. We all dated some, too, but can’t we all agree that today’s culture is so different than when we were younger?
In the last 20 years, our nation’s morals have quickly and steadily declined. Today, most dating is the fast-track to eventual fornication, giving away that which is precious, because it has become devalued in our society. Marriage typically is not the modern day goal for dating. It is very rare today, to find a virgin on his or her wedding day.
I think this new, but old, thought of not dating around and saving the heart for the one that God sends is not a bad thing. It is worth a closer look.
How many of us or our spouses had given hearts away (more than once) to those we never ended up with? How many “kisses” did we give away to the one that never ended up as our mate? Moreover, how many jealous husbands and wives are there, who know about the other’s “first love” because the heart was given away to the wrong person at the wrong time, too early?
I don’t look at the stand these young people are making as legalistic or radical religion. I think a lot of them have looked around and are seeing that modern-day dating isn’t working very well. Their decisions not to date are counter-cultural, though, and does go against mainstream society. They are choosing a different road, but it is working for them.
In my area, I have seen young people who have made these choices. Some have gotten married to wonderful mates and others are still waiting. They are all happy for the choices they have purposefully made. The married ones and engaged couples that I know are happy that they saved not only themselves physically, but also saved their hearts for their ‘one and only’.
Personally, I wish that when I was a young(er) lady, I would have heard of this concept. I believe that had I not given my own heart away (too early), I would have not had any of the baggage that I did when I finally did marry my knight in shining armor. 🙂
IF it’s working well for people, AND IF the woman is as completely free in her choices as the man is, then that’s fine. IF they’ve chosen not to date, great.
The problem is that there are people like Harris and those who promote his system who are imposing this on young people as the ONLY way that Christians should do things. And like it or not, Harris advocates keeping daughters out of the loop on who gets to court their daughters. Daughters are not the brainless, gullible people that some Christians are making them out to be…unless, that is, their families MAKE them brainless and gullible.
If they’re strong followers of Jesus Christ, daughters are going to be well-equipped to make good decisions about their futures. The problem is when their pastors and families settle for keeping them obedient follows of their fathers alone, stepping between their daughters and Christ. That’s what happens when men buy the lie that they’re to be “priests” to their wives and children.
“How many “kisses” did we give away to the one that never ended up as our mate? Moreover, how many jealous husbands and wives are there, who know about the other’s “first love” because the heart was given away to the wrong person at the wrong time, too early?”
It isn’t “kisses” that are the problem. As you say, most dating today does not have marriage as its goal, but that’s not the fault of the dating, it’s the fault of the daters.
When Christians only date other Christians, with an eye towards finding a spouse rather that a “pleasure partner”, and when they limit their physical contact to kissing and hand holding, then there is no problem, and we have no need of this courtship nonsense.
Certanly, people may give their heart to the wrong person a time or two, but as long as there is no intimate contact, any spouse who is so jealous as to have a problem with the fact that their husband or wife once dated, kissed, or fell in love with someone else is not mature enough to be anyone’s spouse in the first place. Indeed, one of the purposes of dating is to get to know potential spouses well enough so as not to end up married to a jealous psycho in the first place.
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).”
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
[…] 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 […]