The Biblical Patriarchy Movement - Page 3

[PGTlatte]

OP, have you seen this book:

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

Good information.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by bluebirdiemama

If one reads the New Testament they find God "equips whom He calls". The power to do something is supposed to come from God, not from within ourselves. If someone is trying to live a "Godly life" in their own power, they are going to fail.

So if a man is happier in an egalitarian marriage, does this mean he's abandoned the godly path? I strongly disagree with this, and this is one reason why I think the Patriarchy Movement is harmful, because it takes a model that may work for some couples, and turns it into a mould that every one who wants to be godly should be trying to pour themselves into.

If it doesn't work for them, then they're just not trusting God enough.

It is true to say that a Holy Scripture will always, unyeildingly be what it essencially is. But how can you say that it is not true for scientific findings?

Scientific findings are interpreted by fallible humans with incomplete knowledge. Sometimes these humans or their successors come across a new piece of information that disproves a prior theory that was widely-respected.

Good scientists have to always be willing to detach themselves from even their most dearly-held theories, should new evidence come to light that disproves them.

Religion tends not to follow the scientific approach. If a dearly-held doctrine gets challenged or even disproved, such as a doctrine about women's roles in marriage or in the church, a church or denomination may eventually decide to modify its stance on this doctrine, but usually only after the majority of people have totally rejected it.

I really like the story of Mary and Martha, too.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by laundrycrisis

OP, have you seen this book:

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

Good information.

I am wanting to read this. I keep hoping one day I'll see it at our local library, so I can check it out.

[bluebirdiemama]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

So if a man is happier in an egalitarian marriage, does this mean he's abandoned the godly path? I strongly disagree with this, and this is one reason why I think the Patriarchy Movement is harmful, because it takes a model that may work for some couples, and turns it into a mould that every one who wants to be godly should be trying to pour themselves into.

If it doesn't work for them, then they're just not trusting God enough.

.

The Bible says that to be saved one must "confess with his mouth that Jesus is Lord".
It makes no claims that we have to life a certain life.

It does say that we can be set free from our earthly bondages, that he who seeks knowledge has to only ask and it will be given to him, that anyone who knows the promises of God can ask for anything promised, in Jesus name, and it will be given to him.
It also says that God demands faith. Your signature says you are 'Jesus lovin' so I can assume this is relevant to some degree for you... there is so much history can tell us about Jesus. After that, we step out in faith and we decide to trust God.
He asks the same thing in other area of our lives. When we hear the Spirit and step out in faith, we are blessed beyond what we can ask or think.

No one is on a godly path until they ask God to direct their steps.

Deciding to give something over to God, and ask Him to conform them to His will is very difficult. It involves self sacrifice, constant vigilence, pressures and temptations, meditation, perseverance. It is indeed much easier to not submit to God's will.

If a person becomes a Christian but does not... say... abandon the anger they have towards their parents, then maybe they don't know the promises of God so that they can submit to His will, but regardless, they are not submiting. And thus that anger will continue to hold power over them.
If a person does not give an addiction to the Lord, it will continue to have power over them.
Or feelings of worthlessness
or of anxiety
or of dominance over another person
or self-righteousness
Whatever the affliction, it is there because of sinful actions (the definition of sin being anything that separates us from God).

And if we choose to submit it to God, and ask Him to reveal truths to us, He will show us things we did not previously see. (we are coming from a flawed human perspective and there are so many things we don't understand... and thus the need for faith).


And of course any person with any believe system can be so rooted in their thoughts that they will not consider another option.
I am not one of those people. I have only been a Christian for ... not even 2 years. When I first became a Christian I went back, literally, for months, about 50 times, if not more, and re-revaluated why I believed what I believe. If I come across somethng in the Bible that I find inconsistent with who I have come to know God to be, I am willing to see it as discredited. I do not believe in changing the Bible, as I do not see God as something that changes.


I find this conversation very interesting... and certainly want to continue it, but I am probably going to read through the 5-8 or so posts I haven't read yet, to try to get a better feel for where you are coming from, mammal_mama, before I post again. I think we might be coming from such different angles that we won't be able to understand each other until the 2 approaches to the subject are better understood first....

[bluebirdiemama]

Or maybe, would you explain where you are coming from? Who do you see Jesus as? What do you believe He came to accomplish?
What do you believe about the law of the Old Testament vs the law of the New Testament? Do you think God requires things of us?
What, specifically, do you think are the "gender roles" and how do you think the "Patriachy Movement" defines them?
Do you believe God requires us to submit ourselves to Him in any way?



I do, btw, have a problem with the "patriachy" you are describing and are so opposed to, I just don't think the Bible supports it.
When taken out of context some things in the Bible can seem to suggest such a system, but when you are looking at only the Bible, and the whole Bible, I just don't think the case can be made.
There are systems that claim to be Christian, but have added other scriptures to the brew, like Mormonism. They believe that the scriptures are "living" in the term that holy doctrine is continually being added and changed. They also believe that the holy priesthood (basically all men, except unmarried) literally have the words of God coming out of their mouths. So anything a man in the priesthood says, is literally the word of God and obviously cannot be disputed. This I have a huge problem with.

What is talking about in the Bible is; when submitting to God you are capable of all these things..... patience, love for enemies, respect for husband (even when he doesn't deserve it), miraculous healing, restoration of mind and spirit, freedom from fear and anxiety, the ability to love your wife as Christ loves the church.....
When one is not in submission to God's will they won't be able to accomplish these things, and so I think it is pointless to expect it of them... (I am meaning that, if a man isn't looking to God, you can't expect him to do as God wishes as the "man of the house"... or whatever you want to call it)

[PGTlatte]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

I am wanting to read this. I keep hoping one day I'll see it at our local library, so I can check it out.

Here is another that looks interesting...I have not read it and probably won't, because it is coming from a religious viewpoint that isn't a fit for me.....but it is along the lines of this discussion:

Quivering Daughters by Hillary McFarland

[cappuccinosmom]

I am very interested to read that book. Even as a "complementarian" who looks in many ways like a "patriarchalist". And we're QF.

Having been through a cult experience, I have so much empathy for people who have been spiritually abused. I don't expect the book to change my mind on my convictions, but I am really interested in the cult dynamics and how we as a family can avoid them and also be "watchmen" who point them out when we spot them growing.

My only worry with books like these (and the blogs that were their "seeds") is that people read them and say "Oh, you look like such-and-such group, you must be cultic like them" or take the term "Quiverful" and redefine it to mean "spiritually oppresive patriarchalists" rather than the original and more basic "open to life/opposed to contraception".

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by bluebirdiemama

Or maybe, would you explain where you are coming from? Who do you see Jesus as? What do you believe He came to accomplish?
What do you believe about the law of the Old Testament vs the law of the New Testament? Do you think God requires things of us?
What, specifically, do you think are the "gender roles" and how do you think the "Patriachy Movement" defines them?
Do you believe God requires us to submit ourselves to Him in any way?

Hi, I only have a few minutes to respond right now which I know is not enough time. I'll try to give a more adequate response later on.

I no longer see the Bible, in its entirety, as completely inspired by God. I do still believe God speaks to us, and sometimes He does through the Bible -- but, like you, I see the Scriptures that go against my personal knowledge of what God is like to be simply reflections of man's perceptions of right and wrong, and love, in those time periods.

Much of the Old Testament comes from the archaic perspective that punishment and shedding of blood "solves" problems and pays off debts. I no longer believe that this is God's perspective.

I have lately been learning to think less and less in terms of male/female roles and more and more in terms of human roles and loving one another, starting in the family group and moving all the way out into the farthest reaches of society. I don't think we need set roles in order to love one another better. I actually think we need more flexibility and spontaneity.

I have to go now but I'll come back at my next opportunity.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by bluebirdiemama

Or maybe, would you explain where you are coming from? Who do you see Jesus as? What do you believe He came to accomplish? What do you believe about the law of the Old Testament vs the law of the New Testament?

Jesus is God's son and Mary's son: fully God and fully human. The conception of Jesus works both ways: making man more spiritual and making God more human.

I grew up being taught that Jesus died on the cross because we are sinners, and God loves us but hates our sin, so Jesus needed to die to take our punishment for us, since God couldn't forgive sin without the shedding of blood.

Becoming a parent has tranformed my thinking in so many ways. I've realized that I don't need to see my kids suffer in order to forgive their wrongdoing.

Now I believe that the Old Testament requirement for blood was steeped in man's desire to gain some control over this crazy adventure called life, and to assure himself that if he did the right things he'd be protected and rewarded, and that those who hurt him or his loved ones would be punished, if not in this life, then in the next one.

I believe that The Fall recorded in Genesis was actually our evolution into rational creatures who became aware of ourselves as separate and disctict beings, and realized that we had different options to choose from, and also that we could think about and plan for the future.

I think it represents the toddlerhood or adolescence of humanity, and man felt very alone just as a toddler often feels alone when he toddles off on some adventure, not thinking about Mommy until he needs her.

I don't think it's any accident that Erickson labeled the phase of toddlerhood as a time of conflict between autonomy and shame and doubt. Toddlerhood, like adolescence, is a time of differentiation, when people become more aware of themselves as unique beings, with their own thoughts and desires and goals.

I now see man's banishment from the Garden more as man's sense that "there's no going back" to our original innocence or ignorance. Like it or not, it was time to move out into the great big world, which of course was (and continues to be) both exciting and scary.

In healthy families, growing up comes full circle. Children eventually realize that, even at their most independent and strong-willed times, they were never truly separated from their parents, and that they are forever inextricably intertwined with them.

I believe that even at the times when we've felt most separated from God, God has never separated Himself from us. I no longer claim to understand everything about Jesus' crucifixion -- but I now see it more as God's way of releasing us from our need to punish ourselves and others for wrongdoing.

It was a way of saying, "Okay, maybe the only way you can move on right now is to see a "paid in full'-stamp on your list of sins as well as on the lists that you are holding against others. But someday you will be ready to learn a better way."

Do you think God requires things of us?

I think God is calling us all to become more fully spiritual and connected to all of life, or in other words to become more fully human (I like what I've heard Bishop Spong say about this).

When I think of this as a requirement, I think of it more in the context of what's required for each person's unique journey into health and wellbeing. As in, we may "need" to change our diets in order to have more energy. It's a need we have, not something anyone else can "require" of us, if that makes sense.

What, specifically, do you think are the "gender roles" and how do you think the "Patriachy Movement" defines them?

To get a better idea of how the leaders of the Patriarchy Movement define the gender roles, I recommend that you visit the Vision Forum Ministries website, and then click on "Statements of Doctrine" and then on "The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy."

I think our role as humans is to love, and to keep on learning and practicing how to do it better. In some ways this will look the same for each person, and in other ways it will look different for each person.

I definitely believe in individual uniquenesses and giftings; I just no longer see it as a male/female thing. I actually think there are more than just two distinct sexes.

Do you believe God requires us to submit ourselves to Him in any way?

Hmmm. If you mean in the sense of totally not wanting to do something and totally thinking it's wrong and unloving (to ourselves or others), but stepping out in faith and doing it anyway because someone tells us it's God's will for us to subject ourselves to this even if if feels horrible and sick -- then no.

But if you mean in the sense of partly wanting to do something and strongly feeling like it's the right and loving thing to do, but partly hesitating because we'd be stepping out into scary and unfamiliar territory or others might think badly of us -- then yes, I do.

I should probably stop here for now. I look forward to hearing back from you and any others who'd like to comment.

[Thao]

Originally Posted by bluebirdiemama

I don't want what I was saying to be taken out of the intended meaning. I believe that God is here with us now, and works in our lives on a personal level. I believe that He made each person unique and so for a very specific purpose.
In the letters to the churches, which is where most of the "gender role information" is given, you have to look at the purpose of why it was included. And the purpose was/is to help individuals to function to their highest potential, in the will of God, in their homes and church bodies. That all tying into how we form the body of Christ, and the Lord does have a will and purpose (on a personal scale) but also a worldwide scale.
There some basic truths that, if we apply them to our lives, we will be blessed beyond what we can ask or think.

As far as I can understand from your response, your worldview denies the possibility that a woman can find her highest fulfillment in a traditional "male" leadership role AND be godly at the same time. So if a woman tells you that she is very unfulfilled at home but really loves the corporate environment, you will assume that she is not in submission to God. Right?

And if you follow this believe in a scientific manner, you will find nothing that supports the need for value of the individual (which is the whole drive behind compassion right?). So while it is definitely possible to believe in compassion for the individual and Darwinism at the same time, the two are not linked together by any logically, measurable or definite way.

There's been a lot of research recently about how compassion gives an evolutionary advantage to groups, so your statement that compassion and evolution are not linked is outdated. There is still debate of course, science being science, but there is evidence to say that compassion (or altruism, which is what the scientists call it) is an evolved characteristic. It has also been found in animals, which supports this theory.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by Thao

There's been a lot of research recently about how compassion gives an evolutionary advantage to groups, so your statement that compassion and evolution are not linked is outdated. There is still debate of course, science being science, but there is evidence to say that compassion (or altruism, which is what the scientists call it) is an evolved characteristic. It has also been found in animals, which supports this theory.

Speaking of this, has anyone heard the story of the leopard seal who tried to feed penguins to a photographer who she'd found in her waters? She thought he needed some help learning to take care of himself. First she brought him live penguins, then penguins that were weak, then she killed them for him and eventually, if I'm remembering right, she even tried to show him how to tear them apart so he could eat them.

It seems that compassion is not just a human quality, but a quality that can emerge anytime that life is combined with intelligence and rationality. I really think it's an essence of God that we all carry within us; we can nurture it or we can oppress it with rules and institutionalized ways of thinking.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009...pher-video.php

[mammal_mama]

I've been thinking a lot about institutionalized ways of thinking and how they affect marriage. I was recently reading a thread at the No Longer Qivering forum, in which is mentioned this view that marriage is an institution that's to be upheld at all costs; it's seen as more important than the wellbeing of the individuals involved.

I think something similar is said in The Shack, an awesome book that I read a while back. I think that people who institutionalize marriage tend to think in terms of everyone following the rules and everyone staying in his or her "place" or appointed role.

When you think about it, institutions are formed more to preserve the traditional ways of doing things than they are to empower individuals to love one another and enjoy life. I found an article about cultural preservation a while back. It's rather long but if anyone's interested, the link is at the end of this post.

The author makes the excellent point that perservation is more about dying than it is about living. To preserve something is to basically kill it in order to prevent change; preservation can't really prevent change altogether, so really it just slows it down.

A pastor of a church I used to be a part of once preached a series of sermons on how we are called to be "a dead church" (applying the Scriptures on dying to ourselves). He loved railing about how dead people don't have rights, they don't get offended, etcetera, etcetera.

One of my friends used to silently add stuff like, "And if I'm dead I also can't pray for someone, or hug someone, or visit sick people, or work in the nursery, either." This pastor definitely didn't want people to feel like they had an option to refuse to do stuff in the church; it was more like his whole glorification of death was to get people to just be robots for Jesus, doing as they were told and not creating more work for him by having opinions and disagreements and so on.

He once preached that there was "no such thing as emotional abuse," and one of my friends who had turned to him for marriage counseling said he told her, "Sis, you just need to figure out what it is you're doing that's making him so mad, and quit doing it."

I realize this is an extreme example of someone wanting to preserve the status quo and avoid having to deal with the messiness of real life. But I also see this attitude of "institutions first, people last" as a thread running through the insistence of some that society will fall apart and everyone's marriage will be threatened if the legal definition of marriage is changed in any way.

In reality, marriage has now evolved, in the free world, into being a union between consenting adults, whereas it used to simply be a transfer of ownership: a woman went from being the property of her father to being the property of her husband. Traces of this remain in the "giving away" part of the marriage ceremony. So there have been these gradual changes all throughout time.


http://www.scn.org/cmp/modules/emp-pre.htm