Talk to me about Vision Forum

[momma2girls]

Okay so I have heard talk of Vision Forum lately and was wondering if someone could tell me about it. What they believe? Are they icky? Are they good? Are they both? I want to be informed so I know at least some to carry on a conversation.

[forty-two]

They are patriarchal Calvinists (though many Calvinists disavow their brand of belief - they're kinda fringy and proud of it). They also have this big thing about the dominion mandate in Genesis - go forth and fill and subdue the earth (iirc) - that seems very central. They talk about it a lot anyhow, but tbh I don't get why its so important to them . I think they are Quiverfull, too.

Anyway, it's their partriarchal stance that draws the most fire. Completely messed up theologically, imnsho , though some of them make it sound really appealing (the Botkin sisters, in particular). But mostly reality doesn't live up to the hype, partly b/c the dynamic itself is practically tailormade for screwing people up, even if they were doing well to start with. Power corrupts, you know, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And their setup gives men absolute control over their families - even well-meaning men get messed up by that, let alone already controlling ones . Only by the grace of God can people not be ruined by that kind of power - and the VF idiots raise it up as the *ideal* .

(No, I don't have big feelings about this - why do you ask? )

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

Their version of patriarchy is wishy-washy wrt gender roles. One the one hand, they are all strict about a "traditional" division - women home, men outside home - but they also have this big helpmeet thing for women going on, which basically means they do whatever their dad/hubby needs them to do to help them be successful. This is where they emphasize the important of a top-notch (home) education for all (some form of classical, usually) - b/c an educated woman can be a better mother and helpmeet (no argument there). And it's where several of the leading daughters/wives in the movement have done some pretty adventurous things and learned some "manly" skills, and overall act like strong women - in service of their dad/dh. This is the vision the Botkin sisters in particular are selling - be strong for your family, not outsiders - and it is *compelling* .

But mostly it seems to be a reality only in the top families (and maybe not even then) - b/c if your dad/dh doesn't need/want you to be a strong woman, well, sucks to be you, I guess. Be happy with your God-given-through-your-dad/dh-role, however it underutilizes you

[BarefootBetsy]

Icky. Most definitely icky! Very patriarchal. Very separate roles for men and women (not bad if people choose it, IMO, but they say it's the only Biblical way).

Geoffrey Botkin is one of their main people now and he's big into multigenerational faithfulness - he made a 200 year plan with all his children's lives plotted out and his grandchildren's lives plotted out. Apparently his children's lives are supposed to revolve around helping HIM (their father) achieve his "vision." That's what they teach other men that they're supposed to do also... the children simply exist to serve their earthly father and his goals. It's called patriocentricity. Google it. Fascinating things come up when you do!

Botkin was also part of the Great Commission cult a couple decades ago... I wouldn't trust a word that came out of the man's mouth.

His daughters are big in the "stay at home daughter" movement which is creepy to say the least (you don't want me to get into it... I have HUGE feelings about this whole thing...). They believe that it's sinful (or at least unwise) for daughters to go away to college. Daughters should live at home as their father's "help-meet in training" until they get married after courting after their father approves of the man.

Most of these things are not WRONG, per se, but they've elevated these things to doctrine and salvation issues. Vision Forum looks innocent enough on the surface... but beneath that surface... there's a lot of very distasteful stuff.

---------- Post added at 04:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:29 PM ----------

They are also extremely punitive

[Hermana Linda]

Here is what I have about them on my blog.

[jenny_islander]

One of my major disagreements with the Vision Forum and related groups is their use of the word "defraud." To defraud someone is to deceive that person in order to take something away. However, VF and related literature says that a woman or girl who exposes or emphasizes certain parts of her body is defrauding men or boys who see her. The implication is that she is deceiving them because her body is an automatic promise of sex and the thing she is taking away is the sex they have a right to expect from a woman or girl who straddles a fence/hitches up her skirt/grows breasts that make her blouses tight over the summer/whatever. Of course, if she agreed that she had inadvertently promised sex by straddling the fence and went on to give them what they thought they had the right to expect, she would be a fornicating harlot or whatever.

Basically, if you're female, you can never be as pure or holy as a man, because you have a woman's body. And men have the right to use you as they see fit.

[BarefootBetsy]

The "defrauding" and extreme modesty aspects are also pretty demeaning to men, IMO. Those poor little men who can't control their animal natures need us women to cover nearly every square inch of our bodies in order to stop them from sinning.

There's no responsibility for men to keep themselves from sinning by, oh, I don't know, turning their heads AWAY from the temptation. There's no accountability for men either. All that responsibility for the men's lust is given to the women and girls.

Not to say that modesty isn't a positive thing... but not when it's used to absolve an entire gender of the responsibility for their own sin and instead places the responsibility for that sin on the other gender.

[purple_kangaroo]

Originally Posted by momma2girls

Okay so I have heard talk of Vision Forum lately and was wondering if someone could tell me about it. What they believe? Are they icky? Are they good? Are they both? I want to be informed so I know at least some to carry on a conversation.

They are major leaders in the patriarchal movement.

Read the page on their website on "Beautiful Girlhood" and you will see many statements along the line of,

"For the daughter who has embraced the beauty of Christian girlhood, the richest friendships begin within her family, where she learns to love and honor, and first learns the joy of belonging to another."

and

"One of the defining qualities of beautiful girlhood is a love for home and hospitality. A young girl watches her mother and looks forward to the day when she, too, will have a family. While other girls are driven by wanderlust, the hospitable girl finds true contentment at home."

In the doctrinal statement on their website (visionforum.org) titled "The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy," they make it pretty clear that they elevate things like homeschooling and not allowing your children to go to age-segregated Sunday School to the level of spiritual absolutes (i.e. going beyond a recommendation to the level of calling/implying it is a sin not to do as they suggest).

Christians should not send their children to public schools since education is not a God-ordained function of civil government and since these schools are sub-Christian at best and anti-Christian at worst.

VF is also dominionist/reconstructionist, if that bothers you:

While men are called to public spheres of dominion beyond the home, their dominion begins within the home

They are Quiver-full (believing it's a sin to try to limit or control the number of children God gives).

God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” still applies to married couples, and He “seeks godly offspring.” He is sovereign over the opening and closing of the womb. Children are a gift of God and it is a blessing to have many of them, if He so ordains. Christian parents are bound to look to Scripture as their authoritative guide concerning issues of procreation. They should welcome with thanksgiving the children God gives them.

[T]he acceptance of birth control in the Protestant community is a historically novel accommodation to modernist theology, utterly without biblical warrant, and fated to bring the Church into judgment for its rejection of the sovereign God’s biblically revealed vision for bringing forth godly seed in great abundance.

www. visionforum.com/news/blogs/doug/2004/02/662/


Here's a blog talking a bit about Vision Forum:

http://www.yehaveheard.com/tag/vision-forum/

[Mama2MeadowRose]

I didn't know 'Beautiful Girlhood' was from Vision Forum!! I've read that book growing up and I thought it was wonderful and still do! I think in most things there is some truth to everything. This book may just be the 'kernel' of good within the whole sphere of VF thinking. I havent read too many other things from them. I might explore it in greater detail for myself before jumping to any conclusions (good or bad). I can tell from all the posts that there are definitely aspects to VF that I also disagree with, but maybe there is some good too.

[Can'tTurnLeft]

t

[Mama2MeadowRose]

I never got that impression when I read it growing up. The book merely encouraged the desires I already had - to be a modest, godly housewife and mother. I guess I dismissed the negative aspects of the book subconciously. Now that I am a wife/mother, I should pull the book out again (if I can find it up in the attic or among the storage boxes). Maybe I'll see it differently, maybe not.

[Can'tTurnLeft]

n

[newday]

Originally Posted by Mama2MeadowRose

I didn't know 'Beautiful Girlhood' was from Vision Forum!! I've read that book growing up and I thought it was wonderful and still do! I think in most things there is some truth to everything. This book may just be the 'kernel' of good within the whole sphere of VF thinking. I havent read too many other things from them. I might explore it in greater detail for myself before jumping to any conclusions (good or bad). I can tell from all the posts that there are definitely aspects to VF that I also disagree with, but maybe there is some good too.

Please be AWARE!!! The very fact that there is some good and some beauty intermingled with this poisonous teaching is the problem. It is attractive. Some of it is appealing.
In my opinion it is not worth sifting through the refuse to find a few nuggets of truth, when the truth is to be had from much purer sources.

[yellowheart]

Originally Posted by newday

Please be AWARE!!! The very fact that there is some good and some beauty intermingled with this poisonous teaching is the problem. It is attractive. Some of it is appealing.
In my opinion it is not worth sifting through the refuse to find a few nuggets of truth, when the truth is to be had from much purer sources.

The same exact same thing can be said of any the materials written by Ezzo.

My mom bought me Beautiful Girlhood when I was a young teen and I honestly hated it. It glorified victorian-era lifestyle as "God's Will." It's a nice, pretty idea of "girlhood" with a few good things. Unfortunately, as I remember it, those "good things" are tied too closely to justification and sanctification, so if you are someone who does not easily identify with their version of womanhood, then you can easily experience frustration and depression. I know I did.

It uses phrases like "a truly beautiful girl is one who..." I have a HUGE problem with anyone trying to tell a girl she is "truly beautiful WHEN and IF she does ... fill in the blank with your spiritually mandated idea of whatever a girl should be."

That, in my mind, qualifies as emotionally abusive and when you tie God into it you get a spiritually abusive environment. God does NOT say that we are truly beautiful only when we fulfill x commands, and most of the things they talk about are NOT commands. Some of them are borderline heretical and nearly all of them are b or c issues.

They say on the website: "Young ladies who experience a beautiful girlhood guard their hearts against anything that would rob them of purity and are content to wait upon the Lord and trust the leadership of Mom and Dad."

There is no acknowledgment that any purity we have comes from God and HE can't lose purity and neither can we. We can't be robbed of our purity. And trusting the leadership of mom and dad sounds all nice, but really it ends up being a doctrine that is detrimental to girls developing their own self-control - a fruit of the Spirit.

My daughter and I will definiteiy be going through this book together - as a an exercise in discernment, as an exercise in how improper exegesis and the glorification of dominionism and "biblical" culture causes people to qualify who gets to be "truly" beautiful.

---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:44 PM ----------

I did a critique of Eric and Leslie Ludy on my website - and there are a lot of similarities. Their "Set Apart Femininity" is basically the watered down version of beautiful girlhood and their very basic ideas on justification/sanctification and law and gospel is absolutely flawed - dangerously so.

And VF is much, much more extreme in their views.

http://threeinonemakesfive.blogspot....ue-take-2.html

[purple_kangaroo]

Just be aware that they do not leave any room for picking and choosing or disagreeing with parts of what they believe. They are very much "our way or the highway" in attitude, similar to the Ezzos.