Talk to me about Vision Forum

[purple_kangaroo]

Originally Posted by bolt.

I just don't see it that way. There is 'males have authority over their wives because that's what's right' (with all the ways a couple can live according to that belief among other their beliefs) -- or there is 'nobody has inherent authority over other adults' (with all the ways a couple can live according to that belief among their other beliefs). There are also couples who haven't decided yet, or who have re-entered indecision on the issue, or who have decided not to try to comprehend it.

It's not about saying patriarchy itself is extreme. It's just that the word has a meaning, and it accurately discribes some situations and beliefs, and it is not accurate to apply it to other situations.

It's simple accuracy-in-vocabulary, and not intended to be insulting. Christianity has flourished in patriarchal environments for centuries -- patriarchy is not an ideal environment for the faith... but very few things are capable of standing in the way of the Christlife. Many of the NT passages about sumbmission are saying that point-blank: "The laws of your society grant authority to male family leaders. There's no reason to let that stand in the way of either of you living out the Christlife of submission -- here's how you can make that happen even in your situation."

I guess maybe parenting, while of course not directly comparable, might be a good comparison (since this is, after all, a parenting board). What you're saying seems to me similar to the discussion about non-coercive parenting, completely hands-off "let the child raise themselves" type of parenting, parenting with gentle grace-based discipline, leadership without being controlling, vs. the type of Uber-controlling mindset. To me there's a vast difference between someone who believes they have a God-given responsibility to train, discipline, direct and teach their children to equip them to best live out the freedom and direct relationship with God that they are given, but it is ultimately between the child and God what they choose to do with that and each person in the family is responsible for their own choices/actions/attitudes and relationship with God---->vs. the ultra-controlling authoritarian style of parenting that basically believes parents are ultimately responsible for everything their children do before God, the promise in Proverbs about "train up your children in the way they should go and when they are old they will not depart from it" is a specific mandate/promise with no exceptions that means if you raise your child right they will be saved and fit your definition of a good godly person with 100% certainty, and the child's salvation is directly dependent on things like the style of discipline, and that God made parents to basically hold the position of God in their lives to the point of giving them supernatural power and almost omniscient knowledge about what is best for them and even what their children are/should be thinking.

To the ultra non-coercive parent who believes that there should never be any sort of authority or directiveness in any type of human relationship at all, everything *not die-hard-100%-non-coercive* may look the same.

But for the mama who sees herself as having a God-given responsibility as a parent to train, teach and nurture her child in gentle, respectful ways while respecting God's individual and direct work in that child's life, believing that their personality and uniqueness are God-given and important, and that the child has the right to disagree or hear from God differently than the parent does, have their "no" respected, etc. She is not going to see herself at all in the same category as the family that thinks God speaks only or primarily through the father, spanking literally cleanses a child's soul from sin and is required by God, that kids aren't supposed to have thoughts and desires apart from what their parents want for them, a good child should never be allowed to have a "no" (at least in relationships with authorities), and that the ultimate expression of godliness is basically to treat the father as though he is God.

The non-coercive parent may put everything other than what they themselves do in the same category and call it something like "coercive parenting" and consider it WRONG with a capital W. But from another perspective there are all kinds of variations in beliefs and styles of parenting in those who do believe they have some level of God-given responsibility to discipline and "raise up" their children, and both the shades of belief and the way it works out in practice have almost infinite variations.

Originally Posted by bolt.

They would decide who your spiritual head was (either still your husband, if they assessed your divorce to be sinful, or your father if the divorce was OK with them, or your eldest living brother, uncle or male cousin etc.) then they would consider the right action to be for you to contact that person, ask him how you should arrange your living arrangements, and follow his instructions (everything would be his decision, including whether you abided by the court order or not). If you did not follow those instructions you would be in the sin of rebellion against your so-called head.


They would revert to their fathers, or male next-of-kin for headship, until/unless he selected a new possible husband for her to strongly consider consenting to marry.

If there was literaly no one, she would be considered like an orphan, and probably a pastor or elder would graciously minister to her by acting as her head.

Actually, a lot of people believe that since the Bible talks about widows choosing their own husbands, then a widow (or other adult single woman, depending on your take on it) is responsible for herself and not answerable to a man other than as far as government/church authority that everyone has to submit to.

---------- Post added at 08:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------

Originally Posted by TestifyToLove

In Uber Patriarchy, the ONLY requirement for a woman is to submit to her DH and her very salvation lies not in how well she obeys God's commands but how well she obeys her DH. In Uber Patriarchy, the husband answers to God for his salvation. The wife's salvation comes THROUGH HER HUSBAND. She is charged both with ensuring he can have his salvation AND with always obeying him, unless it violates the law. She is to submit to her husband and accept that God will honor her submission even if it meant she disobeyed God because it was obeying her husband, which is all she is responsible for doing.

VF and others in Uber Patriarchy are VERY big into the concept that a wife can only obtain salvation by properly submitting to her husband. Micheal Pearl and Bill Gothard are both very vocal about their belief of this stance as well.

I have read and heard a lot of both Gothard's and Pearl's stuff, and don't remember even them going to the extreme of stating that a wife's salvation comes through her husband rather than through her personal faith in God, although the fruits argument has been used to say that if a woman is a believer and is wholeheartedly walking with God then she will obey her husband (and some teach she should do this *even if* it violates the law, citing Sarah as an example). If you have any quotes evidencing that they actually teach a woman's salvation is through her husband exclusively and not through her direct faith in God, I'd like to see them.

---------- Post added at 08:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 PM ----------

Originally Posted by elcollins

It's been a long thread, but I think you are missing the focus of this. These individuals and organizations are not concerned with 'traditional roles' or even 'wos', they are preachinig the false docterine of male spiritual supremacy and female worth being tied to her committment to submission - body, mind, soul and spirit. I know your passion for advocating for traditional roles and wos, but this teaching is well beyond that in the theological realm.

I think she was responding to some of the other comments in the thread basically saying that complementarian beliefs or any view that sees the role of husband carrying some level of headship in a marriage is in the same category as the Patriarchy Movement teachings and that both are equally wrong.

[Katigre]

.

[CelticJourney]

Originally Posted by Katigre

I think a large confusion in this discussion is the difference between The Patriarchy Movement as it is currently manifesting in organizations like Vision Forum, and Patriarchy as a scriptural interpretation of roles of men and women in the home and church.

While "The Patriarchy Movement" comes from the beliefs of patriarchy, they come to more extreme conclusions and are not at all the same thing in their practical outworkings for women . I really and truly think that only the former (patriarchy movement) is what should be focused on here.

Otherwise it paints with far too broad of a brush and is confusing. Based on reading this thread, it could be understood that many posters on GCM believe that anyone who believes in the husband as spiritual leader in the home is cut from the same cloth as Doug Phillips and Geoff Botkins.

This is especially because this is a thread in a public forum - it speaks of GCM's reputation for those who are not members of the forum and will show up in google search engine results. I would be very disappointed if mothers who are complementarian in belief read a discussion like this and conclude "GCM has a culture that I would not belong in b/c I believe in complementarity." I have several friends who would fall into that category .

Yes, exactly!

[katiekind]

Thank you, Katigre! I think you've helped clarify something pretty important:

Originally Posted by Katigre

I think a large confusion in this discussion is the difference between The Patriarchy Movement as it is currently manifesting in organizations like Vision Forum, and patriarchy as a scriptural interpretation of roles of men and women in the home and church.

While "The Patriarchy Movement" comes from the beliefs of patriarchy, they come to more extreme conclusions and are not at all the same thing in their practical outworkings for women . I really and truly think that only the former (patriarchy movement) is what should be focused on here.

Otherwise it paints with far too broad of a brush and is confusing. Based on reading this thread, it could be understood that many posters on GCM believe that anyone who believes in the husband as spiritual leader in the home is cut from the same cloth as Doug Phillips and Geoff Botkins.

This is especially because this is a thread in a public forum - it speaks of GCM's reputation for those who are not members of the forum and will show up in google search engine results. I would be very disappointed if mothers who are complementarian in belief read a discussion like this and conclude "GCM has a culture that I would not belong in b/c I believe in complementarity." I have several friends who would fall into that category .

Very true.

As one of those who paints in broad strokes when it comes to patriarchy I have to say that I would hate to have complementarian moms feel not at home here! I know that there are many here that would disagree with me about infant baptism, but I wouldn't feel put out or excluded if there was a thread discussing that. Some believe that infant baptism is heretical - and I understand that. I wouldn't feel like this wasn't the place for me if a bunch of people were discussing why they believe it is heretical. If you really didn't want people to feel uncomfortable at GCM then we should be more careful to not bash spanking - I mean, there are a variety of Biblical opinions on that as well! When i first started reading gcm i was shocked at the outrage over spanking and CIO. I felt so attacked at first, but everyone made such good points that i kept coming back. I credit the ladies at gcm with introducing me to gbd, egalitarianism and the harsh mommas at gcm are the reason i no longer do CIO. I think it's good to speak the truth in love, but we shouldn't hesitate to speak what we believe the truth is.

Do I believe that soft comps (ala Grudem and Ware and Piper, or even Eggerich and DeMoss) are cut from the same cloth as Phillips and Botkin and Baucham? In a word - yes.

The difference, I believe, lies in whether or not their views of patriarchy are inherently abusive. I would state that absolutely I believe the VF beliefs on patriarchy are inherently abusive. Eggerich, Grudem etc are not inherently abusive because, thanks to the grace of God, nearly all soft comp marriages are lived out as though they are egalitarian. The husband, since he really does love his wife, doesn't pull his trump card.

But are they both patriarchal? Yes, I believe so. Are they both wrong? Yes, I believe so.

Of course, these are just my beliefs, but I do believe them strongly.

Patriarchy/comp both lead to huge issues with scripture. Both groups push the eternal subordination of the son, the logical fallacy that there is a difference between "ontological" and "functional" submission. Functional submission IS ontological submission if it is tied to something unchanageable about who you are - which it is in the case of women and Christ.

I cannot support in any way something the diminishes the Trinity, and in that way I must paint with a broad brush because they all believe it and teach it.

Because of their reading patriarchy (soft and hard comps do this) into the "creation order" you end up with systematic theology teachers like Grudem having to make claims like "Anyone who is helping you is subordinate to you, even God." which is a HUGE theological distortion!

Piper claims now that gender roles are "central to Calvary - right there at the Cross."

That is the kind of basis that soft comp has.

So while I think that people living in soft comp lifestyles may not be sinning, and they may even be living out practically egalitarian relationships, I believe that the theological basis of ALL complementarianism causes huge distortions of Scripture and deep confusion over who God is and who the Trinity is.

That is why I, personally, paint with a wide brush. There are enough problems that are interconnected within complementarianism for me to be wary of all of it.

That said, I do believe that complementarianism isn't inherently abusive and is usually lived out in a way that belies it's theological roots. I know that most people - myself, my family and most of my friends included - just haven't or hadn't taken the time to work through the theology behind patriarchy/complementarianism and take a good hard look at the alternative. Maybe if someone who is comp comes to this thread and sees how serious an issue this is for Bible believing inerrantists they will see it's not just about feminism, but that all of us just truly desire to apply the Scripture as best we can.

And I hope they would feel just as free to share their strong beliefs here as I apparently do.

ETA: Out of respect for others, though, I will in my future postings on GCM focus on The Patriarchy Movement as opposed to patriachy/complementarianism in general.

[Ellen]

Originally Posted by rachelserine

ETA: Out of respect for others, though, I will in my future postings on GCM focus on The Patriarchy Movement as opposed to patriachy/complementarianism in general.

Your position is well-thought out.

Katigre can clarify if I'm wrong, but I think she and others are saying we need a distinction *in this thread*, in this forum (Unprepared for Parenting). There are lots of other places on GCM where it makes sense to talk about the theology of complementarianism vs egalitarianism.

[Mama2MeadowRose]

I agree with Ellen and Katigre. We probably should try to stick to the parenting aspects in this thread (telling myself that!)

[Katigre]

.

[bolt.]

Actually, a lot of people believe that since the Bible talks about widows choosing their own husbands, then a widow (or other adult single woman, depending on your take on it) is responsible for herself and not answerable to a man other than as far as government/church authority that everyone has to submit to.

I'm sure a lot of people do believe that. I was simply answering according to what I think/guess that Vision Forums would do about that situation.

---

Realistically, many heathy complementatian marraiges do two things with their beliefs about inherent male authority. (1) They believe he has the authority, and (2) they also believe he should follow Scriptures' instruction to lay his authority down and lead as a sacrificial servant that treats his followers as more important than himself.

Thats what the NT commands men in it's original setting to be doing (since they could not funtionally get rid of the authority granted to them by Roman law).

I don't feel it's nessisary to add authority to men in order for them to be able follow the NT commands to lay it down... but it was a workable way to be both Christian and patriarchal then, and there are some marriages where it continues to form a workable structure.

I believe patriarchy is a mistake. I believe it is not taught by Scripture -- but that Scripture does teach about it, in the sense of "here's how to live with the patriarchy that governs your society", so I can see how mistakes of interpretation are made.

I don't think it's evil to be complementarian in the same way that it is evil to be uber-patriarchal (theologically, regarding salvation) and authoritative (in disobedience to various commands about laying down authority). But there are some beliefs in common, and the name of that common belief is 'patriarchy' -- it just is. It's a discriptive term, which is not meant as an insult.

Originally Posted by Ellen

Your position is well-thought out.

Katigre can clarify if I'm wrong, but I think she and others are saying we need a distinction *in this thread*, in this forum (Unprepared for Parenting). There are lots of other places on GCM where it makes sense to talk about the theology of complementarianism vs egalitarianism.

I think it's good to make that distinction. This thread has been derailed for quite a few pages. Hard to remember what the point was at the beginning. :P I was just attempting to point out that it's not bad or wrong or a bad reflection on GCM if some people hold the opinion that theologically VF and soft complementarianism are nearly identical.

---------- Post added at 04:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------

Originally Posted by bolt.

But there are some beliefs in common, and the name of that common belief is 'patriarchy' -- it just is. It's a discriptive term, which is not meant as an insult.

[CelticJourney]

Ok, let me put on my mod hat and try to get this train back on the tracks (not that it wrecked, but it is going lots of places - some very important places, but....)

What we started out discussion was the places where VF and it's cousins were taking a theological message that was extra and counter Biblical - well beyond the point of 'difference of interpretation of scripture' or 'original language meaning'.

I think the focus has become blurry and we have now started crossing meaning. We were NOT discussing Wife Only Submission as opposed to Mutual Submission or the concept of parental authority as we understand it here at GCM. They are fine to discuss in a spin-off, it's just that it wasn't the place the thread was headed.

The point of the discussion started out focusing on on the 'step to far' that these ministry are taking to include life long submission of adult children to parents, daughters relationship with their father as apprentice and 'help mate' to a highly unhealthy level of 'intimacy' and the view held by some that salvation and accountability to God is through the father of the home (give the first problem on the list, which father might be an issue) as opposed to the priesthood of the believer/accountability of the indiviudal before God alone.

If anyone wants to take up any of any of these issue from a purely theological standpoint, we can spin that off in that forum. Or if you want to hash out the long standing issue of WOS vs MS, another forum would be better than here (or check out the many threads already existing).

I have been facinated and horrified by the information that has been presented by (indirectly) and about these 'ministries' and 'ministers' that fall within the Patriarchal Movement and would be interested in any futher discussion or information about the extra-Biblical or counter-Biblical ideas they are teaching in the name of Christianity.

[BarefootBetsy]

Originally Posted by purple_kangaroo

Actually, a lot of people believe that since the Bible talks about widows choosing their own husbands, then a widow (or other adult single woman, depending on your take on it) is responsible for herself and not answerable to a man other than as far as government/church authority that everyone has to submit to.

Indeed, but I can tell you from friends' personal experiences - friends who attended churches that started getting into the teachings of VF and Geoffrey Botkin - that they were considered to be sinning because they were widowed, living on their own, and not under any sort of male "headship."

So, sure, a lot of people believe what you outlined above, but VF (back on topic ) certainly does not teach that. From what I understand, and from what my friends have experienced, VF teaches that any woman not under the "headship" of a male (preferably a spiritual leader or other family member if not a husband or father) is sinning.

[Hermana Linda]

Originally Posted by BarefootBetsy

Indeed, but I can tell you from friends' personal experiences - friends who attended churches that started getting into the teachings of VF and Geoffrey Botkin - that they were considered to be sinning because they were widowed, living on their own, and not under any sort of male "headship."

So, sure, a lot of people believe what you outlined above, but VF (back on topic ) certainly does not teach that. From what I understand, and from what my friends have experienced, VF teaches that any woman not under the "headship" of a male (preferably a spiritual leader or other family member if not a husband or father) is sinning.

Wow.

[mwwr]

Originally Posted by BarefootBetsy

From what I understand, and from what my friends have experienced, VF teaches that any woman not under the "headship" of a male (preferably a spiritual leader or other family member if not a husband or father) is sinning.

Wonder what they think of children whose parents are unbelievers? (That would have been me.)

[bolt.]

Wonder what they think of children whose parents are unbelievers? (That would have been me.)

I don't think they think much about minstering to the children of the world. It's a very family-centric concept, and I can't imagine a random 8 year old just wandering into one of their house Churches or semi-public gatherings. The children of faithful families do not generally have secular friends, unless they would be, perhaps, the children of a family that the parents were recruiting (so the dad of the faithful family would be promoting the "headship" of the dad of the family on the fringe). (Maybe they would begin a whole-family recruiting effort for the sake of a random 8 year old, if such a situation arrose... they do need new blood.)

A young woman from a non-insider family would be considered under the (very poor) "headship" of her own father. They would, perhaps, consider it fortunate that her father was so disinterested in his "headship" that he lets her go among strangers and find the truth with them. She would be taught to honour, obey and support him as much as possible, given his fallen state... though she might also be encouraged to 'obey God before man' if he attempted to curtail her contact with the group. (They might also try to encourage her father and the rest of her family to convert, through her 'good' influence, and by respecting her dad.)

I think a young man of a non-insider family would be considered his own "head" from quite a young definition of 'manhood'... I don't know for sure. Perhaps it would be the same as a young woman until he turned 18 or established his own household.

(The above is based on vague reccolections with added guesswork based on what I have read... I am, by no means, anywhere near certain.)