september 21 podcast

Cindy, you are exactly right to point out who the
plumb line droppers” actually are in this discussion. I find it ludicrous when those who promote, for example, the Botkin sisters’ book and who make an income promoting these lifestyles and peddling patriocentric products, cry out “why can’t the brethren dwell together in unity?” Is there anyone with any discernment who can’t see through these wolf crying episodes?

I, too, am looking forward to the discussions in the next few weeks with Spunky as we examine the consequences for the husband and wife relationship that hyperpatriarchy brings about.

By the way, Cindy, what have you observed about the women of patriarchy? Do you, as I do, see them in a mover and shaker capacity behind the scenes?

iI is interesting that you mention the 50′s. I am currently reading the book The Girls Who Went Away, an interesting study on the women who placed their children for adoption in the 50′s and 60′s. Since I am adopted and my birth mother was in a home for unwed mothers, it has been a fascinating read on a personal level.

One of the themes that has run throughout the book has been that of the culture of the 50′s and the surreal time it was. When daughters became pregnant outside of wedlock, they were treated as though they didn’t even exist and were usually sent away. (denial) The fathers of the babies had no punishment at all. The sin was only the girl’s sin. As I have read, and grieved for my own birth mother and all she must have experienced during those months of confinement, it has been interesting to read the first hand accounts of life during that era that was depicted as so idyllic on those old TV shows and that, to some women today, is longed for so nostalgically. The women were treated as though they had such little purpose in life, though they had very clearly defined roles. The relationships were superficial, with the dad not really being too involved with the children. (that was seen as part of mom’s role, though the important stuff like education was left to the government.) and keeping up appearances for the sake of the paradigm was of the utmost importance. Of course I am generalizing but this theme runs throughout the whole book and it isn’t the first time I have read or observed such.

No era in history should be held up as the ideal one, though i think women tend to do that more than men do. We must learn to be content with the time in history in which we are placed and seek to minister to others through our culture, rising above it, not becoming so other-era centered that we lose sight of our callings today.

I’ve always believed that the patriarch movement was a “man’s thing” but after the podcast today I realized that while I was totally into it, my husband never was. (!)
I’m blushing as I admit this, but I used to subscribe to Patriarch magazine for MYSELF. My dh never read it! How embarrassing is THAT to admit??!
With your reference to the idealism of the 50′s-guilty as charged. I do still long for the old-fashioned days when America truly did embrace, on a wide social scale, the teachings of christianity. Our country really was much more moral and virtuous than today. I bury myself in books, such as the ones by Jane Austen and Laura Ingalls Wilder, for example, because I try to lose myself in their charm and security.
I did embrace the early teachings of patriarchy that began in the 90′s because I loved and wanted what they represented. I can see how women could be seen as being behind the scenes, wanting that security and virtue in their homes. You do think that if you keep your children from the world as much as possible that they will be protected and safe and will turn out alright. You actually believe there’s a guarantee there somewhere.
Let’s not forget, though, how much the men stand to gain by the patriarchy movement. Submissive wives, total control over their families, many children to make them look virile (lol), and feeling like a king in their homes. What an ego booster.
So, I think that men and women both embrace the teachings and the movement but for different reasons.
Can’t wait to hear Spunky’s voice-I sure do miss her blog.
A great podcast Karen-thanks again for putting these together.

Amen Cindy!!! And bless Providence they don’t have the civil authority to enforce their wishes on the rest of us as they did in 17th century New England. I’m sure many of us would wind up flogged , hanged, pressed to death and burned as “heretics” for not believing as they say we must.

Oddly, I found a great price on a DVD of “Macbeth” (with Sir Ian and Dame Judy from ’76) last night. Although I find a great deal more of support for “patriarchy” in “Hamlet” (more than kin and a little less than kind…), after ruminating on concept of women actually motivating much of patriarchy, I could barely wait to post this. The concept of pushing your man to get ahead is a theme far older than Shakespeare. How unexpectedly ironic.

As a parallel, liberty in Christ gets usurped from power in favor of patriocentricity? Authority beyond this world has ordained that Macbeth be king, so some of the questionable means to achive the inevitable and ordained end can be (temporarily) justified? In the final end, both King patriarch and Lady Macbeth, loving wife, bear culpability? And it all boils down to deception and unnatural knowledge?

How weird.

Cindy, Natalie, Greg, I need to be reminded that God is in control of these things, as it often become frustrating to even try to engage in conversations, even if online, with those who are so certain that they are the keepers of the “presuppositional” truth when it comes to these matters of liberty. Thanks for the reminder.

Thatmom,

I really enjoyed listening to you and Don talk about this issue. The points you both made are worthy of consideration. Thank you for taking this on.

I believe the Stepford Wife analogy to be a good one. There are many women who lead their husbands into patriarchy when the husbands would just as soon have remained where there were. Things were fine, they liked it that way, but they want to please their wife so they follow her.

Remaining in that system requires focusing on the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.

Right now I am studying the priesthood in Leviticus. It is fascinating. I am struck with the reality that we, both men and women, are priests unto God who are to minister the word of truth and to serve God and by serving God we are to serve others. A priest was someone who served.

We no longer require a mediator (as Don said) because Jesus Christ is our mediator. A husband and wife are priests together each offering themselves up in sacrificial service. It is the water of the word that washes us; it is Christ’s blood that saves us. Husband should never assume the role that only Christ can play in our lives.

Hi, Karen! I just finished listening to both of your podcasts with Don, and they are excellent! I am looking forward to listening to Spunky’s sometime later today or tomorrow.

One point stood out to me today, and it was from part one — that there probably is a motivation to pull our children away from culture in extreme measures (ie-beyond just avoiding obvious sin and greed), and that motivation is we simply don’t trust in the sovereignty of God in the lives of our children. I was convicted about how often I fear that it is all up to me, and that God seems distant from my struggles as a parent. This is a lie. God is more concerned about the spiritual state of my children than I am, and He is a good God who hears prayer. This was a very freeing thought. And this part two podcast was just as good! Thanks for this labor of love!