Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Good memories

I get forty emails a day on average. At least three of those will say something like, "Didn't you or don't you have any good memories of growing up QF?"

To be fair, I should answer it. I had planned to include some of the better days in my '49 parts', but I don't want to string people along. Without any further ado, I present five "good memories".

1. Joseph and Caleb made a "Ruth sandwich". - We had this sneaky game we'd play when we could get away with it. That was usually when dad wasn't around. Basically, it involved our hammock, two blankets, and wrapping three kids in said hammock. Joseph would be on the bottom, followed by me wrapped in a blanket, followed by Caleb in a blanket. We'd flip the hammock over so many times that we'd be sausaged in a hammock tube. It sounds stupid and kind of dangerous but it was a guaranteed giggle inducer.

2. I remember when Rebekkah moved into my room in 91. I was about seven. I'd been in my own room for so long that it freaked me out a little to know that I'd be getting company. When dad rolled her basinet into my room and put it next to my bed, I was freaked out. But, that first night, after mom tucked me in and put Becs' to bed, the lights were dimmed. Out of instinct of whatever, I started reading a poem book outloud to her and she gave me her first smile. For the nedxt two years, before Rachel, I truly enjoyed raising Becca'. She was my baby.

3, When Eli, Joseph, myself, Caleb, Matt and Luke, and Rachel caught chicken pocks. We were miserable = but we had company in our misery. We got the pox in summer time, so we turned our front lawn into a series of tents and sun porches..

4. Shopping for Becca's layette.

5. Taking Rani and Rachel shopping.

50 comments:

  1. It sounds like you were very close with your siblings. I'm sure leaving them has been the hardest thing for you to do. You are so brave and I'm sure that despite everything they may be told by your angry father, they still love you and miss you very much.

    I wonder how long it takes your father to post about you "defrauding" your brothers! Although the "Ruth sandwhich" sounds like FUN!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Awww! Those are nice memories, Ruth! Just because we lived in abuse doesn't mean there isn't good. My mom was a manipulative control freak, but we could laugh and laugh together. She had a great sense of humour. I have good memories with my husband too, taking the kids to Disney, and other vacations.

    Hold on to those memories as you seek to keep up your relationships with your siblings. They might just be the glue to cement you guys together over the years.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Those are LOVELY memories that anyone in any situation could remember fondly. So, when your father inevitably posts something nasty, PLEASE do not let him sully those memories. They are wonderful, innocent snapshots of a childhood that was otherwise shrouded in misery, and they are YOURS. Don't let him steal them away.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm glad you are having good memories! =)

    For many years, I couldn't remember any good memories from my childhood. Then as I started dealing with the truth and the emotional trauma from the bad stuff, and amazing thing happened.

    I started remembering good too!

    My favorite: my mom painting my nails for me at the kitchen table. I think that only happened once, and I felt so special and loved in that moment.

    Wishing you many more happy memories as time marches on!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think in large families where abuse occurs, the siblings become even closer than in other families. It could be out of necessity or it could be because we care about each other, want to protect each other, and we are the only ones who really know what's going on. I think this may also lead to having some of the best memories, though, because we learn to make our own fun and to REALLY enjoy it and remember it!

    http://LifeMoreSimply.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow, sounds like some great growing-up fun! Cling to the good memories...they make the bad ones a little less painful sometimes.

    I can't help feeling sorry for your mom, though. Seven kids with chicken pox all at once. Yikes!

    ReplyDelete
  7. " My favorite: my mom painting my nails for me at the kitchen table. I think that only happened once, and I felt so special and loved in that moment."

    Shadowspring, that brought tears to my eyes. We sooo need to conscientiously make those moments happens for our kids.

    I had 4 kids with chicken pox at once, and believe me, that was enough!!! O.o

    ReplyDelete
  8. LOL @ the hammock. Sounds like so much fun. I can just picture it! LOL. Remember that,Ruth,'cause it was indeed a good time.

    Take care.

    Jean

    ReplyDelete
  9. Again, loved the 'Ruth Sandwich'!

    We also had some bad abusive times. It is the memories of the good times that have allowed me to let go, understand my past is part of who I am, and travel forward to my future unburdened.

    I wish that for you as well.

    Susan
    http://susan-potpouri.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  10. I wish you would start posting on twop again. I miss your posts over there.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Even in small families where abuse happens the siblings can form a strong bond. If my sister and I didn't have each other I'm not sure how we would have made it. We have a handful of good memories too and it's important to enjoy and cherish them. I like to think the good memories don't exonerate the bad memories and the bad memories don't take away from the good memories. My sister and I are still close, we often talk about those days. It bothers our mother greatly that we have a good relationship. She still tries to pit us against each other and drive a wedge between us. It never works and never will but that doesn't stop her from trying. To her our bond is an affront to her. It's a relations and bond she can't control. This drives her crazy. I suspect you and your siblings may experience similar acts of sabotage by your father as you get older and live your own lives without him. They view that autonomy as abandonment. Something to think about anyways.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I keep seeing twop mentioned. What is that?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jennifer, it's the short name for "TelevisionWithoutPity." There is a Duggar thread on there.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ruth, did your Dad ever do "fun" things with you kids? Like throw a ball around, or hide and seek? Even tell a few jokes at the table?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ruth,

    Another aspect to remember that in abusive families, children experience things in many ways. There always seems to be a less abused child and one that always seems to be more of a target. It can be hard for siblings to reconcile that what they experienced is not what the sibling remembers or experienced. It can be hard for the child who was most abused to understand how the least abused child doesn't have the same emotions that they have.

    I'm glad you had some good memories. I know you love your siblings and I know you'll be there for them when they find their way out.

    Cyn

    ReplyDelete
  16. I love the Ruth Sandwich. That is just too cute. I never had a hammock growing up, so that sounds like a lot of fun. =)

    *Hugs* I'm so glad you have good memories. Those are the things that make life better and bring a smile to your face.

    Hopefully Daddy Darth won't start raining on your parade again, but if he does, just pull out an umbrella! =)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks for all your posts about your life. Even though I did not grow up in a QF family I did grow up in a larger family with me right smack in the middle. I am glad to hear of your good memories, I am still searching my mind for some "good" memories of my childhood, it seems like I don't remember much of my growing up years and I wonder if it is my way of protecting myself from what went on. Your blog is helping me deal with my life and trying to be happy.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ruth,
    I love following your blog and you really do have a gift for writing! You have a beautiful story to share!
    I was wondering if you would clarify something... my heart goes out to you regarding the pain and abuse you suffered as a child. You obviously have a strong, brave heart and a tough but still sweet and tender spirit! And I see your point about patriarchal, fundamentalist families providing especially convenient home structures for controlling, abusive men.

    But I have been reading about Bill Gothard for some time. He seems to pluck Scripture out of context and use it to support his "principles" as prooftexts. He may be well-meaning and love the Lord, but he is treading on dangerous ground when he takes those liberties with the Word. He starts to look a little like the "false teachers" Jesus warns about in Matthew, the very Sermon on the Mount verses that he bases his homeschool curriculum on. Cults have been defined as groups who take Scripture and twist it such a way (e.g. Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses).

    Sorry, not trying to get too theological here. But I have yet to find any teachings in Bill's materials that support such harsh and manipulative parenting techniques. In fact, he encourages fathers (at least on paper) to get to know their sons and daughters' hearts, to ask them questions like "Have you ever been disciplined unfairly? What is something you wish you could change about our family?" etc.

    Do you think your father has some issues that are the true root of his obsessive compulsive tendencies, his anxieties about trying to earn grace, his fragile self-esteem that makes accepting a challenge or criticism so difficult? I guess what I'm asking is, do you think QF, patriarchal families breed this kind of personality, or is it that they actually just attract it?

    Again, your stories break my heart, and you obviously suffered growing up in this lifestyle. But is it possible that some fundie families discipline without breaking the spirits of their children? Is it possible that a man can be the spiritual head of the home according to the biblical plan and still love, cherish and honor his wife? Is it possible that some of these practices, when followed correctly, build strong Christian families? In other words, could the Duggars be the real deal, or do you think the Gothard community is so misguided and motivated by fear that as a whole the harm outweighs the good?

    Changing the subject a bit... I can only imagine how confused and resentful and disillusioned and uncertain you must feel about your faith. I just encourage you to keep on talking to God about it and look to the Bible as your true authority! No man, church, principle, denomination, or religion is the true basis for Christian faith. I know you know this...I'm sure you have enough Scripture engrafted on your heart to fill a journal. But what God wants from you more than anything else is simply a personal relationship with you. Bring on the disappointment, doubt, and hurt... he is big enough, he can take it! I don't know if this is meaningful to you or not, but I am praying for you!

    ReplyDelete
  19. the previous poster said, "do you think QF, patriarchal families breed this kind of personality, or is it that they actually just attract it?"

    I have known several families and friends over the years that have been involved with Bill Gothard and ATI.... and it's interesting, but I do believe that a great number of these families (or the men) are predisposed to legalism and are actually attracted to the rules and regulations that BG promotes. I remember recalling all the various friends I've known over the years that have been into BG and similar QF type lifestyles, and it's almost as if they did not have enough security in themselves (or freedom in Christ) or the scriptures to allow them the freedom to think for themselves and
    to live a life that can honor God and to not to have to adhere to a set of rules that can so adversely affect not only them but their wives and children. I do think it's a bit of both that some of this is bred into families just by "association" with others and the sense of "community" it seems to foster, but I believe it's more of a deeply internal deficiency in the men and women who cannot help but buy into this mentality because of their own sense of insecurity about who they are in Christ. They seem to have no sense of what the Grace of God really is....and they seem far more like Pharisees.... it's really sad and the saddest thing - is that their children are the ones who will suffer the most - as many will give up on God totally and some will come out of it so confused because they have never known the real God of the Bible.... I am so glad to see that Ruth is emerging out of this and that she's growing healthy through this healing process.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Why should anyone give Bill Gothard the benefit of a doubt? He is a flaming narcissist whose whole empire is a cult of personality. He controls the whole milleu of his followers, telling them what they can think, say, watch, listen to, who they can associate with (preferably only other cult members),how to do everything- dress, bake, garden, handle money, you name it.

    He has complete control over them!

    He makes his empire esoteric so that people feel special being involved in such an elite group. You can only buy his materials if you have been to his seminars: it's not for the every day slob. This has the effect of making one feel part of a special group, the extra-committed, the elite spiritual. Heresy.

    Now how YOU got these "materials" immediately comes to question. They are only available to those willing to be a part of his empire.

    And like a true cultist you start with flattery, then say the opposite things in the same breath, cover it with a saccharine sweetness, and end your argument sowing self-doubt and shame in your reader.

    "False teacher" and "well-meaning who loves the Lord" do not belong in the same sentence about the same person.

    And yes the Duggars are the real Gothardites, as abusive and controlling and hypocritical as they come. Everyone in the whole nation is going to get to watch the unraveling of this tightly controlled unit as time goes on.

    Gothard got started in the 70s. The first victims of his cult are now emerging from their pain and many of them are ANGRY! It has taken them until adulthood to get free because the mindf*** is so complete.

    But the fruit of his "ministry" er, cult, is starting to show. And not you, nor any other cult member, will be able to stop it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. *I just encourage you to keep on talking to God about it and look to the Bible as your true authority*

    Honestly, Ruth, I would tell you that I found greater peace after walking away from the shackles of God and the Bible.

    It was a long process but given my history with ATIA and the ebil Mr. Gothard, it was the best way to cut the toxic out of my life.

    While I seek to return to some form of spirituality, it wont be through Christianity or any other religion that asks me to abandon common sense to embrace the ridiculous.

    That is my experience though and I do wish you the very best finding what is right for you.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  22. For the Anonymous person who asked "Is it possible that a man can be the spiritual head of the home according to the biblical plan and still love, cherish and honor his wife?"

    Not the way the modern church teaches it. No. The modern church has become mired in a lie that lures men into perpetuating the curse of the fall, instead of celebrating their redemption in Christ. If you go to www.godsavemymarriage.com and read the books that Joel and Kathy Davisson have written, you will see how a true Christian marriage is supposed to function. And it has NOTHING to do with patriarchal, "men's headship" teachings.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Very good observations, Shadowspring. Thank you for speaking the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Part 1 of 2:

    Hi, Anon (Mar. 24, 9:46pm). I'm not ATI or ex-ATI and obviously not Ruth, but here are my two cents on some of your post:


    'I have yet to find any teachings in Bill's materials that support such harsh and manipulative parenting techniques. In fact, he encourages fathers (at least on paper) to get to know their sons and daughters' hearts, to ask them questions like "Have you ever been disciplined unfairly? What is something you wish you could change about our family?" etc.'

    It's this 'on paper' thing that's part of the problem. Take Ruth's 49 Character Qualities series – many of the qualities themselves seem fine, but they way in which people are told to live up to them is narrow-minded, legalistic, and assumes that any misfortune is the fault of its victim. The principles may look inviting on paper, but the practice is hypocritical. I don't imagine that any child raised ATI would dare to answer that they'd been unfairly disciplined.


    'Do you think your father has some issues that are the true root of his obsessive compulsive tendencies, his anxieties about trying to earn grace, his fragile self-esteem that makes accepting a challenge or criticism so difficult? I guess what I'm asking is, do you think QF, patriarchal families breed this kind of personality, or is it that they actually just attract it?'

    I'd say both. It gives people a neat unquestionable set of rules to follow, a relief when you have low self-esteem and not enough confidence to be independent. Then it encourages all the tendencies you mention by making those rules far too important. There are people who choose to have large families, but the idea that we *must* have as many children as possible is groundless and plain dangerous, as is the idea that God will automatically provide because we're just doing what he said. It encourages dependence in far too many areas (ever heard the joke about the man in the flood?)

    ATI attracts those with fragile self-esteem (thought that's a broad spectrum; I don't know anyone who's had perfect self-esteem their whole lives) and gives them the idea that grace should be earned. Result: people going to frightening lengths to ensure that they really are loved by God. It encourages rule enforcement by harsh and even cruel means, as long as they train your family to act perfectly obedient and 'sweet-spirited'.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Part 2 of 2:


    'But is it possible that some fundie families discipline without breaking the spirits of their children?'

    Only if they ignore the teachings of the super-righteous-élite in favour of what is best for *their* family (and, y'know, legal), which is very difficult when said élite have all these handy Bible quotes to support what they're doing. Fundamentalism leaves precious little room for common sense.


    'Is it possible that a man can be the spiritual head of the home according to the biblical plan and still love, cherish and honor his wife?'

    Perhaps, if that's their informed choice (both of them), and if they allow everyone else (including their children) to find the type of relationship (or not) that works best for them. Same thing goes for a relationship in which the wife is the head of the home and still loves, cherishes and honours her husband. As for male headship being the biblical plan: that's highly debatable. The norm at the time? Sure. The way it must always be done? Unconvincing and harmful. You said at the beginning of your post, 'I see your point about patriarchal, fundamentalist families providing especially convenient home structures for controlling, abusive men.' A *plan* for headship is what creates this convenience. A plan for equality and the relationship of God to each person without anybody else's leadership – that's a much better environment for love and honour.



    Of course, I don't know your background, but if you are considering ATI, keep looking for both sides of the story, including things you may not hear from Gothard himself. One of the biggest warning signs of a cult is lack of disclosure at the start. If you haven't been to nolongerquivering.com yet, it's a growing resource for people questioning or leaving Quiverfull and various other forms of fundamentalism. The similarity between some of the personal accounts is sobering, to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 'I have yet to find any teachings in Bill's materials that support such harsh and manipulative parenting techniques. In fact, he encourages fathers (at least on paper) to get to know their sons and daughters' hearts, to ask them questions like "Have you ever been disciplined unfairly? What is something you wish you could change about our family?" etc.'

    This reminds me of a couple stories about slave owners who justified their treatment of their slaves by calling some over and asking if they were happy, if they wanted to be free, etc and using the answers to justify the practice of slavery.

    Well, DUH he got the answer he wanted! He had absolute control and absolute authority and his victims knew it. They knew better than to be honest. Children in BG and QF families are the same. They aren't idiots, they know what would happen to a real answer, so they pretend.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Methinks anon up there is a full ATIer who is using the more flies with honey than vinegar approach.....he's all but calling Ruth a liar because his research doesn't back it up, and we all know Ruth is anything but a liar. He's clearly onyl researching half of the picture....which is awfully conviennent for him.

    BG is just like all politicians-they know how to look good on paper but be a douchebag in person.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yup, adding words like the following to your literature:
    "In fact, he encourages fathers (at least on paper) to get to know their sons and daughters' hearts, to ask them questions like "Have you ever been disciplined unfairly? What is something you wish you could change about our family?" etc.'"

    is called CYA-cover your a**.

    Any smart con knows enough to include CYA in the literature. It's included in all those weight loss ads too"results not typical blah blah blah" LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Said anon's words remind me of writing at NLQ about the gradual slope into ATI. It looks to me like this person is on the fringes and hasn't yet gone far enough down the slope to make the link between Gothard's dazzling on-paper appeal and, say, the practice of breaking children's spirits and other parts.

    Of course, I could be wrong and it could be an attempt to save Gothard's reputation (though I'm not sure where the 'false teacher' part fits in), but I'd be wary of pointing the finger at someone who might genuinely be trying to figure out Gothard's role in horrific abuse. I hope that s/he reads through NLQ. If that post was a genuine question, the articles will give plenty of answers, and if it's a cover-your-ATI scheme, there'll be plenty of public evidence against claims of his innocence.
    __

    Ruth, I keep rereading Good Memory #2 and I don't really know what to say, except that I hope Becca gets to read it too.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I agree that Gothard is a cult figure. I remember about 10 years ago our family visiting an ATI/QF family and having supper together. The topic turned to some theological point that we were discussing and their oldest son, about 13 at the time, looked to his dad rather excitedly and sad, "What does Mr. Gothard think about that, Dad?!" I just about swallowed my fork. It took everything in me to not scream, "Who gives a flip what he says? What does scripture say about it?" But of course the kids were there, and my loco abusive husband who would have told me to be quiet.

    That son has since left his family, ATI/QF background and become a rapid anarchist. :/

    ReplyDelete
  31. Forgot to say about my last story that it is obvious that a main topic of conversation around that house was what Mr. Gothard thought about everything. The father covered his butt by saying, "Well son, what matters is what scripture says." He obviously saw me choking on my fork.

    Also, I've been thinking a lot about legalism within the church lately as well, and I agree that it stems from a lack of security and self-esteem. We are terrified of the freedom offered in Christ and are so afraid of getting it wrong, so we write another set of rules to abide by. It's also a lack of trust in God. From my own experience, we construct a set of complex rules for our kids, thereby ensuring their salvation as it appears to our eyes. We literally think we can become their saviour, when of course nothing of the sort is possible. Kids will grow up and make their own decisions. You can only try to consistently present them with truth and try to live it in front of them, but in the end, it is their choice.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Lolly, mea culpa. I have strong personal reactions to even lukewarm support for Bill Gothard. Sign me out as "still angry after all these years...

    ReplyDelete
  33. Wow! I am really sorry... I didn't mean for my questions or comments to offend or alarm anyone. I have never attended a seminar nor do I have any desire to raise my children ATI... believe me, I use birth control, listen to contemporary Christian music, wear pants, and have three smart, independent daughters who take dance several times a week and attend a private, non-Christian school. My husband and I consider ourselves to be conservative, pro-life Christians, which is what drew me to the Duggars' show. After reading their book I was intrigued by their lifestyle and found some of their views and values very refreshing in light of some of the cultural lies and trash that is on TV today. But I completely defer to those of you who have been raised in QF families and homeschooled with ATI materials! I realize that I have touched on a very difficult and painful subject for many people, and that as an outsider I have no idea what it is really like to live that way... it sure looks good on TV and sounds good on paper, right? I guess that's the whole point and I apologize if I was naive or offensive. I really was just genuinely asking these questions and looking for insight! Glad that this blog is here and that Ruth has been courageous enough to speak out. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Shadowspring: Gothardism often makes *me* angry and I've only known about it for a couple of months, so I'm not at all surprised that people who have survived it hate any insinuation that he might be right. I was a bit worried about explaining myself badly and coming off as a Gothardist, to be honest. ;)

    Anon: although this got kinda difficult, your post raised some interesting questions – how can we recognise sane values and separate them from legalism, how disconnected Gothard's principles seem from their results in practice, what makes a false teacher, etc. People considering ATI might stumble across all this one day.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm not sure that the need for ATI type religions is a male, must dominate gene. I think it's what one poster mentioned above: people who aren't very strong or secure seeking a group. It's the same reason you have gangs and fraternities (and yes, I did belong to a sorority). The need to be part of something bigger get morphed into this need to conform nonsense, which is rolled into religion.

    Independent thinkers would not gravitate to this group think process, or would soon run from the lack of free will in the doctrine.

    I don't think groups are bad nor do I think religion is horrible (maybe boring, but not intrinsically evil) but it can be twisted into horrible shapes if you aren't vigilant.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hi, I found your blog and have been reading it over the past week: I would like to e-mail you but didn't see a way to send one to you. My e-mail is elise.heffalump@gmail.com. I would love to hear from you. What you're doing is intensely difficult, but such freedom is worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The modern church has become mired in a lie that lures men into perpetuating the curse of the fall, instead of celebrating their redemption in Christ.

    What we're talking about here are very concrete realities like children being beaten, women having their health ruined, controlling behaviour, social isolation, etc. etc.

    Does is really help matters to talk about it in abstract theological terms? A group of believers could argue until the cows come home over which Bible passages are on point and how they should be interpreted, and in the meantime you still have children being beaten and women being abused.

    ReplyDelete
  38. It might help to discuss it theologically, especially amongst those who use theology to support abuse, if we know when to settle down for a discussion and when to give as much immediate, practical, human help as we can. I think that there's value in the long-term argument *as long as* it doesn't distract from the more urgent issues.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dave and Lolly, I think the important thing to remember is that abuse happens within and outside of religious settings, so the point to discuss is abuse and what it is...wherever it might happen.

    Abuse, basically, is about controlling someone other than yourself. For the one being abused, it is about allowing that control over yourself (if you are an adult that is; children are another story altogether). And although most of the abused are woman, there are many timid men who are controlled by their partners or bosses as well.

    ReplyDelete
  40. It might help to discuss it theologically, especially amongst those who use theology to support abuse

    I disagree. Arguing theology just plays into their hands. It's an attempt to deflect attention away from the hard realities of their behaviour and it should be shut down cold.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Lolly, you could never come off as a Gothardite! =)

    I can see how it would look all sweet and orderly (the Duggars) to an outsider, but not if they really stop and think about it.

    The violin lessons, for one. Doesn't it look all cultured and refined to see everyone dressed the same and playing the same instrument? It looks like any elite private school.

    But it's not a school. There kids don't get to go home at three, take off the uniform and explore their own unique personalities and interests. That uniform, and uniformity, is 24/7.

    So now it's not about a private school teaching culture, but about parents controlling every aspect of your life, from what you wear to whether or not you will be interested in music, what kind of music you can hear, what instrument you will play and how you will play it, and it's just....

    soul-crushing. Individuality is not allowed. You as a unigue person are not allowed unless you squeeze yourself into the defined paradigm. Every part of you that leaks out of the paradigm is punished. You as a unique individual will not be tolerated.

    Dave L, I absolutely love theology (greg boyd is my newest author "myth of a christian nation") but I agree with you that theology is intrinsically bound up in the Gothard cult, so to go there in this context is a lose-lose. I cringe when I read it here, but that is just me.

    It's Ruth's blog, and I admire her allowing people to freely comment. It's so courageous and I don't think I could do it if I were in her shoes. Kudos, Ruth.

    ReplyDelete
  42. You ask if it's possible for the men in a patriarchy to be good husbandsand fathers? I believe it's possible, and you see it seldomly in FLDS and fundamentalist Islam. There are cases where the men of these religions truly cherish and care for thier wives, as thier respective prophets comand them to. But the problem is that abuse is all but written into their social systems and bylaws. Men are given preference and they begin to see themselves as more important. Say a young boy is raised by a father who truly loves his wife(s), treats them with respect and dignity and love. Never the less, he is more prized than his sisters, gets better education and nicer things. He sees women being abused elsewhere and chances are his father does not tell him this is wrong because though he does not abuse his wife, it is socially acceptable. His sisters are given more and harder household work than he is and they must listen to his orders, so he believes that he is more important than they are. As he grows older he hears cases of raped girls being executed and he believes that he is not responsible for his own sexuality. he hears cases of fathers selling off their daughters and believes that women are property. If he is FDLS and he is not cast out of the community in his early teens, he now believes he is more righteous in the eyes of god than his peers as well. When he marries, he may not abuse his wife, because he had a positive male role model. Then again, he may, and there would be no way for him to be stopped. What's more, the women raised in these cultures would believe it's the right of their husbands to abuse them. In any patriarchy, women are considered less valueable than men. It is still the case in common American culture, though at least people recognize it for the most part and try to fix it when they can. The problem with patriarchy is that not only do these groups believe women are less valueable than men, they believe that this is a good belief that should not be changed and what's best for women is to under the thumb of men. And anytime some one is considered "less valueable" and "property" as women and children are in these systems, as with slaves or minorities, that's given the people "in power" a blank check for abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  43. DaveL: Good point, and one I agree with. I am fed up with fundamentalists thinking they're supported by (supposedly) infallible scripture, but I really hope it didn't look like I was saying we should have long theological debates *here*. As I said, the realities are much more important than the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Is it possible for a patriarchal/fundie to be a good husband and father?

    No, not in my never humble opinion.
    Those are relationships that involve love between equals.
    The very nature of patriarchy is to have men 'over' every one else thus nixing equality.

    ReplyDelete
  45. As my Grandmother used to say, "Robert may be the head of the household, but I'm the neck, shoulders, spine, hands and legs. How much do you think he can do by himself?"

    ReplyDelete
  46. Is it possible for a patriarchal/fundie to be a good husband and father?

    If he loses (or fundamentally (ROFLOL) changes)his religion. =)

    ReplyDelete
  47. "Is it possible that a man can be the spiritual head of the home according to the biblical plan and still love, cherish and honor his wife?"

    But where in the Bibles does it say that the man is the spiritual head of the home? The term 'head of the house/home' is a secular term that denotes the usual under-the-curse domination of women by men. It is a non-Christian term.

    It is NOT the 'biblical plan'. It is NOT "God's order". Yet it has been preached this way, and pitched to congregations ESPECIALLY in America and particularly in the Bible belt, that you practically feel like an apostate unless you accept this interpretation.

    But male-leadership-female-submission is carnal, secular and unbiblical. We've just 'Christianised' the male domination that permeates every society since the Fall, in order to justify male privilege and entitlement, and because of the neurotic and defensive fear that if we let women out from under the thumb long enough to function as valid equals, the 'sky will fall'!

    The Bible actually says that women and men are BOTH 'kings and priests" - NOT that the men are 'priests of their home'. The Bible says that BOTH are co-heirs with Christ. The Bible says submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. The Bible says 'the husband is the KEPHALE of the wife. Not the 'head of the home'. The kephale of the wife. So, we need a real, honest, accurate interpretation of kephale.

    Kephale means 'completer, enabler, source of blessing.' Likewise, women are to be help-meets (ezer). To anyone who think that means a biblical clause to subject women to a life-long sentence of being secondary and being a household slave, remember, God is our 'ezer'. The connotation is not 'assistant' or 'second in command' - it's 'capable helper, one who has the ability to provide effective help.'

    'Head', in the limitations of the English language, has the connotation of leader, most important position, position of authority etc such as 'head master', 'head chair', 'head of department' etc. But to say that the biblical use of kephale has the same spin as our cultural use of 'head' is to place an overlay of our (position-vying, ego-obsessed) culture over scripture, so that the real meaning and purpose of scripture is obscured.

    Kephale means that, through sacrificial love, in the same way that Jesus redeemed us from SIN and lifted us up to our pre-fall position as co-heirs with him, a husband can do something similar in his relationship with his wife: he can't (obviously) redeem her from sin or make her righteous (ONLY the blood of Jesus can do that) BUT, he can, through sacrificial love and servanthood, lift her up to her rightful pre-Fall position as his complete equal, because we are no longer under the curse. So the point is not 'husbands have authority and the right of veto in the home' but husbands, in a male-dominated post-Fall world, can use their role as kephale to lift their wife up to her proper position as equal team-mate - by imitating the sacrificial, laying-down-his-life love of Jesus. And then Paul reiterates that the comparison ends there - as far as spiritually sanctifying us, only Jesus can do that.

    - JEB, part 1

    ReplyDelete
  48. As far as 'chain of command' authority structures are concerned, in our status-obsessed society, Jesus said, "The gentiles strive for authority and position and status lord it over one another. NOT SO AMONG YOU"

    So why do we teach that husbands must assume authority in the home in order to be godly husbands? By teaching them that, they are robbing men of experienced the true spirituality God intended for men to know the miracle of: that by laying down their power and their 'right to rule', they would discover the spiritual paradox that in servanthood, sacrificial love, equality, justice, kindness, gentleness, consideration, honour, submission, lifting up one another - and all the other amazing 'one anothers' of the new covenant - that by some amazing paradox that is totally contrasts to the power-hierarchies of the world, they would know true spiritual power and true spiritual maturity and be conformed to Christ. And be kings and priests and co-heirs. With women. And experience true intimacy with God and with their wives. And discover the amazing truth of being part of a triple-stranded cord that is not easily broken.

    I think that men who truly love Jesus really do want this and they discover in their spiritual life that these gentle disciplines yield spiritual growth. They love their wives sacrificially and lay down their lives and treat her with honour and listen to her voice because they are so wanting to follow Jesus. When they constantly get doctrine that tells them they must 'lead', that they must be the 'head of the house', then they try to do that as benevolently as possible and try not to abuse their power. But as far as ending the sword between the sexes and living a life as redeemed people no longer under the curse, there is a bit of a struggle there until they realise the 'man on top' doctrine is wordly not godly, and that's why it hasn't been jibing with their spirit.

    But this doctrine so appeals to the male ego, that for many men, they're practically terrified that accepting 'kephale' instead of 'head' will lead to a world of chaos in which women are running wild all over the place off their leashes acting like they're equal in every way or something!!

    Meeting men who has dumped the hierarchy doctrine in favour of being redeemed, has been insightful. They are not the weaklings 'stripped of their authority' weaklings you might think. They're powerful - with the right sort of power. They happy, and gracious, and confident, and they are not threatened by confident women (who are also noticeably gracious, full of God's power and happy!) Meeting egalitarian Christians in person was part of what opened my eyes.

    - JEB, part 2

    ReplyDelete
  49. Thank you, JEB ... that's exactly the revelation I referred to earlier, when I recommended that people check out www.godsavemymarriage.com. I wish I had found that teaching ten years ago ... I might not now be divorced and working alone through the traumas of an abusive marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Thank you JEB...that was wonderful. I too wish I had that kind of teaching in our marriage, although I suspect that my husband would have still been the passive-aggressive twit he had always been, for the simple reason that he preferred it.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.