Because Christianity is bigger than Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood (Blog of Retha Faurie)

Posts tagged ‘THAT question’

THAT question evidence: Link to Gothard material

I have said before that I have asked women, home schooling mothers who believe in men as “priests” and authority figures, what should be done if an authority figure molests your children. These patriarchy supporters were completely unwilling to say that children should be kept away from such molesters. They were so hung up not going against authority that they would seemingly rather allow a molester to continue than to risk speaking out – in an imperfect way – against one.

Of course I found that shocking. Jesus said that when you see someone hungry or in need and don’t help, what you failed to do for the least of these you failed to do for Him. He came to free the oppressed.

HowToMakeAnAppealPage10If you want proper evidence of patriarchy’s teachings on abuse and authority, Recovering Grace has a new article with a lot of diagrams and teachings, scanned straight from books of Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute, to prove that “patriarchy” really makes it impossible for the abused to get away in an approved manner.

Gothard, of course, had to recently step down because of sexual harrassment accusations himself. Imagine how many layers of authority figures a girl would have had to go through to “rightly” complain about him (without appealing to authorities too much or too little, as in the diagram from his material on the right of this page).

Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. – Luke 11:46



Gothard lessons: When children are molested by the father, the molestation needs to be discovered at least 4 times, after the first time with the mother appealing to him to stop, then his parents or in-laws, then the church. Only if he is discovered to be molesting again after all these appeals, could he be given over to the law…


HEADSHIP Bible: Luke 4

(This was inspired by the “THAT question” tag on my blog, and especially this entry.)

6jesus_scroll_1 16 Jesus went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17 The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. (more…)

When men have to be Lords and women subservient, THIS can happen

Here is a link to another one of those stories.

You, complementarian, do you say that this story is not what you stand for, you only support man-on-top and woman below if the man is being a “good” man? How good, then? Any time you talk of women submitting without qualifying your statement, you are strengthening the same attitude that led to nobody helping this abused girl.

Qualifying your degree of complementarianism still suggest that women should tolerate a certain amount of wrong from men instead of insisting on what is right, a degree of wrong men do not have to accept as they do not have to be subservient.

God is just. It is not just to say a certain group of people should accept wrongs that can be ended, and others do not have to.

Or to quote John Shore, from the link above:

If you are a Christian, then you have an immediate and profound moral responsibility to be absolutely, 100% certain that the Christianity you espouse and practice has nothing whatsoever in common with the systematically vile and manifestly depraved Christianity that, in its appalling arrogance, so cravenly sought to brainwash this poor girl into thinking that she was the cause of the nightmare she was forced to live.


PS: Linking to a blog does not mean that I endorse all ideas on said blog. But you already know that.

Is authority more important to patriarchy supporters than child safety? Bill Gothard allegedly weighs in on THAT question.

(This is a continuation of the “THAT question” posts.)

If an anonymous blog commenter could be believed, Bill Gothard gave an answer to someone on roundabout the question that patriarchal women do not want to answer me on:

Why is it that I so badly long for Mr Gothard go ask me for forgiveness for telling me that I needed to obey my father at all costs – I had told Mr Gothard I was being sexually abused by [my father] and his friends. Why does he cover issues like this up? …

Jessica, February 1 2012 – commenting on “A response to Bill Gothard, Recovering Grace

His alleged answer: “Yes, authority structures are more important than justice or hurting humans. Obey the abuser.”

And if anonymous blog commenters could be believed*, we have evidence here that this situation is not rare, but a common reality in patriarchal families:

Out of 15 people (all different families) that I have talked to that grew up in [ATI], 6 were [incest] victims. A few years later, I found out that my own father had been having sex with 2 of my five sisters…

“Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”… due to the enclosed system that is encouraged by the majority of the family’s there is nothing that holds the fathers accountable.

…After almost a decade as a Military Police officer, I have found that of the 30 ATI families that I have dealt with on-post… almost half have had cases of abuse of some sort (sexual, mental, physical, ect.) going on in the home, and the wife/mother and the children see nothing wrong because they are brain-washed.

Jack, commenter on “About NLQ”, bold mine



* The commenters on that thread include several who make unwarranted accusations against Christianity in general, which I do not endorse in the least. Judge the merit of that comment, and others around it (if you read them) for yourself. Of course, each commenter is a different individual and Jack cannot be judged by the words of other commenters.

That hard question: Someone responds, sort of

There is a little question I sometimes ask those who strongly believe in hierarchy and authority structures. (Here and here are more discussions of the question.

The question comes down to: Suppose a girl is molested by her father. What would you do to help her?

This is a dilemma for strong believers in patriarchal authority, as their doctrine say (more…)

Blaming the victim: A real ugly type of spiritual abuse

I wish I could write only of nice things. I wish I could speak only of freedom and every believer – man or woman, boy or girl, living out all the gifts God placed in them. But some things are too ugly to ignore.

I previously wrote that God-on-the-back-seat-man-at the-steer believers, sometimes called supporters of Christian patriarchy, fail to answer a simple question when their writings prompt it:

If your husband/ pastor molests your daughter, what would you do?

It is no accident that they don’t answer. Some of those entrenched in these philosophies probably have a moral compass so harmed by these teachings that they no longer know what is right on this score any more. And others? The answer some of them seem to believe will drive any sane person away from these teachings. So here are a few beliefs some of them may not want to admit:

Molested girls solicit their own abuse, and become eternal “harlots.” Their adult abusers were not required or were incapable of exercising self-control. (Retha’s note: This reminds me of patriarchal attitudes towards modesty contrasted to punishing small children.)  The character of a harlot cannot be overcome by the blood of Christ, and forever limit their value to God. (Retha’s note: Remember that these groups believe a woman’s value is found in being a submissive wife and mother, and men in patriarchy would choose a wife that won’t bear the stigma of harlot.) Gothard, for example, blames Dinah in Genesis for her own rape.*

They don’t answer, as the answer is too ugly, and they know it. They can’t directly tell you they will defend the molester and for the rest of her life blame the girl.

To people who start getting interested in material from Vision Forum/ Institute of Basic Life Principles or any other  males-at-the-centre-females-an-addendum group – stay away. These teachings are poison. It may look nice on the outside, but their laws steal, kill and destroy. The inside is heartless and mindless and against the nature of Christ.

To people who came from such a background – we in the outside world cannot deprogram and untangle even half of what you heard.  But outsiders could – even by just reacting with shock or incredulity when you explain – show much of what you heard is wrong.  Morally wrong, factually wrong, spiritually wrong.  Typical Christians (and typical unbelievers) will be horrified the more they hear of it. Even if you don’t know Bible texts to counter much of it, even at the cost of leaving your parental home against their wishes, it was right to leave this kind of dogma behind. Your value is not determined by your gender, by what others did to you, or your performance in a rigid role.


* Jews, on the other hand, seem to find the rape of Dinah a moral outrage. They get their Bar Mitzvah age – the age of a boy’s coming of age – from the outrage of Simeon and Levi. Simeon and Levi were said to be 13 when they killed Shechem and his people.

“Christian” patriarchy is not Christian, more evidence

In an article named “Biblical patriarchy is NOT Christian“, I wrote:

On patriocentric/ “biblical womanhood” blogs, (and their comments on the blogs of others) I often encountered the opinion – given by women – that women should defend men and never speak badly of them. I usually answer that with a point-blank question to the giver of that opinion: “If your husband or pastor molest your daughter, what will you do?Not one of them have yet answered that question.

Denelian, who works at a shelter for abused women, tells one  tragic tale here on how these attitudes played out in real life:

…one only came because she caught her husband pawing at their 12-year old daughter – and she blamed HERSELF, because she “hadn’t kept up with her wifely duties” because she’d had 10 kids in 14 years and that AGES you, and so because she looked 50 instead of 38, her husband wasn’t attracted to her anymore, and this was all HER fault for somehow not being “Right with God” enough to be able to retain her looks enough to keep her husband from straying [and worse]. she wanted us to *keep the girl* while she went and got “fixed” [had plastic surgery] so that her husband would “see her as his proper wife again” and not be “drawn to sin because of her lack”. and then once she was recovered, she came to get her daughter back.
… her daughter was then a Ward of the State, because she’d been A) at the very least molested by her father B) abandoned by her mother for 3 weeks and C) her mother was planning to return her to the home with the man who had abused her without the man getting ANY sort of therapy.

Amount of children? Take no responsibility. Let go and let God. Schooling and education of quiverful children? Take 100% responsibility, do not leave them at a public school, or Sunday school, or anywhere someone else could teach them values. Safety of children, making sure they go through life unmolested? Let go and let God, because protection is not a woman’s role. (I have no idea what makes anyone think that protecting is a “biblical manhood role,” as no book in the Bible teach it.) Your husband’s sex crime? Take 100% responsibility, you were not pretty enough. (Proverbs actually warn men against falling for outward beauty, and Christ said you should pluck out your own eye – not blame your aging wife or make rules about immodest clothing for the opposite sex – when your focus on outward things make you sin.)

This is husband-worship instead of Christ-worship. It is a complete failure to protect children, as the least of these. It is also a system which adult males is often not held to Christian standards at all.

Is it acceptable to use individual stories like these, while each story is not the experience of every family in patriarchy? The blogger Incongruous Circumspection was abused by a patriarchal mother, and he say:

Don’t even try and come at me and tell me that my mother was the exception to the rule. I won’t even give you the time of day. That doesn’t even matter. Her way of doing things was simply her way of exemplifying the doctrines that propped up her way of doing things. The exact doctrines that prop up everything in the false lifestyle of patriarchy.

Or, to quote the blogger Liberty, in answer to Incongrous Circuspection:

…it makes me SO annoyed when someone tries to say stories like this are just the “exception” and there isn’t really anything wrong with patriarchy … The point I try to make is this: it isn’t the PARENTS that are the problem. It’s the IDEOLOGY. Period and full stop.

The system of patriarchy lends itself to to abuses like this. However good patriarchal practitioners may look from the outside, it is not something any Christian should endorse. The church needs to distance itself from patriarchy like it distances itself from, say, Jehova’s Witnesses.

“Biblical” patriarchy is NOT Christian

I actually stumbled upon the patriarchy idea while interested in freedom. How ironic. I was looking up libertarianism, while thinking about the advantages of a small government that only see to a few basic things like police, courts (with few and just laws) and border protection. I jumped into the blog of a self-admitted “Christian libertarian”, and started commenting.

It didn’t take long to notice these guys are weird. Why, when I talk of freedom, is it regarded in a different way than the same statement from a male? Why did some of them accuse me of being a man with a female nickname? And why, when I showed, in one of the religious threads on the blog, that they understand something wrong, did they call me a “feminist”? And these apparently “biblically” religious people refuse to learn anything from what I clearly show from the Bible!

How can a guy call himself a libertarian, and offer the opinion that women should not be allowed to travel alone? (more…)

Defending men at all costs is too expensive

First story: Tom made a long comment trying to argue for male rule, starting with acting as if there is an “ought” in the Genesis 3:16 prediction, incorrectly equating submission to obedience, etc.

Charis answers with among others:

“…Tom, Your wife will be back after she tries beating her head against that brick wall for awhile …”

Lime Chip said to Charis:

Have you been touched by the hand of God? It doesn’t sound like it for you to make such statements like “Tom, Your wife will be back after she tries beating her head against that brick wall for awhile…”

A woman of God, a Godly woman would never speak in such tones she would learn to humble herself. It does not matter whether it was five years of abuse or thirty.”

In other words, Godly women will, according to Lime Chip, never speak up for another person against abuse, even after thirty years of abuse. Whatever Tom does (and I do not imply he is an abuser, Lime Chip phrased it in terms of abuse), he should not hear his behavior affects his wife. Reproaching Tom is wrong, but reproaching Charis for reproaching a male, is right.

A godly person wil never speak up against abuse? There is nothing Godly about allowing someone to be abused and standing by, doing nothing. Christ came to set free the captives, and to show justice and mercy. Real religion is to help “widows and orphans” – shorthand for those who cannot help themselves.

Second story: On a self-admitted Biblical Womanhood blog, the blogger, Laura, said:

“I too narrowly defend women; that being, women as God intended (those who model Proverbs 31 and true femininity). I defend men, who are still more or less, the way God intended. The male reputation in the culture needs to be defended at all costs”

According to Laura at the time, a Godly women should not ask what party is being unjustly treated – the male reputation should always be defended at all cost. At the cost of truth? At the cost of justice? (In her defense, she admits to growing and learning, but she is not the only one who thought/ thinks that.) She would defend a “Proverbs 31 woman” (a strong wife who is respected in marriage, a succesful businesswoman, with servants, wise and with few worries.) Those people she will defend are generally the strongest people in society, who need defense the least. Children, disrespected women and the poor and unwise are more likely to need defense.
What if her daughter gets molested? The molester will be male, and she claims to defends the male reputation at all cost, presumably even at the cost of her child’s well-being. Her underage, unmarried daughter will not be a Proverbs 31 women (yet, anyway). Can any child be safe with people like this?

Biblical womanhood -some forms of it at least – may say “Always be nice to males. Even abusive males. Never defend anyone against a man.”

But Christianity, in imitation of Christ, say: “Seek justice. Defend the weak. Speak the truth, in love. Love for God, love for the oppressed who need to be saved. Do not claim to speak in love when you mince words to be gentle to oppressors. I, Jesus, loved my people by calling those who lay heavy yokes on them a brood of vipers and whitewashed sepulchers full of dead bones.”

Tag Cloud