Recovering from a patriarchal childhood

[emmiedahl]

No. That is not suppression and abuse. That is the way God says it is. God says it's not suppresssion and abuse. Either He's a liar, or you need to change your way of thinking.

God said it? So you think St. Paul is God?

eta: can you give me a verse in which God says that patriarchy is not suppression and abuse?

[formergothardite]

I was right! I knew you were going to say it was okay for patriarchy to suppress the little dumb women because the Bible said it was okay. The problem with this is that many men are not able to properly be the head of the home, so women are forced under patriarchy to submit to men who make dumb decisions. I wish people would just own up that the Bible says women are less than men and stop trying to act like it doesn't. God was also cool with slavery and women being forced to marry men that raped them, doesn't make those things any less horrible.

Did you never read the Little House on the Prairy books? Laura refused to say she would obey her husband. It was left out.

I still don't get how it is not suppressing women to tell them that they are less than men. If that is not supression, I don't know what is.

ETA: Honey, this is not persecution, not even close to it. This is having a discussion where not everyone agrees with you. The fact that you are trying to even act like this is being persecuted shows how shallow and self-absorbed you are. When someone comes and strips you of all your rights, forces you to wear certain clothes, stops you from getting an education or job, stops you from getting married or other things like that, then get back to us on being persecuted.

[formergothardite]

Wait, wasn't ADKA defending Knight? A man who came here to gossip and stab his friends in the back. Why didn't she give him the lecture about crossing the Lord? God was not down with that sort of behaviour.

[kayray]

My response to ADKA's "defence" of patriarchy can be summarized as "fvck that noise".

[raineymott]

And by the way, I meant to add earlier that Patriarchy without Biblical guidlines and boundries will be abusive.

Actually, my dad DID use the Christian bible as his guidelines for how he acted within his patriarchy structure and he IS abusive. Most patriarchs DO use the Christian bible as their guideline for patriarchy, and it becomes the license for abuse.

When you believe literally "children obey your parents" and say "you'll never stop being my child", it gives room for abuse.

When you believe literally "I do not permit a woman to teach or hold authority over a man" and "wives, submit to your husbands", there's patriarchy at it's finest: suppression of women.

When you believe literally "women will be saved through childbearing", there's quiverfull. (Yay, more children to abuse!)

When you believe literally a man "must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him", there's room for abuse.

Not to mention that half of those words didn't mean in the original text what they were translated to by fallible humans. (Assuming you believe the original text is God-inspired.)

[Brainsample]

AKDA,

I once attended the IBLP conference and a church that followed Gothard's teachings. I am very familiar with them, and I think that the problem with them is the spiritually abusive way that Gothard trains people to view the world. He is also very elitist, and it goes far beyond the idea that you have to be born of the Spirit through Jesus alone (as some here think that's elitist). Bill establishes moral imperatives that are not in the Bible as plain and clear mandates, and then uses emotional blackmail to enforce those mandates. If you reject them, his principles state that you are cast out into outer darkness.

Bill misinterprets many Scriptures, making it seem like the church is some kind of hierarchical army. He has some novel misinterpretations concerning grace, and it resembles the old Catholic doctrine of meritorious works. He has a patriarchal interpretation of the Scriptures that touch on gender. The stuff is superstitious and mystical, and he even draws many things from the non-canonical texts. Don Veinot has written that in order to preserve holiness and truth and to keep people from sinning carelessly, he built an extra set of laws around concepts of good Christian conduct, but this turns Christianity into it's own type of legalism.

First, the Bible is plain and clear on many things, but there are many other concepts that are not plain and clear. If you follow good hermeneutics, you make sure that you don't derive any more or any less than what is written when you put doctrine together. Many like me believe that Bill has filled in too many of the gaps and has attempted to make what is unclear clear which is a good motive. In the process, however, he either over-simplifies matters or he fills in too many gaps with material that is not hermeneutically sound. People have lovingly gone to him and tried to talk to him about it, and he eventually just stopped showing up to meet and discuss these problems. He chose not to be accountable, something you can easily do when you've established your own parachurch organization.

The problem with manipulative groups like Gothard's system is that it ends up being highly abusive, but it is covert and surreptitious. Are you familiar with the characteristics of spiritual abuse?

Authoritarian: Gothard's system operates on an extreme hierarchy and is highly ecclesiocentric. Everything has to measure up to Gothard's standards, or you are considered problematic or a lesser Christian and are excluded from the life of the group. When you renew your ATI standing, men even have to shave off their beards for the photo if they grew one because Gothard has decided that such might disqualify you from the group, just one example of many that I am not interested in writing here. You can buy a copy of Don Veinot's book "It's a Matter of Basic Principles" to read for yourself. The group over-emphasizes authority and submission as one of the most primary traits that a Chrsitian should demonstrate. Part of that hierarchy involves the subordinate roll for women, but it is enforced through authoritarianism and intolerance.

Image-Consciousness: Gothard puts so much emphasis on image and external signs of holiness, requiring people to show that they are Christians through these outward displays, and they are not optional. Groups do this to prove to themselves and to the world that they are special to God, that they are the most special group in existence. If it's not Khaki pants and white shirts with blue blazers for men, it's the proper type of wavy hair (but not rebellious curly!) for women. All of these requirements, some formal and many informal, validate and prove that those who follow Gothard's system are a cut above everyone else.

Suppresses Criticism: I am amazed at how well Gothard has put together a system that people are willing to follow to cast any natural doubt as criticism and rebellion or gossip. It works to isolate people from one another and even from their own critical and rational thought through manipulation, guilt and emotional blackmail. Those who are critical and start questioning the system are immediately treated differently and are excluded from the group. Leaders often counsel these people. And I've seen so many published materials from Gothard aimed at keeping people quiet, forbidding them to question leadership, even when it is appropriate to do so. It is bucking the chain of command and exiting the umbrella of authority, for both men and women. One is expected to accept and endure whatever an authority says, and one can never even express their concerns without being threatened to be cast into outer darkness where “God's goin' to get 'em.â€

Perfectionistic: I don't need to say much about this here. To attain the proper level of Christian perfection, Gothard has his plans and strategies that are enforced as an easy way to understand Scripture, but they become their own system of legalism. Performance is required, and conformity is rewarded. Those who don't live up to the standards are punished.

Unbalanced: There is so much emphasis placed on Gothard's unique interpretations that it eclipses the Gospel. When you're in the thick of the system, I know that it does not seem that way. He has so many special hobby horses that are bent on proving how special his followers are before God and says so that the practice of Gothard's system becomes a very unbalanced form of Christianity.

I could go on and on here, but I think that the most damaging elements of Gothard's system, aside from inserting human authorities and mediators into a person's relationship with God, grace is something that must be merited through performance so that one can remain acceptable and special to God. The system of mediators is enforced through authoritarian means, and if you fail to comply or are convicted otherwise, you are threatened with abandonment by the church and by God and are worthy of His wrath. This is not clear and plain in Scripture. I can understand if you think that it is, but if you get away from Gothard and just read the Word, per responsible hermeneutics, it is not there. Gothard blackmails people into following his interpretation as opposed to the Word under the guidance of the Spirit. It is not only oppressive to women. It's oppressive to everyone but Gothard. He created a whole new "Evangelical Talmud".

[AKDA]

A: I didn't say Paul was God. The Bible is God's Word, however, and written by God through men.

B: I never said I was persecuted. Talk about taking words out of context. I was obviously trying to say I was expect a response like I got.

C: Ma Ingalls DID live in a patriarchy. Her husband made the decisions. He uprooted them how many times, just so he could follow his never ending dreams. Ma had how many children? With how much work to do around the home? Travelling how many useless miles? Leaving how many homes? And for what reason? Her husband. Personally, I don't think Pa Ingalls was the most loving husband. To me, he was selfish to continually move his family around for no reason other than the fact that he had itchy feet. But, he was the head of that household.

D: Yeah, Laura took a different approach to marriage than did her mother. He and Almonzo probably had a happy enough marriage. That's all fin and good. But her daughter didn't. Rose ended up with a divorce. Something went wrong. Somewhere, someone didn't follow God's commands. I tend to think it was her parents.

E: Nowhere in Scripture does it say men are more than women. Women are just as important and precious as men in the sight and love as God. Women are to be cherished and loved and respected. They have the privalge if having a wee one grow inside her and she has a special bond with that sweet little life that no man will ever have. She is protected from the aweful taste and scars of war. (or should be, Biblically) She has so many privelages that a man should never hae. She also has responisibilities that a man should never have. It all works together so beautifully and perfectly when it is done as the Bible says. I can't believe you people can't see it.

Further more, marriage is a picture of Christ and His bride. That's all it is. It encompasses so much that is good and delightful, because of Christ. It will never be perfect here on Earth as the marriage between Christ and His Church is because we are fallen humans. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive towards that. When you think of marriage, think of Christ and His Church. If what you believe about marriage doesn't match up to Christ's marriage to His Church, then you are wrong. No marriage is perfect. No man or woman has a perfect vision of marriage. But the Scriptures do.

[AKDA]

Brainsample:

I like a lot of what Mr. Gothard says, but I disagree with a whole ton of it as well. I also happen to think there is a lot of unfounded legalism in the ATI movement. That said, I still think there is some very good things to be learned from him and some wonderful families in those circles. The best thing to do with any preacher, teacher, or leader is to compare what he says with what Scripture says. The VF "leaders" don't agree with Gothard on a lot. Gothard doesn't agree with them on a lot. The "leaders" in the reformed movement don't agree with eacheother on a lot. The families inside these different movements don't agree with eachother on a lot, or with the "leaders" on a lot, either. No one can follow anyone whole heartedly. Even wives and husbands. However, there ARE guidlines in Scripture that make things clear. It just takes work and study to find these nuggets.

On the same note, I have many, many problems with stuff different VF "leaders" say as well.

Ok. I'm done. We just keep going around the mulberry bush her, and are not getting anywhere. Y'all say something, I say something. My grammer and spelling mistakes are pointed out and my points are refuted. I refute back. And so on.....the deffinition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting new results. I for one do not wish to be classified as insane, so I don't know about the rest of you but I'm hopping off the merry go round.

[Austin]

And. . . . she flounces :dance:

edited b/c posts are better with pictures!

[formergothardite]

"And, in fact, the Bible warns that those who attempt to follow God's laws (even though they are as sinful as anyone else), will be reviled by those who have no desire to do so."

So this wasn't implying that you are being "reviled" for your statements. Sounds that way, glad to know that you don't think this is being reviled for saying what your interpretation of the Bible is.

Pa asked Ma if she wanted to go several times if she wanted to leave, if my memory serves me correctly, it wasn't just him telling her what to do. I think she replied that where ever he was, that was home or something like that.

How exactly are men and women equal if women can't be the head of the home. Please explain how that is equality. True equality means both people view each other as equally able to be in charge and that they make decisions based, not on who has a penis, but on who is better at things.

And please, before you flounce, answer my question about why you didn't go chastise Knight for gossiping, like you have done here to people who don't follow patriarchy.

[Shirley MacLaine]

Rose Wilder got a divorce. Therefore, patriarchy is good.

:dance:

[formergothardite]

Why do these people bother to come if they are going to run away when the questions get hard? Is their faith that shallow?

[raineymott]

Ma had how many children? With how much work to do around the home?

Four or five, I think...hardly quiverfull.

D: Yeah, Laura took a different approach to marriage than did her mother. He and Almonzo probably had a happy enough marriage. That's all fin and good. But her daughter didn't. Rose ended up with a divorce. Something went wrong. Somewhere, someone didn't follow God's commands. I tend to think it was her parents.

Rose' parents didn't follow God's commands so Rose ended up divorced...? What about Rose married the wrong guy? (Wait, don't tell me...ALL marriages can work out because love is a decision, not a feeling... )

E: Nowhere in Scripture does it say men are more than women. Women are just as important and precious as men in the sight and love as God. Women are to be cherished and loved and respected.

Ah, yeah, the old "women are equal in value but have a different role". I don't know HOW many times my dad quoted that to me when I felt grumpy about my "role" as a woman because I couldn't do things my YOUNGER brothers could. (Like get a driver's license, go to the store alone, and other activities they considered male.)

It all works together so beautifully and perfectly when it is done as the Bible says. I can't believe you people can't see it.

:shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: That's sorta like telling someone who absolutely detests mushrooms, "I can't believe you don't LOVE mushrooms and see all the potential in these delicious fungi!"

[Brainsample]

E: Nowhere in Scripture does it say men are more than women. . .

Further more, marriage is a picture of Christ and His bride. That's all it is. It encompasses so much that is good and delightful, because of Christ. It will never be perfect here on Earth as the marriage between Christ and His Church is because we are fallen humans. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive towards that. When you think of marriage, think of Christ and His Church. If what you believe about marriage doesn't match up to Christ's marriage to His Church, then you are wrong. No marriage is perfect. No man or woman has a perfect vision of marriage. But the Scriptures do.

Gothard does make men "more than women" through hierarchy which he interprets through a military model. He makes any authority "more" than those under authority, because you are not permitted to question, complain, "murmur" or do anything to release yourself from the suffering that the authority requires of you. You're to bear up under all of it to earn "grace points" through humility because "God gives grace to the humble." He took a very general principle and made it a primary consideration and a formula. He made all human relationships into a formula. So it isn't just women who suffer, it is anyone who is subordinate to any authority. Children should endure beating and they should even subordinate their desires to marry whom they want, turning all that over to their parents because Gothard makes submission at all costs a rigid rule. (If I married everyone my parents liked, I'd be divorced now because all those young men turned out to be homosexual!!!) It isn't just a matter of women being subordinate and "less," it is true of anyone who is low on the food chain.

You also over simplify the analogy of Christ and His bride, a principle that I've taken my stripes here on Free Jinger (on YUKU) because of my Biblical beliefs and intepretation regarding marriage, and I agree that the relationship teaches us something mysterious about how God loves us through the sacrifice and care that Jesus provides for the Church. But in this discussion, I'm afraid that you've not explained it well enough and will only incite more criticism. The analogy is a mysterious one. But you gloss right over the fact that Gothard and complementarianism misinterprets the word "submit" in Ephesians 5 and that the whole headship argument is not a cut and dry belief across Christian belief systems, though all of those concepts are within the pale of orthodoxy. "When you think of marriage, think of Christ and His Church" is a very poor way of communicating meaning here in this forum (though it may be in a church on a Sunday morning). How that fleshes out for a Baptist who follows CBMW is quite different for how that fleshes out to someone in the Assemblies of God, for example. Those meanings are worlds apart.

Again, this is an oversimplification of what is entailed in this argument. Do you believe in the Eternal Subordination of the Son? Do you believe that men make intercession for their wives and govern their sanctification process? Do you believe that a woman can be unmarried and have no male family member that serves as a "covering" and be right with God and live fully in life and in the life of the Church? You're ignoring many issues within this argument, and there are many orthodox Christian interpretations of this aspect of doctrine, and not all of them are consistent with your own. You're talking as though your view is paramount and the most valid, and that is not true across Christendom (and I'm talking about Biblical Authority embracing, Born Again evangelicalism).

I think that is a grand part of the disconnect here in this discussion. We can certainly argue our reasons for believing a certain point of Scripture, and we obviously think it's valid if we follow it and believe it, but gender has not been traditionally thought to be an essential or central doctrine. It is an intramural one. And as Believers, we are called to be patient and tolerant with others with whom we do not agree on intramural matters, honoring that liberty that we have in Christ. We are not supposed to chastise people who eat meat sacrificed to idols if the Holy Spirit gives them leave to do so. But when you come in to defend your beliefs (that's fine to do), you have to show respect to other people, even if it is just respect for the Image of God in them. And when you discuss beliefs that are not shared, you must be meek and patient if those ideas fall within the pale of orthodoxy.

The comment about "are you Christians" may be attempting to get at that, but the way it read was condescending. You may have meant it to be that way, I don't know. Gothard is certainly that way with those who are Christians who do not agree with them. He's said his homeschoolers in ATI are better Christians than others many times. So if it's a matter of delivery, that's fine. Today, you've received some feedback that can benefit you in the future. But I see that as a major theme in your comments here on this thread.

[Brainsample]

Brainsample:

I like a lot of what Mr. Gothard says, but I disagree with a whole ton of it as well. I also happen to think there is a lot of unfounded legalism in the ATI movement. That said, I still think there is some very good things to be learned from him and some wonderful families in those circles. The best thing to do with any preacher, teacher, or leader is to compare what he says with what Scripture says. The VF "leaders" don't agree with Gothard on a lot. Gothard doesn't agree with them on a lot. The "leaders" in the reformed movement don't agree with eacheother on a lot. The families inside these different movements don't agree with eachother on a lot, or with the "leaders" on a lot, either. No one can follow anyone whole heartedly. Even wives and husbands. However, there ARE guidlines in Scripture that make things clear. It just takes work and study to find these nuggets.

On the same note, I have many, many problems with stuff different VF "leaders" say as well.

Ok. I'm done. We just keep going around the mulberry bush her, and are not getting anywhere. Y'all say something, I say something. My grammer and spelling mistakes are pointed out and my points are refuted. I refute back. And so on.....the deffinition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting new results. I for one do not wish to be classified as insane, so I don't know about the rest of you but I'm hopping off the merry go round.

As I think was elucidated on the Knight thread, too many of us posting here have been chewed up and spit out by this movement and have seen much abuse occur as a consequence of the teachings. What we've heard all week here also is that there is an ivory tower way of doing things "to a T", so the leaders and masterminds of these systems and formulas are not accountable because we are not doing it right. That's a lack of accountability, and it scapegoats and blames other people for the flaws in the system.

And I can tell you, just in a few of the comments that you've posted today, you do a great deal of that yourself. You rely heavily on ad hominem circumstantial fallacy, too. We can't understand because we're not doing it right or we don't understand. That is a miserably unfair way to debate and violates the rules of logic and discussion. If it doesn't work for us, we did something wrong. Those are ad hominem arguments. "You are not Christian. You are too liberal, etc,. etc... " It's a way of moralizing and making your opponent your lesser and you get to be a rung higher on the moral ladder. If you are indeed trying to persuade people to accept your point of view, it's a terrible method!

[formergothardite]

She has been taking way too many notes from Bill. He is the king of "Oh my seven principles on how to have a perfect life resulted you being married to an abusive guy who cheats on you, well you must have done something wrong."

[emmiedahl]

A: I didn't say Paul was God. The Bible is God's Word, however, and written by God through men.

Paul wrote a lot of things that are used as fuel for modern patriarchy. These things are at odds with what Christ said and appeared to believe about women. At some point, you have to either choose who to believe or come to a moderate compromise in which neither is completely correct.

Either of these is okay as long as no one is hurt by any given interpretation of the Bible. Paul's letters and the Gospels were all passed around, copied and modified over the few centuries between the writing and the formation of the New Testament as we know it today. When the New Testament was put together, most of the testimonies and other writings were left out because they radically contradicted what the white Roman men in charge felt should be the main point.

C: Ma Ingalls DID live in a patriarchy. Her husband made the decisions. He uprooted them how many times, just so he could follow his never ending dreams. Ma had how many children? With how much work to do around the home? Travelling how many useless miles? Leaving how many homes? And for what reason? Her husband. Personally, I don't think Pa Ingalls was the most loving husband. To me, he was selfish to continually move his family around for no reason other than the fact that he had itchy feet. But, he was the head of that household.

Caroline Ingalls believed strongly in getting a formal education as opposed to homeschooling. She insisted that her husband settle down once the girls were old enough to go to school. That is something that no modern patriarchal woman would do. She had only four children, a major fail by modern patriarchal standards. These are just two examples of many. I have read patriarchal critiques of LHOTP; many in the movement feel it is too liberal and feminist.

This is very similar to a modern, non-patriarchal household in which men and women give and take, respecting each other's needs, but it is antithetical to modern patriarchy.

Laura was also praised for doing boy work. She also worked outside the home as a teacher.

D: Yeah, Laura took a different approach to marriage than did her mother. He and Almonzo probably had a happy enough marriage. That's all fin and good. But her daughter didn't. Rose ended up with a divorce. Something went wrong. Somewhere, someone didn't follow God's commands. I tend to think it was her parents.

Laura Ingalls had a blissfully happy marriage by all accounts because her husband loved her for being her headstrong self. Her daughter's marriage fell apart after their baby died and she was unable to have more children. I don't think the parents can be blamed for that one. In fact, I think you are showing your true nature by even implying it.

E: Nowhere in Scripture does it say men are more than women.

I agree, but modern patriarchalists do not.

I see you are flouncing before even addressing the ways in which patriarchy suppresses women. That says a lot. Maybe you should only espouse beliefs that you can defend.

[Guest Anonymous]

Yeah, Laura took a different approach to marriage than did her mother. He and Almonzo probably had a happy enough marriage. That's all fin and good. But her daughter didn't. Rose ended up with a divorce. Something went wrong. Somewhere, someone didn't follow God's commands. I tend to think it was her parents.

This is why you should never let a fundie get behind you with a sharp object. Got divorced? Had a child die? Suffered from infertility? It must be because someone was sinning! If they can't pin it on you, they'll blame your parents.

You're a horrible person AKDA and people will look at your mean small-mindedness and run in the opposite direction from the Christianity that you claim to espouse. Jesus, save us from the people who say they're following you.

[Austin]

This is why you should never let a fundie get behind you with a sharp object. Got divorced? Had a child die? Suffered from infertility? It must be because someone was sinning! If they can't pin it on you, they'll blame your parents.

You're a horrible person AKDA and people will look at your mean small-mindedness and run in the opposite direction from the Christianity that you claim to espouse. Jesus, save us from the people who say they're following you.

That really is mean-spirited. . . and kind of sick :shock: Sometimes the sheer meanness of these fundies makes FJers look like a bunch of candy stripers.

[MaroonMandy]

Somewhere, someone didn't follow God's commands. I tend to think it was her parents.

I feel sorry for any of my future children if they have to answer for even half of the stupid shit I've pulled in my day...

[Brainsample]

I feel sorry for any of my future children if they have to answer for even half of the stupid shit I've pulled in my day...

This is a part of "multigenerational faithfulness" and the revival of the Old Law which these people claim is true of covenant theology (though it is not and was not preached or taught as part of covenant theology). It's the homeschooling cult's perversion of Scripture.

They teach that all of Deuteronomy is entirely and literally true for New Covenant Believers. Under the New Covenant in Christ, we are set free from the law of sin and death. We are no longer under the law but are under grace. God looks at us and sees the righteousness of Christ and we are seen as holy in terms of the law, even though we are not yet made perfect. It is a forensic application of justification.

In Multigenerational Faithfulness which was preceded by the legalism of Gothard, they teach that your sins will visit your children to the fourth generation. That was true for the Jews under the Old Covenant, but we have a better deal. But they teach this in these systems.

[AKDA]

Brainsample, I like you. And I appreciate what you have said. I'll be thinking about a lot of it, and you made some excellent points. Thanks for taking the time. I'm thinking...

Gothard does make men "more than women" through hierarchy which he interprets through a military model. He makes any authority "more" than those under authority, because you are not permitted to question, complain, "murmur" or do anything to release yourself from the suffering that the authority requires of you. You're to bear up under all of it to earn "grace points" through humility because "God gives grace to the humble." He took a very general principle and made it a primary consideration and a formula. He made all human relationships into a formula. So it isn't just women who suffer, it is anyone who is subordinate to any authority. Children should endure beating and they should even subordinate their desires to marry whom they want, turning all that over to their parents because Gothard makes submission at all costs a rigid rule. (If I married everyone my parents liked, I'd be divorced now because all those young men turned out to be homosexual!!!) It isn't just a matter of women being subordinate and "less," it is true of anyone who is low on the food chain.

You also over simplify the analogy of Christ and His bride, a principle that I've taken my stripes here on Free Jinger (on YUKU) because of my Biblical beliefs and intepretation regarding marriage, and I agree that the relationship teaches us something mysterious about how God loves us through the sacrifice and care that Jesus provides for the Church. But in this discussion, I'm afraid that you've not explained it well enough and will only incite more criticism. The analogy is a mysterious one. But you gloss right over the fact that Gothard and complementarianism misinterprets the word "submit" in Ephesians 5 and that the whole headship argument is not a cut and dry belief across Christian belief systems, though all of those concepts are within the pale of orthodoxy. "When you think of marriage, think of Christ and His Church" is a very poor way of communicating meaning here in this forum (though it may be in a church on a Sunday morning). How that fleshes out for a Baptist who follows CBMW is quite different for how that fleshes out to someone in the Assemblies of God, for example. Those meanings are worlds apart.

Again, this is an oversimplification of what is entailed in this argument. Do you believe in the Eternal Subordination of the Son? Do you believe that men make intercession for their wives and govern their sanctification process? Do you believe that a woman can be unmarried and have no male family member that serves as a "covering" and be right with God and live fully in life and in the life of the Church? You're ignoring many issues within this argument, and there are many orthodox Christian interpretations of this aspect of doctrine, and not all of them are consistent with your own. You're talking as though your view is paramount and the most valid, and that is not true across Christendom (and I'm talking about Biblical Authority embracing, Born Again evangelicalism).

I think that is a grand part of the disconnect here in this discussion. We can certainly argue our reasons for believing a certain point of Scripture, and we obviously think it's valid if we follow it and believe it, but gender has not been traditionally thought to be an essential or central doctrine. It is an intramural one. And as Believers, we are called to be patient and tolerant with others with whom we do not agree on intramural matters, honoring that liberty that we have in Christ. We are not supposed to chastise people who eat meat sacrificed to idols if the Holy Spirit gives them leave to do so. But when you come in to defend your beliefs (that's fine to do), you have to show respect to other people, even if it is just respect for the Image of God in them. And when you discuss beliefs that are not shared, you must be meek and patient if those ideas fall within the pale of orthodoxy.

The comment about "are you Christians" may be attempting to get at that, but the way it read was condescending. You may have meant it to be that way, I don't know. Gothard is certainly that way with those who are Christians who do not agree with them. He's said his homeschoolers in ATI are better Christians than others many times. So if it's a matter of delivery, that's fine. Today, you've received some feedback that can benefit you in the future. But I see that as a major theme in your comments here on this thread.

[formergothardite]

Well hopefully when you get thinking you will answer some of the posts.

[Brainsample]

Here's more food for thought along those same lines: http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2011 ... other.html

[apple1]

This is a part of "multigenerational faithfulness" and the revival of the Old Law which these people claim is true of covenant theology (though it is not and was not preached or taught as part of covenant theology). It's the homeschooling cult's perversion of Scripture.

They teach that all of Deuteronomy is entirely and literally true for New Covenant Believers. Under the New Covenant in Christ, we are set free from the law of sin and death. We are no longer under the law but are under grace. God looks at us and sees the righteousness of Christ and we are seen as holy in terms of the law, even though we are not yet made perfect. It is a forensic application of justification.

In Multigenerational Faithfulness which was preceded by the legalism of Gothard, they teach that your sins will visit your children to the fourth generation. That was true for the Jews under the Old Covenant, but we have a better deal. But they teach this in these systems.

These people emphasize

Exodus 34:7 ...visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

while totally ignoring

Deutoronomy 7:9 ...the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations.

My (admittedly I am no theologian) interpretation of this is that the mercy of God is much greater and longer-lasting than the wrath/judgment of God.

All I am saying is that the Gothardites warp Scripture to fit their predetermined ideas.

Edit: riffled.