Jump to content
IGNORED

Can a fundie man ever be the "head" of his own household


Justme

Recommended Posts

before his father dies?

Nathan & Chris Maxwell are both married, but they still seem to "follow" Steve. Josh Duggars umbilical cord hasn't even been cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've pondered this myself. It seems to me that fundie men are still under the thumb of their pastors, churches, "gurus", or just rigid fundie expectations. They still have to live up (or down) to their wife's expectations. They are followers and all they can ever be are followers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anna's dad believed in the "umbrella of authority", where he expected his sons to obey him even after marriage. This is the reason one of his sons is estranged from him. In the case of Josh Duggar, I think it's more that he's an incompetent child than anything to do with ideology. Without his parents to hold his hand, Josh would be lost. I think the Duggars would be ok with their other sons "leaving and cleaving" though. The ideology varies throughout the fundie world, but all the Patriarchs are extreme narcissists and control freaks, so even they claim to believe that their sons will become the heads of their own households, I think they still expect their sons to obey and worship them forever. I can't imagine some ruler of a mini kingdom just giving up all his power as soon as his sons are adults or his daughters get married. Having just one person, the wife, to obey him is a huge step down and would be crushing for his massive ego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So does this mean that while grandpa Duggar was still alive, that Boob and all his Boobs-in-training were under grandpa's umbrella? Sounds like an actual Monarchy, where someone has to die or abdicate (right word/spelling?) the "throne" before the next in line has any real authority. I mean really, how far do they take this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the Biblical model is a sort of cross between monarchy & tribalism, right? The Israelites were under a central king's authority (sometimes) and national/religious laws, but day to day decisions were made by the father/grandfather/patriarch and/or the line/tribal leader, with disputes taken to the king of priests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing they can't. With Josh Duggar in particular, he's of the first generation of boys in that particular movement who should theoretically have a chance to run his own household. But when a man decides he is basicallly God in his family, I don't see him ever letting go, because then he looses power, and he only cares about power. So for boys born in this movement, I don't think they will ever have teh authority of the men who chose it until their own father dies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So does this mean that while grandpa Duggar was still alive, that Boob and all his Boobs-in-training were under grandpa's umbrella? Sounds like an actual Monarchy, where someone has to die or abdicate (right word/spelling?) the "throne" before the next in line has any real authority. I mean really, how far do they take this?

Grandpa Duggar didn't approve of them having so many kids. TLC has film of him saying so on older shows, before he got sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's one of the criticisms that Don Veinot made of VF in the Spring 2007 Midwest Christian Outreach article. You're always beholden to Uncle Ned.

Rethinking Vision Forum republished it here, and you can also download it from their blog:

http://rethinkingvisionforum.wordpress. ... e-kingdom/

..............

Botkin's 200 Year Plan is also rife with this, too. He's got the life plan laid out for the next several generations of his progeny (which he does not yet have).

http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008 ... elief.html

Do his grown sons not have a say in this? People that he will never live to meet -- for them he's laid out a plan for their lives? It's often tough to plan for five years in advance for myself, as unstable as our economy is and as unpredictable as life can be.

Some of this is old news and stuff many already know about, but this touches on it, too:

http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2009 ... ional.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting! Steven of the Loomii clan has a father who is (IIRC) divorced from Steven's mother. It appears that while Dr. Loomis (STeve's mom) is of the VF mindset, the paternal parent isn't. Does this make Steven a true patriarch? Does he anser to the elders at his church who tutored him? To his FIL the Rev. Mr. Sreven?

So many questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this "umbrella of authority" concept may be taught in Gothard and VF, but it is not a normal concept for theologically conservative christians in general. When a man marries he is considered head of his own household, "leave and cleave" is the philosophy. Leave your own family and cleave to your wife. You and your wife become a new family, with ties of honor and respect to both sets of parents, but not filial obedience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do any of the current "patriarchs" answer to their fathers? Of course not, because those fathers were/are not the enlightened leaders they need to be. GOD has spoken to the patriarchs (Gothard, Botkin, Phillips, etc.), and THEY are the chosen ones. THEY ALONE are the beginning of righteousness, the Alpha in every sense of the word.

Convenient, isn't it? Just like all those other niggling inconsistencies between their stated beliefs and their actual practices. DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO.

;) :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this "umbrella of authority" concept may be taught in Gothard and VF, but it is not a normal concept for theologically conservative christians in general. When a man marries he is considered head of his own household, "leave and cleave" is the philosophy. Leave your own family and cleave to your wife. You and your wife become a new family, with ties of honor and respect to both sets of parents, but not filial obedience.

This is what I was gonna say. To me, it's just more proof that the whole system is not so much based on the Bible, but on the "patriarchs" setting themselves up as despots, and trying to extend their authority as much as possible. I do wonder how it is handled when a couple is married and the father-in-laws clash over what they want for their children. I assume the "rule" would be to go with the husband's family's wishes, but I bet it ends up following the lines of which family has the most power or position in practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IME, the continued umbrella of authority does not apply to adult daughters, since the Patriarch transfers his authority to the husband these days in the wedding ceremony. Patriarchal authority over adult male sons seems to apply so long as Dad is Patriarchal and exerting his "umbrella of authority." In the event a Patriarchal daughter marries a man outside of the movement, one of two things happen. Either the husband is enveloped by Patriarchy and placed under the authority of either his FIL or another elder of his church body...or it serves as the one escape hatch whereby a female daughter can leave and not be ostracized and thrown out by her religion. Which happens often depends upon how strict the father is in choosing her spouse for her, and how much she sits back and lets her father control versus genuinely falls in love and steps out on her own even a tiny bit for the sake of love, imo anyway.

ETA: In every case I have seen where the man's parents are NOT Patriarchal (and I've seen quite a few) there is NO extension of authority to his parents, and in fact he is then encouraged to deliberately defy his family because they are "of the world" and against him and the religion. Disavowing authortiy of a Patriarchal father is considered unacceptable normally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems as if most of the primary promoters of patriarchy are first-generation, self-anointed patriarchs who have left their own personal Big Daddies in the dust. From that viewpoint, it looks pretty good. You are monarch of all you survey! It may not look that good to the second generation as they mature.

Possibly, as margiebargie said above, the second generation has been so browbeaten that they don't know how to rebel, and will be contented to just follow all their lives. In some cases, where there's a lucrative and well-known "ministry," the sons seem willing to bide their time till they can inherit the loot. But where there are six or eight sons, and only one can inherit, I don't know what the solution will be. Maybe they can have a tournament and fight it out, like in the good old days when kings had many sons and only one could survive! Hey, that would be Biblical . . . .

The group I was in followed the "shepherding" movement, whereby every man was accountable to some other man who was above him in authority, and up at the very top was a small cluster of guys who were accountable only to each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherding_Movement

That created horrendous dysfunction in marriages, because the patriarch of the family was actually taught not to listen to his wife or care about her feelings, but only to obey his headship. So women were in the position of being subordinate not even to their own husbands, but to some other man who didn't even know them. They were more like foot soldiers in an army than partners in a mature, adult relationship. The men in that situation never really were "heads" of their own household, because they were under orders from other men, and that was considered the ideal FOREVER. It wasn't something you could grow out of. It's the logical conclusion if you make submission to authority the supreme value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I was gonna say. To me, it's just more proof that the whole system is not so much based on the Bible, but on the "patriarchs" setting themselves up as despots, and trying to extend their authority as much as possible. I do wonder how it is handled when a couple is married and the father-in-laws clash over what they want for their children. I assume the "rule" would be to go with the husband's family's wishes, but I bet it ends up following the lines of which family has the most power or position in practice.

Right- I think they are basing it on what was customary in the old testament. In other words, the patriarch, his sons, their wives all wandering around the desert together as members of the patriarch's household. This was the social custom at the time, and I think is sometimes still practiced in the middle east.

Even though this was the cultural practice, I see no evidence that it was a mandate from God that families should be set up that way. It seems to be a neutral subject in the OT. God neither condones, nor does he forbid this family structure. In the social order set up in the new testament I find no mention of this type of concept. I'm not even sure it was still practiced at the time of Christ, but I don't really know that for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right- I think they are basing it on what was customary in the old testament. In other words, the patriarch, his sons, their wives all wandering around the desert together as members of the patriarch's household. This was the social custom at the time, and I think is sometimes still practiced in the middle east.

Even though this was the cultural practice, I see no evidence that it was a mandate from God that families should be set up that way. It seems to be a neutral subject in the OT. God neither condones, nor does he forbid this family structure. In the social order set up in the new testament I find no mention of this type of concept. I'm not even sure it was still practiced at the time of Christ, but I don't really know that for sure.

It's the Roman Paterfamilias. It is the system of the pagan culture during the 1st century AD, but it was not at all reflective of Christian society. It was what the Judeo-Christian groups had to cope with (Judaism to a lesser degree as substantially more patriarchal), not their ideal society. What Christianity introduced was provocative and challenged the Roman system. What these groups, particularly VF, have done is spiritualize and re-institutionalize the pagan culture of Rome. There is nothing Christian or Judeo-Christian about it. It is secular culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a well-researched article about Rome, but conditions in Athens were different for women. I can hunt up a article on that too. Google will turn up all sorts of info, and there are great books on the subject as well.

moyak.com/papers/roman-women.html

Ancient Roman Women: A Look at Their Lives

by Moya K. Mason

Evidence for what poorer women suffered during the Roman Republic and the Empire is very fragmentary, however, women of all economic levels shared one overwhelming pervasive role and responsibility, no matter the social position they possessed: that of child bearer.

….

Girls married very young. Many died in childbirth or because they were weakened from having too many children without reprieve.(3) . . . Women were expected to have as many babies as they could because they were never sure how many of the children would reach maturity. (5)

Aristocratic families wanted male children to carry on the family name and lineage,(7) and expected their wives to be perpetually pregnant.(8)

. . .

Although the role of women in ancient Rome was primarily child-bearing, women also played an important role in raising the children.(17) . . . Even the girls would receive this sort of home education because they would be expected to teach their own children one day.(20) . . . Roman women had children, but they were not exclusively "tools of reproduction"(22) -- they "were also a fundamental instrument of the transmission of a culture ... [and] it was their job to prepare them to become cives romani ... "(23)

. . .

They did have something in common: neither was allowed to vote or to participate in political activities.

. . .

Girls did receive some informal education in their homes and learned to read and write. Both mothers and fathers had a role to play in the transmission of Roman culture and education to their children, however, it was frowned upon for women to become too educated, as can be seen in Juvenal's writings. He scoffs at women who have opinions on Homer, grammar, and ethics, and he implies that these sorts of women have forgotten their place in society by being so knowledgeable. It was not their place. (39)

. . . . .

A dichotomy existed within the lives of Roman women. They did have some personal freedoms, but they had little chance for individuality or personal choice. They were under the constant supervision of their fathers, male relatives, and husbands, who regularly kissed them on the mouth to find out if they had drunk wine.(41) . . Women often married men who were much older than themselves. They married whoever they were told to.

Another controlling device used against Roman women was the practise of not allowing them to have personal names. Instead, a woman took her father's middle name or nomen and feminized it. From a Roman woman's name you could tell who her father was and therefore, her position in society. (44) Women existed within their families and had no identity of their own. Their fathers had absolute control over their lives and could even sell them into slavery or force them into a marriage and out of one, too.(45) . . Marriages were often without manus, meaning that the father kept the property of his daughter and would therefore, retain a hold over her wealth. A marriage with manus gave power over the woman to her new husband, as well as ownership of her property. In either case, Roman women were not permitted to do anything they wanted with their own money, since personal wealth is always equated with power. Of course, there were some exceptions. Mothers could spend money on their sons' political careers or education. . . . The only real power that most women possessed was over their personal interactions within the circle of their friends and family. Women had to know their place, remain modest, be tireless, and both loyal and obedient to their families - emotionally, physically, and financially. That was what Roman men were looking for in a wife. (46)

So it is evident that women had certain prescribed roles to play within Roman society: child bearer, mother, daughter, and wife. They were considered citizens, but they were not permitted to vote or participate in government procedures.. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that same author. The distinction between the lives of women in Athens and Rome is the separate part of the home for women where men were rarely seen. This seems unique to Athens.

moyak.com/papers/athenian-women.html

Ancient Athenian Women of the Classical Period

by Moya K. Mason

Thucydides was writing the history of the Peloponnesian Wars, not a social history. . . .Women were expected to give birth to future soldiers and citizens.

. . .

In Xenophon's On Household Management from the fourth century BC Athens, one can read about a woman's education. In excerpts 7.4-7.6, Socrates is asking Ischomachus if he has taught his wife everything she needs to know, or had she already been taught by her parents. He tells Socrates that his wife came to him at fifteen years of age, with knowledge of wool, spinning, the making of clothes, and food preparation.(10) These were seen to be the most important skills for women to have, along with the ability to raise children. This is the sort of education that women were given and the better student she was in these areas, the better chance she had of getting herself a husband. Girls seem to have married as soon as they reached puberty, while their husbands would be at least thirty years of age. (11) While boys of their same age would still be receiving educational and military training, the young women were giving birth to future citizens.(12)

. . .

Men were the citizens of democratic Athens and all women were excluded.(13) This exclusion meant that women had no political rights; it meant that they could not own land, which constituted power in the ancient world; and that they could never hold political office. Roger Just makes a very interesting point in Women in Athenian Law and Life: life was worse for women in democratic Athens than in other periods of the city's history because:

In narrowly oligarchic, aristocratic, or monarchic states, women who belonged to the elite have often wielded considerable power, even if illegitimately; on the other hand, since the bulk of the population, whether male or female, possessed no political rights, politics was not something which in general distinguished men from women. But in Athenian democracy there were no thrones from behind which women could rule, while the access that every adult Athenian male had to the offices and honours of the state sharply distinguished the citizen's life from that of his wife or daughter.(14). . .

. . .

The goal for a young Athenian woman was to get married. Most every woman would have a dowry. The amount was determined by her family's wealth, which varied drastically through the classes. The dowry helped to attract a suitable husband and was supposed to be used for the woman's maintenance. This didn't always happen and was sometimes squandered by the husband. The dowry was given by the father or her kyrios to the husband and could be taken back if the marriage did not work out. Every woman had a kyrios or male guardian. When she was born it would be her father. If he died, a male relative could take his place. After her marriage, her husband would become the kyrios. Any property or money she acquired through the death of a family member or through inheritance, became the property of her household, which was controlled by the kyrios. There is no evidence from Athens that women were ever allowed to become a kyrios. This meant that an Athenian woman could never have any real financial say in her life. Her dowry was in no legal sense her own, as it was given by her kyrios and she could not dispose of it herself. An Athenian woman could obtain a divorce, but only if her family and kyrios supported the decision. In that case, the dowry would be returned to her kyrios.

. . .

Women were expected to take care of the household, their husbands, and the children. This was what a woman's life revolved around, and it was very separate from the preoccupations of her Athenian husband. In fact, there was even a separate area of the house for wives, daughters, and female slaves; these quarters were called the gynaeconitis.(19) This area was usually located in the upper level of the house and was seldom seen by men. Respectable women stayed indoors as much as possible,(20) and it was considered proper for them to keep out of the sun so their skin stayed white, like the "white-armed Hera."(21) Of course, it would depend on her status in society. If she were a slave, she would have to fetch water and do the shopping at the agora. It was not considered proper for a respectable woman to handle business transactions. If there were no household slaves, her husband would purchase the household provisions.(22) Does this mean that Athenian women had no personal autonomy and were basically locked away in the gynaeconitis?

. . .

Women also seemed to be prominent in functions such as weddings, which is not surprising, and in funerals, since they were the ones who took care of the bodies.(24) Women were not allowed to visit the ekklesia, the Pan-Hellenic games, or even the cherished oracular shrines of the Greek world.(25) The only woman who could enter the shrine at Delphi, for example, was the Pythia, since she was considered a chosen one. However, women must have visited each other even if it was only for the purposes of communal domestic activities like washing clothes or letting their children play together.

Women were not able to travel alone, but maybe the men felt that they were protecting them. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's financial. If the son has the means to support his family withoutDaddy's help, then Daddy would likely "allow" the son patriarchical authority over the son's own family rather than provoke (and lose) a power struggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
By that same author. The distinction between the lives of women in Athens and Rome is the separate part of the home for women where men were rarely seen. This seems unique to Athens.

moyak.com/papers/athenian-women.html

Ancient Athenian Women of the Classical Period

by Moya K. Mason

The only women in Greek society with anything resembling autonomy were the hetaerae, who were high-end courtesans. These women were far better educated than their counterparts in respectable society. Many of them had had training as musicians or artists, and they could converse with most men about philosophy, art, history and politics. They often presided at official banquets that the wives and daughters of the most powerful men were barred from Although they were courtesans, most had only a few "customers" or protectors. One of these women, Aspasia, rose to become the mistress of Pericles, leader of Athens and was rumored to have had a child with him. Another one served as model for one of Praxiteles' sculptures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the hetaerae were the counterparts to women like Beall Phillips who lives above and exempt from the standard doled out to the lesser caste in patriarchy?

Same old song, only the names change. And, of course, they added "biblical" modifiers into the mix, along with proof texts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks to me like the first generation that created this to begin with don't want to let the power go. I don't think patriarchy will last more than the 2nd generation because of no one wants to let their family power go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks to me like the first generation that created this to begin with don't want to let the power go. I don't think patriarchy will last more than the 2nd generation because of no one wants to let their family power go.

All manipulative ideological and closed, high demand groups like this are always about manipulation and control -- that which facilitates the acquisition of power by the leader(s). And where power goes, money and sex follows, even if "sex" is just a pronounced obsession with gender, a covert manifestation of sexual exploitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
So the hetaerae were the counterparts to women like Beall Phillips who lives above and exempt from the standard doled out to the lesser caste in patriarchy?

Same old song, only the names change. And, of course, they added "biblical" modifiers into the mix, along with proof texts.

Not quite. Most of the hetaerae didn't have headships, they were frequently confidantes as well as bed partners of the men who patronized them, and they were much better educated than most upper class Greek women. They were also free to pick up and leave if an arrangement with a man didn't suit them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
The young maiden goes smiling and singing to the marriage altar. Does she know that if she has not Christ with her she is as a lamb going to the sacrifice? Let her tarry at the gateway till she has linked her life to Him who is the first and the last. Human love is very precious, but it is not enough to satisfy a heart. There will be trials, there will be perplexities, there will be crosses and disappointments, there will be solicitudes and sorrows. Then none but Christ will be sufficient.â€

Apparently, the writer has a low opinion of men. This is just such a disturbing view of marriage.

Why would the nonChristian women be a lamb led to slaughter? Hopefully, she has made an informed decision about who she is marrying. I think the lamb to slaughter imagery would be more appropriate for young SAHDs who have been sheltered from life and might not have enough experience to decide who to marry. Or worse, they might marry someone just because that is what daddy wanted.

We need to remember what marriage is about. It is about taking dominion and showing forth an example of the Gospel. It is about the kingdom of Jesus Christ, raising up a generation of warriors, taking dominion on this earth for the Glory of the Lord.

That is frightening. Luckily, I am pretty certain that fundamentalism has a high attrition rate.

strengthdignityandasmile.blogspot.com/2011/12/maiden-going-to-sacrifice.html?mid=5509

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.