Relativists, Revisionists, and Reconstructionists, Oh MY!
On "Dominion Family" blog, http://dominionfamily.com/blog/2007/01/leaders-action-stonewall-jackson/ , Eva from AZ wrote,
"I grew up in the North, have spent many years in the South, but have decided that both were wrong."
I responded,
Good comment, Eva, but some of them were more wrong than others.The South fought to protect their homes and families, AND a lifestyle that involved owning other human beings. When it looked like that lifestyle was threatened, they seceded as they had said they would, and drew first blood too, by attacking Fort Sumpter.The North’s motives weren’t entirely altruistic either: the Northern politicians fought to preserve the Union, and protect their economic interests. Slavery was a secondary issue, but it was an issue, nonetheless: many Christians in the North were dedicated to the cause of ending slavery, and they helped slaves find asylum in Canada via the Underground railroad.
We call these people *abolitionists*, and when I was in school, we also called them *heroes*.Other people call them other things, and attempt to revise history by portraying all abolitionists as being like that maniac, John Brown:
“From Doug’s Bookshelf: The Secret Six by Otto Scott is the best book on the evil movement known as abolitionism which funded America’s first terrorist, John Brown, and did so in the name of anti-Christian Unitarianism.”
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2003/05/
But that’s the trouble with revisionism… it revises and romanticizes historical fact to fit the author’s worldview. Usually this is fairly harmless, and takes the form of lionizing one’s favorite hero. We all do that, I think. For instance, take Robin Hood (my alltime favorite!): if Robin of Locksley ever existed at all, it’s very unlikely that he was anything like the legend that has grown up around him. But, the mythos exists, and as long as we know that it’s a *legend* rather than historical fact, there’s no harm in it.Similarly, the Old South has been romanticized, and that’s not altogether bad. Who DOESN’T love pecan pie, and magnolias, and gallant young men courting girls in beautiful gowns, a la Gone With the Wind?
The harm comes when a romanticized ideal of history becomes popular to the degree that people begin to ignore the reality of what actually HAPPENED; or worse, try to revive and relive a past that never was.Still worse, by far, is when someone comes along and starts writing and publishing revised histories which teach our young folks a skewed version of reality, in order to further the writer’s ideological or political agendas. Secular humanists have been getting away with this for years, and now folks like Steve Wilkins, Doug Phillips, and others are doing the same.
As I pointed out in an earlier blog, to Steve Wilkins and his neo-Confederate followers, LYING is perfectly permissible, and even virtuous, if it advances their Cause. Theonomists justify this strategy with a Biblical story, “Rahab’s Lie,” of a young woman who lies to protect the lives of Israelite spies in Jericho. As I pointed out earlier, Deacon Kevin Branson posted an article on the web site of Wilkins’ church in which he praises Rahab as “a spiritual hero” because “she deceived the wicked who sought to kill God’s own people.”Branson said that “some of us don’t have a clue about honorable and necessary deception of the wicked” and that “sometimes God requires that we offer by way of our right hand a sweeping sword, and from our lips deception, that the wicked might fail, and Christ and His Bride might flourish.”
So if it will serve a good Cause, these fellows see lying as OK.
Let's look at that.
Rahab was a pagan, and she lied to protect the Israelite spies. She lied for a good cause and great good came of it. But does that mean that it is acceptable to lie, or commit any other sort of sin (because that's what this really boils down to: MORAL RELATIVISM, a key tenet of secular humanism) , if doing so will result in good in the end?
Do ends justify means?
Now, mind you, I in no way am condemning Rahab. Personally, I think that Rahab was most likely a very good-hearted, courageous, and well meaning person --"a hooker with a heart of gold", if you will. She told her lie for a noble cause, and since she was a pagan, she had probably never been taught that lying is bad ALL the time. After all, Rahab grew up in a culture which taught that prostitution was a highly respectable profession. She very likely thought that lying for a good cause was OK. For Rahab telling such a lie almost certainly wasn’t a sin, because she was doing what her conscience said was right, and was acting in the interest of virtue; she was doing the best she could without the knowledge of God’s Law to guide her. She simply didn't know any better, and as it turned out, a well meaning person with no knowledge of the Law was just what God needed that night. God's spies survived and the person who saved them did not have to sin to do so. This does not say that morality is relative,however. Rather, as Romans 5:13 says ”until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” In other words, Rahab's lie was still a "wrong thing", but Rahab herself was not guilty of the sin because she was ignorant of God's law against lying.
But the situation would have been different for an Israelite, and it is completely different for Christians today. We have the Bible to tell us that ALL lies are wrong:Rev 22:15 For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and *****mongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever **loveth and maketh a lie**.
And, if we are going to tell ourselves that according to the Bible, lying is sometimes acceptable because Rahab did it, we might as well say that it's OK to practice Rahab's profession too, as long as it advances some noble Cause. After all, Lot's daughters did something similar when confronted with a tight situation, as did Judah's daughter-in-law Tamar. The Bible records these deeds and does not condemn them.
But I doubt that Wilkins, Wilson, Phillips and the rest of their confederates in the homeschooling curriculum business are going to preach THAT to their congregations.
"I grew up in the North, have spent many years in the South, but have decided that both were wrong."
I responded,
Good comment, Eva, but some of them were more wrong than others.The South fought to protect their homes and families, AND a lifestyle that involved owning other human beings. When it looked like that lifestyle was threatened, they seceded as they had said they would, and drew first blood too, by attacking Fort Sumpter.The North’s motives weren’t entirely altruistic either: the Northern politicians fought to preserve the Union, and protect their economic interests. Slavery was a secondary issue, but it was an issue, nonetheless: many Christians in the North were dedicated to the cause of ending slavery, and they helped slaves find asylum in Canada via the Underground railroad.
We call these people *abolitionists*, and when I was in school, we also called them *heroes*.Other people call them other things, and attempt to revise history by portraying all abolitionists as being like that maniac, John Brown:
“From Doug’s Bookshelf: The Secret Six by Otto Scott is the best book on the evil movement known as abolitionism which funded America’s first terrorist, John Brown, and did so in the name of anti-Christian Unitarianism.”
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2003/05/
But that’s the trouble with revisionism… it revises and romanticizes historical fact to fit the author’s worldview. Usually this is fairly harmless, and takes the form of lionizing one’s favorite hero. We all do that, I think. For instance, take Robin Hood (my alltime favorite!): if Robin of Locksley ever existed at all, it’s very unlikely that he was anything like the legend that has grown up around him. But, the mythos exists, and as long as we know that it’s a *legend* rather than historical fact, there’s no harm in it.Similarly, the Old South has been romanticized, and that’s not altogether bad. Who DOESN’T love pecan pie, and magnolias, and gallant young men courting girls in beautiful gowns, a la Gone With the Wind?
The harm comes when a romanticized ideal of history becomes popular to the degree that people begin to ignore the reality of what actually HAPPENED; or worse, try to revive and relive a past that never was.Still worse, by far, is when someone comes along and starts writing and publishing revised histories which teach our young folks a skewed version of reality, in order to further the writer’s ideological or political agendas. Secular humanists have been getting away with this for years, and now folks like Steve Wilkins, Doug Phillips, and others are doing the same.
As I pointed out in an earlier blog, to Steve Wilkins and his neo-Confederate followers, LYING is perfectly permissible, and even virtuous, if it advances their Cause. Theonomists justify this strategy with a Biblical story, “Rahab’s Lie,” of a young woman who lies to protect the lives of Israelite spies in Jericho. As I pointed out earlier, Deacon Kevin Branson posted an article on the web site of Wilkins’ church in which he praises Rahab as “a spiritual hero” because “she deceived the wicked who sought to kill God’s own people.”Branson said that “some of us don’t have a clue about honorable and necessary deception of the wicked” and that “sometimes God requires that we offer by way of our right hand a sweeping sword, and from our lips deception, that the wicked might fail, and Christ and His Bride might flourish.”
So if it will serve a good Cause, these fellows see lying as OK.
Let's look at that.
Rahab was a pagan, and she lied to protect the Israelite spies. She lied for a good cause and great good came of it. But does that mean that it is acceptable to lie, or commit any other sort of sin (because that's what this really boils down to: MORAL RELATIVISM, a key tenet of secular humanism) , if doing so will result in good in the end?
Do ends justify means?
Now, mind you, I in no way am condemning Rahab. Personally, I think that Rahab was most likely a very good-hearted, courageous, and well meaning person --"a hooker with a heart of gold", if you will. She told her lie for a noble cause, and since she was a pagan, she had probably never been taught that lying is bad ALL the time. After all, Rahab grew up in a culture which taught that prostitution was a highly respectable profession. She very likely thought that lying for a good cause was OK. For Rahab telling such a lie almost certainly wasn’t a sin, because she was doing what her conscience said was right, and was acting in the interest of virtue; she was doing the best she could without the knowledge of God’s Law to guide her. She simply didn't know any better, and as it turned out, a well meaning person with no knowledge of the Law was just what God needed that night. God's spies survived and the person who saved them did not have to sin to do so. This does not say that morality is relative,however. Rather, as Romans 5:13 says ”until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” In other words, Rahab's lie was still a "wrong thing", but Rahab herself was not guilty of the sin because she was ignorant of God's law against lying.
But the situation would have been different for an Israelite, and it is completely different for Christians today. We have the Bible to tell us that ALL lies are wrong:Rev 22:15 For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and *****mongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever **loveth and maketh a lie**.
And, if we are going to tell ourselves that according to the Bible, lying is sometimes acceptable because Rahab did it, we might as well say that it's OK to practice Rahab's profession too, as long as it advances some noble Cause. After all, Lot's daughters did something similar when confronted with a tight situation, as did Judah's daughter-in-law Tamar. The Bible records these deeds and does not condemn them.
But I doubt that Wilkins, Wilson, Phillips and the rest of their confederates in the homeschooling curriculum business are going to preach THAT to their congregations.
posted by CJ | 11:57 PM
24 Comments:
CJ, thanks for visiting my blog and commenting there. Joe Friday said I could use his information as I saw fit. So feel free to copy the article on your blog.
I got involved in this issue out of concern for the Epsteins, after reading the documentation they provided, and their story, and this is really snowballing into something much larger.
Simplegifts, please feel free to use anything you find here, and feel free to link to this blog. And if you find anything here that is factually inaccurate, please let me know. I do strive for accuracy but I make my share of mistakes.
Thanks. I just read Ministry Watchman's response to the comment in my blog, and apparently they have a lot more information from JF than what he provided to me.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joe has a lot of information. I'm pretty well tapped out, for now. I have a good many loose ends I'm working on though.
One thing you might find interesting is this, from Doug's Blog, where he pretty much admits to using homeschooling as an indoctrination tool and exploiting homeschooling and what has recently become known as the Quiverfull movement for political gain:
"In addition, the disproportionately high fertility rate of home educators, coupled with a philosophical and spiritual commitment of many to pass on the principles of multi-generational living to the their children, means that home educators are on the verge of an explosion of socio-political influence. Bottom line: We are out-populating our cultural opponents...."
I guess that's his right, and I'm as pro-family as they come, but frankly, the idea of using our wombs and our offspring as a political tool sickens me. It's dehumanizing to the point of being anti-family.
And another thing, I really don't mind you using Joe and I to make your point about hypocrisy. It was tit for tat, you made your point, and I got to make quite a few of my own.
But do tell.... who is Met?
Corrie and I know "Metochoi" from the Yahoo Gothard discussion list, where Corrie used to be list owner, and now Met is. On my blog, in the sidebar, I link to the Gothard list, and also the "logic class" which Met has taught. I helped edit his lessons and put them on files there, so it is a self-study class, with lessons, exercises, and answers on the files.
Met is retired from the pastorate, and from teaching home-schooled high school students different subjects. His main interests are astronomy, grammar, history, Latin, and Old English, and of course theology and the Bible.
If you want to read more of his writings, check out the Gothard discussion list, or the logic list.
I can't figure out how to use the HTML italics so I am quoting you here...
CJ said, "...where he pretty much admits to using homeschooling as an indoctrination tool and exploiting homeschooling and what has recently become known as the Quiverfull movement for political gain."
I guess I'm wondering why this sickens you. Is it repulsive to give our wombs to God to welcome Covenant children who will be "indoctrinated" by the idea that they should glorify Him with their lives and influence the world (even the political arena) for the Kingdom - even to the point of taking over (taking dominion)!
Our children are not given to us for the sole purpose of pleasing us. It’s not all about “me and my warm fuzzies.” Our children are given to us to love sacrificially and to train up in the way they should go. Of course, as we’re obedient to this, we will find for ourselves a great and satisfying blessing, but, the goal is not “something for me" the goal is to serve God and His Kingdom.
God's plan is greater than my personal salvation (as thankful as I am for it) or having children for my own pleasure (as much of a joy as they are). To be thoroughly Christian we must make an effort to bring peace and reconciliation to this broken and confused world. (Col. 19, 20). This will be done as we face the problems associated with our God-hating culture, not retreating from it. “Thy Kingdom come; thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.” Matt 6:10. We must be living out this prayer in our own lives as well as preparing our children and encouraging generations of others who will do the same.
We must teach our children to center their lives around Jesus, to build up the church, to take the Gospel to others, to act as PEACEmakers, to minister to the needy, and to communicate Christ as they transform our culture for Him. They are to be shot out as empowered arrows to impact our world! Since this would surely impact the political world as our (Christian) numbers increase, why would this seem to you to be something scandalous?
"Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one’s youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them; They shall not be ashamed, But shall speak with their enemies in the gate." Psalm 127:3-5
Thy Kingdom come...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Generation Keeper, children are a gift from the Lord, but to bear them in order to further an earthly religious leader's political aspirations is a misuse and a prostitution of that gift.
The adherents of Dominionism believe that instead of waiting for Jesus to return and establish His Kingdom here on Earth, they should one-up Him by taking **physical and political control of the country**, and then establishing their brand of Christianity as the state religion.
They are indoctrinating a generation of homeschooled kids through their custom written curriculum and revised histories; and, they are telling parents that it is their duty bear and homeschool as many children as they possibly can, and train them up to be loyal, unquestioning members of the Movement.
This is a misuse and a perversion of both the family and Christianity.
In Luke 4:5, the devil shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, and tempted Him, saying,
"All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If Thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be Thine."
But in John 18:36, Jesus says,
"My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."
Jesus will establish His kingdom on Earth when He returns for His Bride.
May *God's* Kingdom come.
Not the Dominionists'.
LOL! Who ever said anything about bearing children for an earthly religious leader's political aspirations? Sounds like a science fiction movie to me. Oh my! Thy Kingdom Come does in fact refer to "God's Kingdom." :-)
Yes, the Kingdom of God is not of this world. We are to live out the Gospel as citizens of that Heavenly Kingdom. (And I don’t think gossiping on blogs is representative of a loyal citizen of Heaven, by the way). However, He has commanded us to subdue the earth and He wasn’t simply talking about gardening and animal control. We also must remember that He is most definitely King over all the earth as well as Heaven. He is also the Lord who opens and closes the womb and blesses us with children for His purpose and His glory.
We don’t produce children in some sort of Hitler-style trance, hoping to take the world by earthly might in a power-crazed frenzy! LOL! We don’t subdue the earth by brute force, but, by living out and teaching our children the things I mentioned in my post above—by trusting God to make us more like Jesus every day. As we do this, we do in fact live out that prayer, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven.”
I do think maybe you’ve listened to gossip and been misled in your understanding of what these people believe and what they are seeking. This happens often when the tongue (or the keyboard) is used by Satan for division, strife, and other forms of wickedness. “…Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it… Gen. 1:28
For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. Lev. 26:9
Why did you remove my post?
GenerationKeeper, there are people whose churches preach exactly that. Apparently you are not in one of those churches, and that's a good thing.
Doug Phillips said his blog, "home educators are on the verge of an explosion of socio-political influence. Bottom line: We are out-populating our cultural opponents."
And, pastors whose family members found political parties which court the votes of subversive groups such as the League of the South, and who tell their followers who they are and are not at liberty to support in the polls, are like something out of a bad science fiction movie, but that's what is happening with Phillips.
Let me put this another way.
What if there were a Christian leader in Europe, who preached to his followers that they should take control of Europe for the Glory of God, and who had a company which published homeschooling materials, complete with revised history books that told about WWI and WWII from the German point of view, and suggested that the Holocaust, while real, wasn't anywhere nearly as bad as other history books had portrayed it. Suppose this man wanted his flock to outbreed their cultural opposition, and use his homeschooling materials to make sure that the resulting children had the correct worldview.
Suppose this man revered Rommell as a great general and Rosenberg as a great philosopher, aside from their Nazi beliefs, of course.
Suppose this man's father started up a political party, which courted the votes of neo-Nazi groups in his home country, and shared a good many of their beliefs, all while remaining a Christian based political party.
NOW, suppose this pastor started preaching from the pulpit, instructing his congregation who they were and were not "at liberty" to support in the polls, and even published a guideline for his flock to use in making the "correct" choices.
What would you think?
My dear Cynthia, you have quite an imagination! Maybe you should write a good fiction novel about this - I can't wait to find out what happens next!
The problem is that your analogy bears no likeness to those whom you accuse. You’re warning us about Freddy Krueger while pointing to Beaver Cleaver. We’re not talking about a bunch of Nazi murderers; we’re talking about men of God who want to see the Kingdom of God expanded – not by brute force, but by godly living and raising godly families who influence their culture. I won’t argue here about revised history, because it would take too long, but I will say that the winner of a war always gets to write what happened in the history books. How’s that for an unbiased opinion?
All you know about these men is what you’ve heard through gossip and through the unfounded testimony of a rebellious couple who told “their side” of the story to gossip-hungry Internet bloggers. I happen to have met this family years ago and their testimony is not consistent with what I saw in them and from what I know to be true of their daughter in recent years.
Maybe if you could sit down with each of them and have a good long talk, you would be better able to discern the truth. You still may not know the complete truth, but at least you would know you're dealing with real people here. You would know that coming to conclusions based on words typed by strangers on a computer screen is dangerous and unjust.
I have no personal knowledge of the details of the Epstein's discipline at Boerne, but I do know that marriage and family troubles are difficult to counsel within the church. People don’t want answers to their marriage difficulties; they want to blame their spouse to a listening ear. And when a couple is unrepentant, it’s difficult to enforce church discipline to encourage that repentance. This is due to the state of our weak, effeminate church. There is almost always a church split, accusations of mistreatments, harshness, legalism etc.
Unrepentant people don’t say, “Yes, I was wrong.” They lie, they gossip, they defend themselves, they slander authority, and they play the victim – tears and all. It’s human (sin) nature. Consider this, what if you’re wrong. What if Jen and her husband are lying? What if you have aided an unrepentant Christian get her way and hindered her from facing her sin, seeking forgiveness, and being biblically restored to fellowship. What if you’re wrong?
GK, (may I use your initials?) first of all, I do NOT for one minute think that the folks at VisionForum are in league with Nazis! I was using hyperbole to make my point. :)
But the Constitution Party IS in league with the League of the South, whose stated goal is secession from the Union.
Their LoS motto is
"We Seek to Advance the Cultural, Social, Economic, and Political Well Being and Independence of the Southern People by all Honourable Means"
http://www.dixienet.org/
We would do well to remember that these guys consider war to be an "honorable" pursuit. And the president of the League, as well as many members, are Kinists. And Michael Peroutka, the Consitiution Party's presidential cantidate in 2004, was a League of the South MEMBER!
Doug Phillips endorsed Peroutka, and he is a follower of Rushdoony and Dabney; VisionForum DOES sell revisionist books which glorify the Confederacy; and Doug Phillips DID tell his congregation how they should vote in 2004: for the Constitution Party cantidate. Not very Beaver-Cleaverish to me.
As far as whether or not the Epsteins are lying, that's for God and time to tell. You will notice that I have said less in my postings about the Epsteins than I have about Dominionism and the theonomist heresy in general. I do tend to believe the Epsteins over Phillips & Co. because I have been watching this thing grow for several years and I because I know quite a number of other people who have attended Dominionist churches and who have similar stories, but the Epsteins are not my main concern here.
My main concern is shining a light on a pop-religion cult that is pushing a seditious political agenda, selling biased histories to homeschoolers, abusing the sheep, and making big money doing it.
Oh, and GK... you wrote, "Unrepentant people don’t say, “Yes, I was wrong.”
Neither do people who have done nothing for which they should repent.
"They lie, they gossip, they defend themselves, they slander authority, and they play the victim – tears and all."
This is exactly what Phillips and Co. have done.
But does this prove that the Epsteins are necessarily in the right?
No (though I think they probably are), but this, along with everything else I've listed, does prove that VisionForum is very much in the wrong.
So many comments, so little time!
GenerationKeeper has said many things that I agree with as well as many things that I don't. Children are a heritage of the Lord and the word "heritage" implies that we will pass along our own family culture, values, and beliefs to our children. If we are not doing those things, we are not really living as a family, especially as Christian parents. That being said, even pagans and cult members do those things. Just because we believe in passing along what we perceive to be truth to our children doesn't always mean that what we are teaching our children is correct. And, what we believe at one stage of our Christian walk might be entirely different at another stage so what we teach our children might take 180 degree turns by the time they are raised. And this is where grace comes in, does it not?
Herein lies the problem with Phillips in that regard. He is portraying a way of life that is of little earthly good in the 21st century. Christians are called to engage the culture of today, not the culture of 200 years ago. If you really look at what is encouraged in the nouveau patriarchal society, there is little that can actually be done today. For example, how many families can (or should) return to an agrarian way of life? How many families can afford for the father to work from home, thus having older sons only taught by dads? How many families can purchase all the amenities from the Vision Forum catalog in order to teach Phillips' brand of history? And how many women, even in the broader evangelical or reformed worlds, are going to buy into women not voting or having a say in the politics of the day? How many are going to embrace the extra-biblical views of submission that are taught? You see, this notion that they are going to redeem the culture by promoting these views is absurd and delusional.
Even within their positive-view-of-the-endtimes camps, there are those who do not go along with many of their extreme views. And that is true for the children as well. Written off as rebellious, some of the young people who were "trained" (I hate that word, sounds like what you do with a dog) are finding their own paths when they are older. They are burned out from being the oldest siblings who were given too much responsibility so they want few or no children. They want to listen to music other than older hymns not because they are rebellious but because they find blessing and encouragement in contemporary worship music. The girls wear pants not because they are immodest tarts but because they do not agree with someone else's standards for what modesty is or isn't. And on and on the list goes. It the same sort of legalism that has been taught for years in the fundamentalists circles, only with different items on the lists.
Now, as far as the race card is concerned, I don’t know how someone cannot be considered to be a racist if he continually promotes people like Dabney or talks about how we would have a truly Christian nation today had the south won the war etc. So the south was fighting for their families and for the rights of their states. The rights they wanted for their families was the right to own people as property so they could maintain their southern culture. The bottom line is that they wanted to keep their slaves, people who were purchased after they had been kidnapped. When you study the decades prior to the Civil War, you can read all about what the southern congressman wanted. They were a deceived people.
Which brings us to the treatment of those under authority. Once you go down that path of hierarchy, there are those who “are_____” and those who “are not____.” You fill in the blank. Wilkins and others who have written with a pro-south orientation see a manner of feudalism as the norm for life. This carries over into the elders vs laity mentality, the parents vs children or husband vs wife discussions etc. The notion of each as God’s image bearer is forgotten. There becomes no priesthood for the believer. Those very people who are forbidding the liberties of others, accusing them of being libertines, are, themselves, trampling anyone in their paths for the sake of their own liberties.
The details of the Epsteins and their situation are really not the issue and dwelling on it has caused the central concerns we should have about these patriarchs to be ignored. It’s too bad. If we could just take the teachings themselves and examine them, we wouldn’t have to wonder what happens to anyone who comes under their authority. We would just run!
Mom of Grace, beautifully put. May I use this as an entry on my blog, citing you as the author, of course, and linking to your blog? It seems a shame to leave this buried in the comments section.
Cynthia,
You are welcome to use this on your blog and put my name but my blog is in its infancy so there isn't much to read at this point!
Great discussion.
Is the last anonymous from Mom of Grace? If it is, I think Cynthia is right on when she wants to use your comment for a blog post.
I know one of the anonymous post is from Simplegifts.
And then there is the GK/Anonymous post that have a familiar ring to them but not sure who that anonymous really is. As for the GK/Anonymous post, I hear you laughing but I don't think this is a laughing matter. I think Cynthia has brought up some very good points and so has Mom of Grace and I think that it would really help if you addressed the issues with the same seriousness that these issues deserve.
I really think it is going to be hard to get any of the hyper-patriarchal types to listen because their "bread and butter" is wrapped up in what they teach and the materials they sell. When someone has made this sort of thing their source of income, one cannot think objectively. There will be no concessions when money is put ahead of truth.
Corrie you are right on the "money."
Check out this upcoming online conference that costs $50.00 a person ($40.00 if you sign up early).
A special announcement from Jennie Chancey of Ladies Against Feminism:
We are very excited to tell our readers that technology has finally made a long-held dream come true: the opportunity to speak “live” over the Internet from home to ladies all over the world! Wherever you can get a high-speed connection, you will be able to log in and join us for a one-day conference (10 a.m. to 2 p.m. CST) on March 17, 2007. This first ever Christian Homemaking Conference on the Internet will feature Kim Brenneman of Large Family Logisitics; Jennifer McBride of Noble Womanhood; Victoria Botkin and her daughters, Anna Sofia and Elizabeth of Visionary Daughters; Lydia Sherman and her daughter, Lillibeth, and LAF editor Jennie Chancey.
Yes, MomofGrace, if you do the math, and 500 people sign up and at least half of them pay the full price and the other half pay the early bird price, they will net about $23,000.
I will hold my own homemakers conference. Everyone tune into Martha Stewart and Rachel Ray and we will live blog about what we learn and then we can all throw in our own insight and advice for homemaking.
And it is FREE! :-)
I don't know much about these sorts of things, so maybe the cost for putting one of these live conferences on is very high and that is why they are charging so much???
What happened to the comments made by GenerationKeeper?
I was wondering the same thing. Cynthia, is there some way you could add GenerationKeeper to the end of my posts so the thread is easier to follow? Weird. I just previewed this post and it comes out normal. What happened to my other posts?
Do you not allow people to edit their own posts on your blog? I have no access to my previous posts.
GenerationKeeper
OK, thanks anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home