Hello.... Hi there... I'm Cynthia Gee, and I'm creating this as a mirror of my other CommonSense blog at HomeschoolBlogger. I am copying the first several articles from over there, and moving them here in their entirety, complete with reader's comments. So if you see your comment HERE, and remember posting it over THERE, relax. You're sane.

Friday, February 02, 2007

I received an anonymous comment in Relativists, Revisionists, and Reconstructionists,...": yesterday, that I am going to post here. Anonymous, you said a mouthful......

Anonymous said...
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 noveau 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!


Blogger simplegifts3 said...

Cynthia, hi!. I agree with a lot of this comment. And I also agree that the details of the Epstein's case is not where the focus should lie. As far as broader issues goes, though, the Epsteins, through what they have shared on the internet (the primary documents are what remain on Jen's site) have shed a HUGE light on these issues.

And the Epsteins' case is an example of what this commenter was speaking of, so it remains an important consideration when thinking of the "larger issues."

But we serve a God of the big picture and the little picture.

God, who saw that Leah wasn't loved, gave her children, and was also building the nation of Israel. Both the details and the big picture are important to God.

Same with the Epsteins, or you, or me, and whatever "big picture" we fit into.

1:20 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home