Dinah's Disgrace
We read, in Genesis 34:1, “And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.” Interestingly, this venture of Dinah’s was likely not even a going out to live alone. She was probably not intending to begin a new life during her unmarried years, living on her own. Various commentators, as well as the great historian, Josephus, comment that Dinah’s reason for going out independently was most likely in order to visit the girls of the land with the intention of learning from and attending a feast or ball with them.
Not only did she leave the protection of her father’s home in order to go out on her own and pursue her own plans, she likely did so without her father’s knowledge or permission. If she had simply been openly communicating with her father as we see daughters doing in Numbers 30, this likely would not have happened. Oh the dangerous, destructive binds we can find ourselves in when we do not seek our father’s wise counsel, authority, and advice!
In verse one we read of Dinah’s leaving her father’s home. Trouble is by no means slow in arriving, for in the very next verse, we read that Shechem, the son of Hamor, “saw her, took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.” Some believe that Shechem raped Dinah, while there are others who claim that the relationship was a consensual one. I happen to think that in this context, the phrase "took her" may very well support the view held by those who believe it was rape. Either way, this was a terribly wicked act of sin-one that could have been avoided had Dinah remained at home or had the protection of her father or older brothers when she went on her venture. Sadly, however, she rejected the protection offered by her home and family, and the result was a tragic one. If this were the end of the story, it would be proof enough of the dire importance of daughters remaining under the protection of their fathers. Unfortunately, however, this is not where the story ends-it gets much, much worse.
Shechem desired to marry Dinah, and in the following verses, he appeals to his father as well as Dinah’s family, to allow him to wed her. In verses 14 through 24, we read that, because Shechem was outside the covenant community and not one of God’s chosen people, Dinah’s family would not give her to him unless he, too, were circumcised. Shechem and his people agreed to this condition and proceeded to be circumcised. Shechem was joyful, for he believed that Dinah’s brothers would hold up their end of the deal, and he would soon be married to Dinah. However, we discover in verses 13, 25, and following that all along, Jacob’s sons had had no intention whatever to give Dinah to Shechem as wife. Verses 25-30 add insult to injury and plunge Jacob’s family into an even deeper abyss of sadness and destruction. Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, slew with the sword Shechem, Hamor, and all the men of their land. They went on to spoil the entire city in vengeance and stole all their possessions-their money, children, wives, and animals-taking them, as it were, prisoner. Verse 30 of this chapter is just as tragic as the first two verses, if not more so: “And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, ‘Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.”
Genesis 34 is filled with one tragic event after another. Dinah is defiled and robbed of her virginity, Simeon and Levi murder countless men and take their possessions as plunder, and now Jacob’s entire family line is ruined, hated, and in danger of being completely destroyed. What could have possibly been the root of this mayhem and caused this distruction? The seemingly little act of Dinah, an unmarried young woman, leaving her father’s house, void of his protection, counsel, and leadership. Granted, Shechem is certainly to blame for sinning against Dinah; he was by no means a saint and was in dire need of self-control! Likewise, Simeon and Levi were to blame for the horrible ravaging they committed against Shechem and his land. However, it is highly unlikely that any of this would have occurred, had Dinah remained under the protection of her father, in the sphere God had so wisely and lovingly designed for her, rather than shunning it and going off on her own.
Consider the following words of Matthew Poole, a Puritan from the 17th century:
“From her father’s house into the city, out of curiosity, there being then, as Josephus reports, a great concourse of people to a feast. Thus she put herself out of her father’s protection, and merely out of a vain humour exposed both herself and others to temptation; which was the worse, because it was amongst them that had no fear of God to restrain them from the most enormous crimes. She was now fourteen or fifteen years old.”1
Likewise, consider these words from well-known Bible commentator Matthew Henry:
“Dinah was, for aught that appears, Jacob’s only daughter, and we may suppose her therefore the mother’s fondling and the darling of the family, and yet she proves neither a joy nor a credit to them; for those children seldom prove either the best or the happiest that are most indulged. She is reckoned now but fifteen or sixteen years of age when she here occasioned so much mischief. Observe, 1. Her vain curiosity, which exposed her. She went out, perhaps unknown to her father, but by the connivance of her mother, to see the daughters of the land (v. 1); probably it was at a ball, or on some public day. Being an only daughter, she thought herself solitary at home, having none of her own age and sex to converse with; and therefore she must needs go abroad to divert herself, to keep off melancholy, and to accomplish herself by conversation better than she could in her father’s tents. Note, It is a very good thing for children to love home; it is parents’ wisdom to make it easy to them, and children’s duty then to be easy in it. Her pretence was to see the daughters of the land, to see how they dressed, and how they danced, and what was fashionable among them. She went to see, yet that was not all, she went to be seen too; she went to see the daughters of the land, but, it may be, with some thoughts of the sons of the land too. Note, The pride and vanity of young people betray them into many snares. 2. The loss of her honour by this means (v. 2); Shechem, the prince of the country, but a slave to his own lusts, took her, and lay with her, it should seem, not so much by force as by surprise. Note, Great men think they may do any thing; and what more mischievous than untaught and ungoverned youth? See what came of Dinah’s gadding: young women must learn to be chaste, keepers at home; these properties are put together, Tit. 2:5, for those that are not keepers at home expose their chastity. Dinah went abroad to look about her; but, if she had looked about her as she ought, she would not have fallen into this snare. Note, The beginning of sin is as the letting forth of water. How great a matter does a little fire kindle!”2
“Dinah, when she went to see the daughters of the land, lost her chastity. Those whose home is their prison, it is to be feared, feel that their chastity is their fetters.”3
Behold all the disastrous consequences that can follow when daughters go against God’s all-wise, ordained design of stay-at-home daughterhood and forsake the protection of their fathers!
Deuteronomy 22:27-A Tragic Situation
The biography of Dinah is, sadly, so very similar to that of the young woman mentioned in Deuteronomy 22:27. This is a heart-breaking passage that causes me to praise the Lord for the protection which my parents’ home affords me. This verse states, “For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.” In the two verses which proceed this one, a law is laid down by God as to how a man should be treated who comes across a maiden alone in a field and proceeds to rape her. Notice the condition of helplessness in verse 27-and there was none to save her. It should be crystal clear why God has commanded fathers to care for, lead, and protect their unmarried daughters in their homes until they give them in marriage. Our God is desiring to save these young women from the horrific situation in which young woman in verse 27 found herself. Yet, in our day, those both inside and outside the Church are ever so intent upon breaking down the foundations of stay-at-home daughterhood, in the hopes of destroying this beloved doctrine and preventing young ladies from following in the footsteps thereof. This is simply unthinkable at best and downright hateful at worst. May we in Christendom who have shunned this doctrine repent of our folly, and realize the guilt we have when we push young women from their protective homes and families out into a dog-eat-dog world!
And so it Continues to This Day....
The account of Dinah, as well as the one addressed in Deuteronomy 22, are by no means archaic. The problem of unprotected, independent women being harassed is even more common in our day, in a time when the majority of today’s women are away on a college campus or in the workplace. Likewise, I addressed, in a previous article, the account of a 15 year old girl who was raped and abused at a school dance, with no one stepping in to protect or defend her. Consider, for example, the following horrific statistics:
A college survey conducted by the National Victim Center reported that one in four college women have been raped or suffered attempted rape (Bureau of Justice, 1992).4
Approximately 32% of college students are victims of domestic violence5
While in college, 50 - 75% of women are sexually harassed, and 20 to 30% of college women report being sexually harassed by a professor6
Fifteen percent of all female violent crimes were committed while the victim was working or on duty.7
Approximately 36,500 rapes and sexual assaults occur annually in the workplace. In 80 percent of these incidents, the victim was female.8
This is tragic! And yet, in our day, if you are an adult woman and not on a college campus or busying yourself in the workplace, you are viewed as old-fashioned, unfulfilled, and strange. Is it any wonder that, in Numbers 30, the Lord commands fathers to protect and lead their unmarried daughters at home until they give them in marriage?
In Conclusion
The Holy Scriptures are replete with accounts of stay-at-home daughters. Interestingly, there is precisely one account-only one!- in the Bible that I am aware of which speaks of a daughter going off on her own. This example is by no means a positive nor praiseworthy one. I believe that, through it, the Lord is issuing forth to us a grave warning of the destruction that can-and so often does-take place when unmarried young women are sent off to be on their own-be that at a college dorm or in one’s own dwelling place, pursuing a career in the workforce.
Prevailing among Christendom today is the idea that the Bible speaks not to the issue of where unmarried young women should live. Others believe that if it does speak to this issue, it is simply by way of suggestion or the issuance of a good idea, or perhaps through some archaic, done-away-with command. However, this is clearly not the case. The Scriptures provide us with example after example of stay-at-home daughters, verses pertaining to stay-at-home daughterhood, and commands addressing the issue of where unmarried daughters are to live. In addition, we are provided with only one example of a daughter who forsook the protection of her father. If the Lord were indifferent as to where an unmarried woman lives, then He would have provided for us in His Word positive, heart-warming, good examples of unmarried daughters leaving their families and living on their own. However, this is simply not what we find in the Scriptures-and I believe we know precisely why this is!
Footnotes
1. Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible Vol. 1 (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2008) pg. 77
2. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991) pg. 73
3. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991) pg. 2370
4. http://www.aaets.org/article135.htm
5. http://www.feministcampus.org/fmla/printable-materials/v-day05/violence_against_women.pdf
6. Ibid.
7. http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/women/violence.cfm
8. Ibid.
I can relate to this story. I have personal experience and am currently married to that certain Shechem. My father "encouraged" me to attend college much in relation to the fact that he really didn't know scripture and was lured by feminism. I'm still paying the price today.....In-law problems etc. It is hard to overcome but I believe grace is still there.
ReplyDeleteMy husband and I, saved out of the storm, have both agreed that "college" and "girly" life for our daughter is not an option. We are going to encourage all aspects of working under the protection of father/husband in the home.
Hi, I know you have said that you believe girls and women should not go from home to work. What is your opinion of the view in the Ladies Against Feminism website that women can be doctors and nurses because because, for modesty's sake, women should only consult female doctors and nurses?
ReplyDeleteRebekah,
ReplyDeleteI hesitate to criticize your writings, but I feel that I must write regarding this particular post. I am a regular reader and have commented under my real name prior to this, but am choosing a pseudonym for this comment.
Reading this broke my heart. I was sexually assaulted while in college. It took me a long time to realize that what happened was not my fault... the monster who assaulted me was wholly responsible. I was a victim. I suppose that, if I hadn't gone to college, I wouldn't have been there for him to prey on me. However, I was at college with my father's blessing and encouragement. I met my husband there and was overwhemingly blessed by the many joys that I experienced.
Please don't blame the victims of these horrors. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but that did not come across in what you wrote. It's not enough to keep women at home behind closed doors and away from the world. While it's certainly reasonable to advise women to avoid bad situations or potentially troublesome individuals, I had no way of knowing that this particular individual was going to put something in my non-alcoholic drink while I wasn't looking and take advantage of my inability to respond.
I apologize if this comes off as harsh. But I had to go lie down and cry after reading this, as it brought back distinctly painful memories.
Mrs. Spilde,
ReplyDeleteIt's always a blessing to hear from you! :)
I'm so sorry to hear of the terrible situation you found yourself in. I can't imagine how hard that must have been for you. Praise the Lord that He worked in that situation and brought good from it, and that now the two of you are happily married! Isn't God good?
Your testimony makes evident the fact that sending young women to college can-and more often than not, does!-bring about such terrible problems and consequences. I've heard testimonies like yours time and again. How my heart goes out to young women who are being sent off to college campuses!
I'm so thrilled to hear of how the Lord has worked in you and your husband's hearts. Your daughter will be so blessed and protected through your wise, Biblical guidance! Thank you for dedicating yourselves to instilling in her a love for Biblical womanhood. What a blessing!
Thank you for sharing your experience!
Rebekah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anonymous,
Great question! Wow, where do I begin? :)
First, we do see, in the Scriptures, examples of godly women who were midwives (Exodus 1:15-21). This is a wonderful ministry and one that is needed in our day. However, for one thing, the culture then was very different than ours is today. For millenia, women filled in as midwives and nurses without in any way entering the workforce or neglecting their duties at home. For example, in early pioneer life, the culture was not set up as ours is today, where if you're a nurse, for example, then you're always in the workplace. In olden days, women were raised (usually in large families) learning midwifery and first aid skills, often through delivering their own brothers and sisters, caring for sick family members, etc. They did not require college learning to be equipped for this skill. Also, then, these women were homemakers who would travel to a neighbor's home when needed. The overall makeup of society was vastly different. In that capacity, I do agree wholeheartedly that women nurses and midwives are needed and are great blessings!
As for today, while I certainly agree that for modesty purposes it is far better to go to a female doctor, things have changed so very much to where now, in order to be a female doctor, you have to leave your home to work in the workplace. This change in how our culture runs has destroyed the possibility for women to be homemakers as they're commanded to be, while still going from neighbor to neighbor as needed. Everything in our day occurs at a hospital, for one thing. Please understand that I am very thankful for hospitals-the Lord has used them to save countless lives. I myself had hip sugery at a hospital; they are definitely blessings. But our modern times have made it impossible for a women to be a full time homemaker while still performing medical ministries to other women (for the most part, that is; this is not the case across the board-I have a friend who has studied midwifery and is certified, who is at home and will remain so-she will conduct her midwifery duties at home or at her patient's home).
While I do agree that female doctors provide a greater sense of modesty, I do not believe it to be acceptable to disregard a clearly stated command (Titus 2:5) in order to fill a need. The ends don't justify the means. Having said that, I would have to study further what the ladies at LAF specifically believe in this area, to answer fully if I disagree with them or not. I do know that they feel that single women or mothers with grown children are more qualified to fill in that capacity. I would certainly agree with that, but I do not feel that these women would be fully obeying Titus 2:5 as they ought. Again, this is a difficult issue which I would need to study further in order to give a full and decisive answer.
Thanks again for your question!
Rebekah
Grace,
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me say how very, very sorry I am for what you went through. I can't even begin to imagine how tramatic that must have been. I'm also so sorry that the reading of this article caused you to think back to that terrible event in your life. I'm sorry for any pain the reading of this article brought you.
If you notice in my article, I do not place all the blame on Dinah. I had a feeling that I would have commentors who claimed that I did, and so I therefore specifically mentioned that Shechem, Levi, and Simeon were each to blame for the part they played in the disaster that took place.
I am not saying that you were necessarily responsible for what occurred. There are victims of sexual abuse, however, who are responsible (not all, of course, just some!). For example, consider those women who dress in a terribly provocative manner in order to entice men. Then, when men sexually assault them, they get all upset. They should feel upset-what those men did was horrible and without excuse. However, these women had a hand in what occurred-had they dressed more modestly, the assault likely would not have taken place. This was the point I was making with Dinah. She was partly to blame. Having said that, I do not endorse the idea that women, as you said, should be "at home behind closed doors and away from the world". The home is not a cage for women. That is their God-given sphere and they are to be protected by their husbands, sons, fathers, etc., but they are not to be locked up at home, not able to walk out into the world. They are, however, to be protected, as I said.
I'm glad you brought this up, as I would in no way want anyone to think that I place all the blame on the victims themselves. Some victims are to blame, others are not in any manner whatever to blame. Whether they are responsible to a degree for the assualt or not, my heart breaks over what they go through and I pray that the Lord would comfort them, heal them, and protect them from any future abuse.
Thank you again for your input. I hope I cleared some things up.
Again, I'm so sorry for what you went through! No doubt your attacker was a terrible man to say the least! I pray the Lord would heal you and comfort your heart!
Blessings,
Rebekah
Rebekah,
ReplyDeleteI was horrified at your response to a comment someone left. You stated that women who dress provocatively are partially to blame for their rape. Men who will rape have a twisted disturbed mind. It is not about sex, it is about control. Most men do not know the woman, the woman is randomly picked and unfortunately is in the wrong place at the wrong time, with no fault of their own. Think of this, who is at fault for child molesters? These children do not even have an adult womanly form. Are they to blame just because they are a child?
Beautiful Grace.
ReplyDeleteYou were not responsible. If you know nothing else, dear heart, know only that. It was not your fault. I will say it again because Real Truth is too often made the victim of qualification and equivocation but this truth is WITHOUT qualification, the crime against you WITHOUT excuse-- IT WAS NOT YOUR FAULT.
Such crimes are only EVER tangible proof of humanity's sick and warped state. I say it again, I want you to take this away with you and know it for ALL TIME-- it was not your fault.
I am crying for you today, and for everyone else who has ever been caused to think, for however brief a space of time, by however innocent, ignorant and/or well-intentioned a person, that they could EVER be held to blame for such a thing.
Sweet Grace, my heart is broken for you, and I know that His heart is also.
Rebekah, I have wanted to comment many times after reading your writing but have refrained because I feared I wouldn't be as kind or respectful as you deserve. I've composed many responses, but have deleted them all. The fact is, I disagree with much of what you say, but do not doubt your fervent love for the Lord. I believe your intentions are noble, but you are still very, very naive.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Annabel and find your response to Grace to be really horrifying.
"Some victims are to blame, others are not in any matter whatever to blame. Whether they are responsible to a degree for the assault, or not...."
Sexual assault is sexual assault. No one deserves rape. No one asks for it. What you are wearing doesn't make you "responsible to a degree." This is trite, but "No Means No." Sexual assault is about control and a rapist will rape no matter what his victim is wearing or whether or not she lives with her father or goes off to college. It's shameful that you would even suggest that some vicitms are to blame.
To Grace, I'm sorry that you were ever in this horrible situation. No woman, young or old, should ever have to deal with this and I wish you continued healing.
Rebekah, I am amazed at your wisdom, both in what you wrote in the article and in how you responded to those who left comments.
ReplyDeleteHere are a few random observations.:
1. As for LAF wanting women to be doctors and nurses, remember that a young women can live at home and do her studies. She doesn't have to live on campus in a college dorm. She can also live in the home of Christian friends while she studies. It is false to assume that a young person - male or female - has to leave home in order to do university studies. There are many living options that do not involve the wild scene we see in college dorms.
2. Rebekah made it clear that she did not blame a rape victim for the sin of others. I don't expect feminists to pick up on this, since they have long ago proven their inability to see past their own narrow-minded idealogy. I have lost patience with even trying to reason with those who are blinded by radical feminism. It is impossible.
3. In the case of Grace, of course she was not at fault. The man who did that to her is a criminal. Spiritually, Christ took on the shame of our guilt because of our own sins, AND the shame that others' sinful actions bring on us. Grace was shamed, but not beyond the ability of the cross of Christ to heal. I hope that the young man did jail time. Under OT law, he should have been stoned and his victim declared to be innocent.
4. I am horrified that Christian women continue to enable young women to dress in provocative ways, telling them that they are not at fault if they get "hit on." That is what shocks me every time I read Christian women making such insane and irresponsible comments. You are putting young women in greater danger.
5. Our only daughter went to college. She lived at home her first two years and on campus her last two. It was not really my idea, but I was trumped by my husband and his parents. God was gracious to her. She also spent a year in Spain, but near friends of ours. She is now living at home. Personally, I don't think it is the best idea to send any of our young people - male or female - into the terribly corrupt environment on our secular college campuses. Yes, I am a college graduate, so I know what I am talking about. I am shocked at some Christian women's cavalier attitude about women going to college - even in the face of statistical facts of the kind that Rebekah presented.
Anyway...
Mrs. Webfoot
Anyway... Rebekah, you are a good, kind, and patient young woman. May God continue to give you grace.
Grace,
ReplyDeleteTears are in my eyes and my heart is breaking for you right now. I must echo all of the important sentiments shared by my friend Andrea. You were NOT responsible for the crime that was so viciously committed against you. You will be in my prayers dear sister. God bless you and keep you.
Some questions and comments:
ReplyDelete1. For those who are not in favor of the stay at home daughter model, what advice would you give to young women about how to stay safe?
2. Wouldn't the stay at home daughter model tend to give a young woman greater protection against being raped?
3. Then, what do you think that Dinah was doing when she went out on her own? What was she looking for?
4. What about young women who act foolishly and end up being victims? If someone says that there are no such women in our day, then I say that you are pretty naive.
5. Of course, the criminal has no excuse, but aren't there things that young women can do or avoid doing that will give them greater protection? I think that the points Rebekah is trying to make are being lost, actually, and that they are good points.
6. There are many sexual predators out there. Many of them hide behind the positions of teacher or professor, classmate or colleague. Women don't have to be easy prey for the predators do they? Accepting the protection of parents, especially of fathers who are in the best position to provide that God-ordained protection, is a wise thing for young Christian women to do. Can you think of any Biblical injunction that would tell us anything different?
7. You know, this concept of young women staying at home until they get married was pretty much the norm until fairly recently. The sexual revolution changed all that, and not for the better, IMO. Women are now liberated, but from what and for what purpose?
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
One more thing. All express horror at what Grace went through and all blame the rapist for his evil actions.
ReplyDeleteRemember, though, that what Grace had in reading this article is what is called a "flash back." The memories of that horrible, shameful victimization came flooding back.
That is NOT Rebekah's fault at all.
The enemy of our soul loves to drag us through the mud, but the Savior of our souls uses even such flash backs to remind us of His all sufficient grace even when we are shamed in such horrific ways. After all, think of how He was shamed on the cross when He bore all our guilt and shame. As Corrie Ten Boom liked to remind us there is no low point that we go through that Christ has not gone lower still. The Holy Spirit comforts us in such times of distress.
That is true if we are guilty of sin or not guilty, as in Grace's case. He makes us white as snow and restores our purity.
The place of rest, restoration, and healing is always the cross of Christ where He bore our guilt and shame.
I think you miss a great deal of the point, Mrs. Webfoot; you seem to wish to drag feminism's sins into every single thing, even implying you blame some of the women here for them, and I won't bother trying to argue with you. I will say that the idea that God brought Grace a flashback seems quite sick and silly. He forgets our sins, but won't forget or let us forget horrific things that happen? Epic fail.
ReplyDeleteRape victims are indeed never responsible, Rebekah. Dressing modestly is important to help keep men from possible sexual sins, but rape is NOT one of them. As for female gynecologists:
"While I do agree that female doctors provide a greater sense of modesty, I do not believe it to be acceptable to disregard a clearly stated command (Titus 2:5) in order to fill a need"
A need? You mean the vital need for privacy? There is no command in the Bible for wives to not work outside the home, and you overlook many women who homemake with other jobs quite well. Aside from that, though, the need for female doctors is VITAL. Modesty is more than a Biblical command, it IS a need, one that trumps the projected idea that the Bible commands women not to work. I would never, ever visit a male doctor for a personal topic and am forever grateful for the sweet, protective women who look after my and other women's personal needs, as is natural and good. There are some things Rebekah that have no in-between, and the need for female doctors is one of them. I hope you make peace with their presence, and am very glad LAF understands their need.
Rebekah, if the Bible doesn't say Dinah went without her father's permission, we'd be foolish to impose this on the Scriptures. This story is one of the few that people trying to push daughters into staying home can actually use, and it's a faulty one at that. The message from such people is clear: do what Daddy says, even grown up, or you'll be sorry! The idea that SHE brought shame upon the family is disgusting (and unBiblically patriarchal) as well.
ReplyDeleteWow; what a lot of conversation! I haven't the time at this moment to reply to everything (dinner prep is upon us!), but I will do so tonight and tomorrow, Lord willing.
ReplyDeleteI do want to issue, however, a huge thank you to the ladies who have left gracious words of kind encouragement and love for Grace. I'm sure they have been a blessing to her heart! I appreciate each of you taking the time to leave your well-wishes for her.
In closing, I must simply say that I am amazed with how one's words can be so ignored and/or twisted. Words have been put in my mouth here which I clearly never said. I really appreciate Mrs. Webfoot pointing that out, and ask that, in the future, each commentor reads in full what I have written before they accuse me of saying something I never said.
I wish you each a good night and will comment more as time allows.
Please note that I am not saying not to comment! :) I appreciate hearing from each and every reader who comments, and enjoy receiving and reading their comments. I just ask that people would not accuse me of saying things which I did not say.
ReplyDeleteRebekah, I think it's clear that most of the women here wished to give you the benefit of the doubt. It was your words and way of phrasing that sometimes left room for concern, including how you chose to interpret this story from the Bible. You did say that some rape victim are partly responsible for their situations and that Dinah brought shame on her house; these alone were reason for concern.
ReplyDelete"However, these women had a hand in what occurred-had they dressed more modestly, the assault likely would not have taken place."
THAT, for example. You apparently have no idea why these assaults take place, and this thinking is horrifying. I can assure you, that comment couldn't be more wrong.
I hope you know, Rebekah, that I am convinced and aware of your incredible sweetness of heart. I know you would never intentionally hurt or direspect assault survivors; we just have to be really cautious about how we phrase things when it comes to this volatile subject.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I want to echo the other girls words to Grace. I am so sorry for what happened to you. Rape is NEVER the victim’s fault and I am praying for you tonight and the tragedy you endured.
ReplyDeleteRebekah, I too know that you have a sweet and very innocent heart. I don't mean any disrespect towards you but you are young and you are living under your parents so I am not going to address you in this comment past saying that I know you are not intentionally hurting anybody.
However I am going to address Mrs. Webfoot and her latest points as she is an adult and has experienced life.
“For those who are not in favor of the stay at home daughter model, what advice would you give to young women about how to stay safe? “
I would tell young women to be wary of any situation that doesn’t feel safe or that makes you feel the least bit uncomfortable. I would tell them to walk with confidence and to look people in the eyes. I would teach them to avoid walking alone at night and to not answer the door to anyone that you don’t know. Bad things can and do happen everywhere and staying home is not going to prevent them from happening.
“Wouldn't the stay at home daughter model tend to give a young woman greater protection against being raped? “
The only way to prevent bad things is to live a sheltered life which as Christians we are told explicitly to go out and spread His love. We aren’t told that because we are born women we are exempt from being fearless and brave. What is that telling the world about our faith. Is our God so small that he can’t protect us or that he can’t use a tragedy (rape) to grow us as his children?
Romans 8:15
For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."
“Then, what do you think that Dinah was doing when she went out on her own? What was she looking for? “
ReplyDeleteWe don’t know what Dinah was doing other than visiting other girls, she could have been rebelling against her father, she may have been in love. What is missing is that she was a “stay at home” daughter because by cultural restraints she didn’t have a choice and yet she still came into harms way while visiting friends. She can’t be held responsible for the actions of any of the men in the story.
“What about young women who act foolishly and end up being victims? If someone says that there are no such women in our day, then I say that you are pretty naive. “
You can’t be held responsible for an act that is done to you in violence. Rape is violence and rape is a one sided affair. I am not going to even argue this point.
“Of course, the criminal has no excuse, but aren't there things that young women can do or avoid doing that will give them greater protection? I think that the points Rebekah is trying to make are being lost, actually, and that they are good points.”
Again, living in fear is not an excuse. You should think about safety but as a Christ follower we are called to not be fearful. We are called to reach the world
Mark 16:15
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.
There isn’t a caveat that says unless you were born a daughter.
“There are many sexual predators out there. Many of them hide behind the positions of teacher or professor, classmate or colleague. Women don't have to be easy prey for the predators do they? Accepting the protection of parents, especially of fathers who are in the best position to provide that God-ordained protection, is a wise thing for young Christian women to do. Can you think of any Biblical injunction that would tell us anything different? “
I think that parents are to protect their children but we are talking about adult daughters. I don’t see any Biblical mandate for a Father controlling his daughter as an adult.
There are drunk drivers on the road and we aren’t keeping sons from driving. There are people who knock on doors and shoot their victims in the face, should we stop opening doors?
“You know, this concept of young women staying at home until they get married was pretty much the norm until fairly recently. The sexual revolution changed all that, and not for the better, IMO. Women are now liberated, but from what and for what purpose?”
ReplyDeleteThis isn’t even a historically accurate statement. How society functions has been in a constant state of change and is influenced by cultural, economic and geographical conditions. If the Bible is true than its true for all time and all people.
Mrs., Webfoot, I don’t know your personal beliefs but let me tell you about mine. I serve a mighty Savior who came to earth as a man and radically changed the face of not only his culture by ours. He allowed women to sit at his feet and learn, he spoke to the women who society shunned, he hung out with tax collectors and fisherman and he wasn’t worried about being safe. He was a dangerous man and I am amazed that he loved me enough to die for me. With Him as my protector I shouldn’t be worried about my safety I ought to love him enough to follow him anywhere. I also don’t think he would care about whether I made the perfect loaf of bread or wore the right length skirt. He would care about how I showed his love to my coworkers, how I blessed my husband and how much I talked about His sacrifice.
If an adult daughter chooses to stay home until she is married because it is what God has called her to do in her own life than I think its fantastic. I however cannot agree with it being taught as a Biblical truth.
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteI have to respecfully disagree with your assessment of the commentors here. They didn't come across as wanting to give Rebekah the benefit of the doubt. If they had wanted to do so, they would have sought to have her clarify her positions, so as to deduce what she was really saying. Instead, they came at her in a rather dramatic fashion, calling her comments "horrifying".
Respectfully,
Anna
Kyla, brilliant words!!! Thank you :)
ReplyDeleteAnna, I know at least some of the dissenters here were polite. If they're not familiar with Rebekah's kind spirit, I don't blame them in the least for being alarmed.
Good discussion, ladies. I agree with Anna that Rebekah was not given the benefit of the doubt by all the women who posted here. I have not seen anything in what Rebekah said that could be taken as naive, even, let alone unkind.
ReplyDeleteShe strikes me as a young woman who is wise beyond her years. Some are anxious to see offense where there was none. Yes, that is a feminist trait, actually - "The sisterhood of the easily and perpetually offended."
Since you took the time to address some of my questions, Kayla, I'll take some time to respond.
ReplyDeleteMrs. W:
“For those who are not in favor of the stay at home daughter model, what advice would you give to young women about how to stay safe? “
Kayla:
I would tell young women to be wary of any situation that doesn’t feel safe or that makes you feel the least bit uncomfortable. I would tell them to walk with confidence and to look people in the eyes.>>>>
Mrs. Webfoot:
Okay. A young woman must take certain precautions. Yes.
So, you see young, single women as independent? I would suggest to you that the Bible presents neither men nor women as independent one from another.
In the OT, we see that Adam did not spend even one day single and unattatched. God gave him a wife on the day he was created. Then, Eve was married from the moment she was presented to Adam.
In the OT, we see the patriarchal family structure. In the NT, we see the Christian family. We also see the nation of Israel in the OT and the church in the NT. Belivers are part of the body of Christ. Humanity is seen as a unit...and so forth.
Do you see people as being disconnected one from another?
In the Bible, individual believers are part of nations, - and nations are seen as homogenous units; they are also part of families - made up of father, mother, some children, and the extended family; they are part of the church - which is the body of Christ. Even single people are said to be set in families. He gives us a home.
Psalm 68:6 (King James Version)
6God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains: but the rebellious dwell in a dry land.
Psalm 68:6 (English Standard Version)
6God settles the solitary in a home;
he leads out the prisoners to prosperity,
but the rebellious dwell in a parched land.
We are not random "beads", unconnected to a string of beads. We are not solitary people in search of a home and a place to belong.
Kayla:
I would teach them to avoid walking alone at night and to not answer the door to anyone that you don’t know. Bad things can and do happen everywhere and staying home is not going to prevent them from happening. >>>>
Who accompanies her at night? Besides, no one is saying that women should never leave the house! NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. ...still, some have been trained by feminists to read that kind of thing into what the stay at home people are saying.
“Wouldn't the stay at home daughter model tend to give a young woman greater protection against being raped? “
The only way to prevent bad things is to live a sheltered life which as Christians we are told explicitly to go out and spread His love. We aren’t told that because we are born women we are exempt from being fearless and brave. What is that telling the world about our faith. Is our God so small that he can’t protect us or that he can’t use a tragedy (rape) to grow us as his children?>>>>
You are begging the question, and it remains. Do you think that the stay at home daughter model would tend to give more protection to a young woman?
Kayla:
Romans 8:15
For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father.">>>
Then you should have no qualms about going out at night, wherever you want to go, knowing that you have nothing to fear. Right? You seem to be contradicting yourself, first saying that a young woman should not go out alone at night, but then saying that she has nothing to fear if she trusts Christ! She should also open to door to whoever knocks, knowing that if she doesn't, she is showing fear and does not have the Spirit.
You are sending a conflicting message. Still, doesn't the stay at home model provide more protection for a young woman? I say it does.
“You know, this concept of young women staying at home until they get married was pretty much the norm until fairly recently. The sexual revolution changed all that, and not for the better, IMO. Women are now liberated, but from what and for what purpose?”
ReplyDeleteKayla:
This isn’t even a historically accurate statement. How society functions has been in a constant state of change and is influenced by cultural, economic and geographical conditions. If the Bible is true than its true for all time and all people. >>>
Actually, Kayla, it has been in a state of change since the 60s in our culture. I suppose that you could push it back to the Industrial Revolution. Since the radical 60s at least, not only our culture, but also whole cultures where the feminist model has been followed have been destroyed by the march of "human progress" and the ongoing efforts to liberate women from the oppression of patriarchal systems. We have not seen the end of it, either.
Kayla:
Mrs., Webfoot, I don’t know your personal beliefs but let me tell you about mine. I serve a mighty Savior who came to earth as a man and radically changed the face of not only his culture by ours >>>>
The traditional model of Christian marriage and family was, of course, best expressed by Paul speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
One of my favorite teachers on the subject of marriage and family life is St. John Chrysostom. In fact, he is one of the main influences, after Paul, on what we understand to be the Christian family.
I would love to go on, but suffice it to say that Paul taught, and all orthodox teachers on the subject since then, have taught that men and women are equal in being but with distinct, God-ordained roles in the family and in the church.
It is the feminist liberation theologians who have departed from traditional Christianity, teaching things that the Bible does not support. The church has always had an all-male clergy. Christians have always taught and believed that the husband is the head of the household.
Jesus was in no way a feminist. He was a traditionalist, endorsing the model that was established from the time of creation, (Mt. 19:4-6) and choosing only males as His 12 disciples.
Kayla:
If an adult daughter chooses to stay home until she is married because it is what God has called her to do in her own life than I think its fantastic. I however cannot agree with it being taught as a Biblical truth.>>>>
So, then, your views are based on the right of a woman to choose and her right over her own body, too? Could you point out in the Bible where the independent, single female model is taught?
Sorry to write so much, but Kayla was kind enought to answer my questions so I will try to respond.
ReplyDeleteKayla:
You can’t be held responsible for an act that is done to you in violence. Rape is violence and rape is a one sided affair. I am not going to even argue this point. >>>>
So, then, Kayla, in your worldview, women are free to wear whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want, and if they have problems they have never caused it themselves. If a co-worker hits on them, the woman is not to blame. If a man stares at her bosom or her hind end, that is his problem. She can be just as slutty as she wants to be, and everyone else has to just put up with it. She is NOT the one with the problem, but everyone else is, right? I will have to assume that is what you think.
Rape is a criminal act and under OT Law, was punishable by death.
What about just being stared at and hit on? Can a woman by the way she dresses increase her chances of being subjected to sexual harassment?
Being a stay at home daughter and later a stay at home wife actually reduces one's chances of being subjected to such humiliation. What do you object to in that model?
Kayla:
Mark 16:15
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.
There isn’t a caveat that says unless you were born a daughter. >>>>
So, then, we have to be alone when we go out and preach the Gospel to every creature?
Kyla! So good to see you out and about, so to speak :)
ReplyDeleteI thought perhaps those interested in educating themselves on this matter could benefit from access to a few basic statistics. I know that this is not a pleasant subject, even when discussed in the abstract; I am sure that the ugly nature of the topic is the reason that many choose to protect themselves from learning the facts of it.
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders
A quick click on the above link will inform you that of those sexual assaults reported, four in ten (forty percent) take place in the home of the victim. Another two in ten (twenty percent) take place in the home of a friend or relative. You will see that almost two thirds of rapes are committed by somebody known to the victim.
Clearly the only CERTAIN way to prevent becoming a victim is to abstain from being born to begin with! Failing that, once you are born, if you wish to prevent sexual assault- do not sexually assault anybody! That is to say, it is NOT the responsibility of the victim to prevent the assault. What a twisted world that places the responsibility for avoiding rape on the one who would be raped! No wonder we as a culture -- even as a species -- so often fall prey to that easy out of blaming the victim.
Naturally we can take whatever measures we deem suited to keep ourselves somewhat protected, and in some cases these may be effective. Nevertheless the cold hard facts are that you can stay at home and lock your doors and still you can be raped. The idea that any lifestyle model at all offers "insurance" against a crime being committed against us is laughable, and the failure of such a notion is not only borne out by statistics, but by Scripture itself.
Daughters can be offered by their father for the sexual gratification of strangers (Gen. 19:8) and a sister can be raped by her brother (2 Samuel 13:1-14) simply because there is sin in the world, and people can be swayed to it even when they are "safe" at home.
No mere formula is "safe." No devised model is "sure." The only surety we have will not be found in a list of fear-based rules but rather in the indefatigable, Almighty supremacy of a God and Saviour who is beyond all comprehension; One who is more than mighty enough to transcend the ugly and the twisted things that can happen to unwitting victims safe in their homes as well as on college campuses or in dark alleys at night. Whether you are the woman who is made a victim by the man beside you in the bar, the girl who thought that nice boy from church meant it when he said he just wanted to talk, or the daughter whose earthly father betrayed her trust in a way that your Heavenly Father never will. . . God is so much bigger than a prescription. He is the Healer for those wounds caused by sin and He is the ultimate and ONLY cure for something against which we have no sure prevention, no matter how much we might all wish, from time to time, to believe otherwise.
Mrs. Webfoot, not once did Kyla say to open the door to whoever knocks or not use precaution; I don't know how you could take this from her words unless you wanted to. Are you calling any of the women here feminists?
ReplyDelete"I have not seen anything in what Rebekah said that could be taken as naive, even, let alone unkind"
Allow me to enlighten you: saying that a rape survivor could have prevented her rape with her manner of dress and/or that Dinah brought shame upon her family, or in anyway was responsible for the crimes against her is very naive and could be very justly seen as unkind, especially by those who have lived through or known someone who lived through rape. It's very much the words of someone who has little knowledge of the world and is very young herself; Rebekah's kindness is definitely wise beyond her years, but the Biblical knowledge and the regular practicality here is not. It's perfectly natural for older women to react to her the way they have here, knowing more about such situations as they do, and there's no need for you to contradict them for it or especially to scoldingly imply that they're feminists; this seems like a patriarchal knee-jerk reaction.
Mrs. Webfoot, do you think it was God's will for your own daughter to venture forth by herself or not? Either you do or you don't. Either you trusted God with her, or you bit your nails the whole time. And if you did trust God with her, so far away, did you also believe she could/should open the door to whoever knocked? I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteRebekah and Mrs. Webfoot, this is in brief how I see the matter of daughters: all women are free to do exactly what God asks, and this sometimes means venturing out and leaving home (which all children do eventually anyway). Men and women are more often than not asked to leave home as adults and follow new paths in their lives, whether they are married or not. Are they unprotected? There is no reason to assume this, just because they don't have their father with them; not only does God protect them, but they are usually surrounded by other people: a circle of friends, a church family. This is why I see the most rigid patriarchal criticisms of women as missionaries to be foolish; such women, alone?? They almost always travel in groups, with various Christian men around them. Very rarely is any human, single or not, required to be almost entirely alone on a journey, but if they are, never fear; God knows what He's doing. And does He expect them to be careless, un-diligent, to open themselves to whoever? Quite obviously not. We are free in God's plan; His will is our hiding place, as Corrie Ten Boom said. In God we have protection, family and home, even when separated from our earthly ones (which is blessedly not His norm for us; He created us for human companionship and almost always gives this to us, whether with blood family or heart family. Praise Him). In Him I see His children as free and wild as birds, flying without fear because they live under the greatest protection of all: His Wings.
ReplyDeleteGod bless you
Mrs Webfoot my name is actually Kyla, not Kayla.
ReplyDeleteMrs. W: Okay. A young woman must take certain precautions. Yes.
So, you see young, single women as independent? I would suggest to you that the Bible presents neither men nor women as independent one from another.
Kyla: I actually think that we are all dependent on our Savior, and that it is His desire for us is to be in fellowship with one another during our time on earth. I never said that we should be independent. Do I think that a 15 year old girl should be living on a college campus? No, not at all. Do I think that a 18-20 year old can live independently and follow her own God given course for her life? Yes, I do. As for being disconnected from people, College is a wonderful time to develop connections and show God’s love to those who may have never seen it.
Mrs W; Who accompanies her at night? Besides, no one is saying that women should never leave the house! NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. ...still, some have been trained by feminists to read that kind of thing into what the stay at home people are saying.
Kyla: Other than the label of Christ follower I eschew most labels. But since you mentioned feminism than I would say that I am a feminist by this definition
…the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
I also happen to be home and I love being in charge of the domestic aspect of our home. . Of course I also went to college, traveled through Europe alone, got married young and have a wonderful career so I am not sure that I will fit to easily in either of your boxes.
As far as who accompanies her at night, I don’t think that going to college or living independently from your family means that a young woman is always physically alone. I have always seemed to be able to find a security guard to walk me to my car at night or I invited a friend to go along with me.
Mrs W: You are begging the question, and it remains. Do you think that the stay at home daughter model would tend to give more protection to a young woman?
No, I don’t think that it adds any more protection unless she stays home and never leaves. It didn’t seem to help Dinah, did it?
Mrs W: Then you should have no qualms about going out at night, wherever you want to go, knowing that you have nothing to fear. Right? You seem to be contradicting yourself, first saying that a young woman should not go out alone at night, but then saying that she has nothing to fear if she trusts Christ! She should also open to door to whoever knocks, knowing that if she doesn't, she is showing fear and does not have the Spirit.
You are sending a conflicting message. Still, doesn't the stay at home model provide more protection for a young woman? I say it does.
I am not contradicting myself there is a huge difference in walking at night in an unsafe environment alone and avoiding an entire educational system based on the fear of attack or rape. There is a spirit of fear in saying that a 20 year old woman must be under the “protection” of a man at all times.
I can see how what I said may have caused some concern; perhaps I didn't express my belief well. Let me say for the record: I do not believe that the victims are in any way responsible for the act of the rape itself-only the predator who commits the sin is. What I was saying was that some of the victims may have done something which, in some way, encouraged the predators to act in the way they did. For that, they are to blame perhaps. That's all I was saying.
ReplyDeleteI will be responding to various comments I've received in the following format: I'll respond to those who commented in the order in which they did so, with my response to all their comments in one comment of my own (or two, if it's too long to post in 1)! I will get to each one as time allows.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Annabel,
You stated, "Men who will rape have a twisted disturbed mind. It is not about sex, it is about control." I agree with you-they are twisted and perverted; that's definitely true. As for whether or not it's about control, that probably depends upon each individual predator.
I agree that the vast majority of victims are in no way to blame whatsoever-they are indeed picked by the predator through no fault of their own.
Also, I never said that all blame is to be placed on all victims. Therefore, I was rather surprised to even basically be asked the question of whether or not I thought children who were molested were to blame. Of course they are not! For someone to think that would be positively horrible! I sincerely hope no one hear thought I believed that, as I certainly never said anything to cause someone to believe something so terrible. All I ever said was that SOME victims were PARTIALLY to blame perhaps for what occurred. Again, the victim is not to blame for the act itself-they may be partially to blame for living in such a manner or doing something which, to a degree, led the predator to commit that sin against them. That's all I said.
Thank you for your input, Annabel. Please know it's always welcome.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrea,
You're right-the statistics show that many of the rapes are committed by someone the victim knew and/or in a seemingly safe place. I don't argue with that, for I never said that I believed all victims were solely to blame, nor did I even say that some were totally to blame. Victims never force their attackers to rape them, therefore the blame can not and should never be placed solely on their shoulders (and for the vast majority of victims, no blame should be placed on them at all!).
I wholeheartedly agree that stay-at-home daughterhood does not abolish or protect one from all evils. I believe it is by far the safest arrangement (and I believe many statistics prove that). But you're right-no formula or lifestyle can save you completely from abuse, rape, or any other dangerous and harmful situation. Only God can ultimately protect us from the ills in the world. And you're right-He is the healer, Who can comfort and restore the victims, reform and change the predators, and bring good out of even a situation as terrible as that one.
Thank you for your input!
Allison,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, please feel free to leave comments anytime. If you would still like to discuss various things I've taught in regards to stay-at-home daughterhood, I would welcome your input and the opportunity to discuss these issues. I'm always happy to receive comments.
Thank you for your kind words regarding my love for the Lord; I'm so very glad that is evident-praise the Lord for that!
I agree that a rapist will do what he wants to regardless of the lifestyle of the victim. If the victim is away at college, it may make it easier for the rapist to get to the victim and rape her. But I agree that a rapist is so evil that he will get to his victim if he wants to, regardless of what she's wearing or where she lives.
Perhaps I should better explain my blame comments.
For example, a woman wears terribly provocative clothing and a man thinks that due to her attire, she would be willing to begin a sexual relationship with him (this is what that sort of attire is saying about the wearer thereof, whether she intends that or not). He therefore pursues such a relationship, but she fights back while he does so-thus, a terrible rape occurs. This kind of situation can-and most certainly does-occur. This rape occured-in part-because of the woman's attire. I am not placing all blame on her! She didn't force him to rape her. But, the rape perhaps may not have occured were it not for her attire. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Perhaps another example or two would better illustrate my position.
It's like when a young woman dresses immodestly and when young men stare at her body, she gets mad. Obviously, the young man shouldn't be lusting after her and should definitely instead look away. However, the girl wouldn't receive this sort of attention if she were dressing modestly rather than putting a stumbling block in front of the young man.
Let's consider a hypothetical situation. Let's say a woman knew that a man guilty of rape lived in a certain house in her neighborhood, and each time he was in his front yard to mow his grass, she would walk by in immodest attire and wink at him. One day he rapes her. Is he to blame for this abhorrent act? Of course he is! But is she not partly to blame for enticing him and tempting him, rather than staying far away from him and leaving him alone? I believe she is, to a degree.
If I had said all victims were to blame, yes, that would be horrifying. But I simply said that *some* were *partially* to blame. That is sad, yes, but factual nonetheless, I believe. Part of the problem here is that we live in a savagely feministic society which hates men and tries to blame them for anything and everything. I'm not saying you do this, I'm simply saying that this is the condition of our culture and a pervading stance therein. Therefore, when one says that yes, men should stop lusting, but women should stop dressing immodestly and thereby encouraging them to lust, people get angry. They want all the blame to be on the men. While some blame should be put there-they are responsible for their own actions, after all-not all belongs to the man.
I hope that clarified my position better. Thank you for your input!
Rebekha, you clarification comments are even more disturbing than your original ones.
ReplyDelete"What I was saying was that some of the victims may have done something which, in some way, encouraged the predators to act in the way they did"
This is NOT TRUE. Rapists attack women no matter HOW they're dressed; they don't care whether the women want sex or not! So they obviously don't care if they're advertising sex or not. Men do NOT attack women because they thought they wanted sex and were then disappointed!! How could you say this? Rape is always, ALWAYS about control, not passion. Rebekah, you really really need to speak to a nurse or a psychiatrist on this; you are totaly unfamiliar with the truths of this matter and it's showing in a lot of very harmful thinking. I ask that you not remark on rape until you get some real information.
"Let's say a woman knew that a man guilty of rape lived in a certain house in her neighborhood, and each time he was in his front yard to mow his grass, she would walk by in immodest attire and wink at him. One day he rapes her. Is he to blame for this abhorrent act? Of course he is! But is she not partly to blame for enticing him and tempting him, rather than staying far away from him and leaving him alone? I believe she is, to a degree"
ReplyDeleteMy God, Rebekah; that is just plain sick. You know nothing, shockingly nothing about this matter. Men do NOT RAPE BECAUSE THEY ARE ATTRACTED BY CLOTHES. They do NOT rape out of LUST. If all men acted as you say and because of the reasons you offered, feminists would indeed have reason to hate them.
Rebekah, I hope my words were not too aggressive. I know you have a good heart, SUCH a good one, and many people thought the way you do; it's not your fault misconceptions occur. I just earnestly hope and pray you'll be totally informed on this topic, less you or someone else gets deeply hurt by such thinking. Thank you
ReplyDeleteHello, Mrs. Webfoot! I can't thank you enough for your encouraging comments. You were very kind, and I appreciate your input so much!
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the points in your first comment:
1. I completely agree. One can definitely study nursing and midwifery without living on a college campus. They can also study aspects of these subjects without even attending college! Thanks for pointing that out. :)
2. Thank you for pointing that out what you did about my actual comment. And, boy, can I relate! It is so discouraging when people take your words and twist them or ignore them. I remember one time blogging about not believing young woman should attend college and receiving the question, "So, you don't believe women should be highly educated?" I replied with, "Far from it!", and proceeded to explain that I believe women should indeed be highly educated and I went on to state why I believe they can acquire a higher and better education by not going to college. This same person commented back with, "I can't believe you don't think women should be highly educated!" I couldn't believe it! The commentor either completely ignored what I had said, or else was holding so tightly to the idea that the only way to be highly educated is to go to college, and was therefore not willing to consider otherwise.
3. I also agree with what you said about Grace and her attacker. Thank you for those words of wisdom!
4. I, too, am tired of hearing provocatively dressed young women get angry when guys won't take their eyes off them. If they didn't want that kind of attention, then they should wear more modest attire. I'm not letting the guys off the hook here, but to get angry about that and yet not change the way you dress is a little rediculous.
5. I couldn't agree more about sending young men and women off to college. College campuses and classes are, for the most part, so dangerous and detrimental. They often are not safe by any means. That's one of the reasons I'm so glad that groups like CollegePlus! are now available, to where people can get degrees completely online. I even heard about a young man who pursued law and got his degree, etc. completely online. He had to go to the bar exam, I believe, but everything else was online. What a blessing!
I appreciate your words as a college graduate. So often, because I'm only 17, people don't take what I say to be factual. It's nice to have an adult woman proving that what I'm saying in this area is indeed true. Thank you! :)
And thank you so much for your very kind words. They were a blessing to read!!
As to your second comment,
You asked great questions and made really great points!
You said,
"What about young women who act foolishly and end up being victims? If someone says that there are no such women in our day, then I say that you are pretty naive." I couldn't agree more. That's what I was trying to address. Thank you for bringing that up!
And you're so right about many predators being college professors and the like. Just last year, there was a story in our newspaper about a young woman attending a seemingly conservative Christian college just down the road from us who was raped by her professor! It's simply tragic what occurs to young women who attend college-and a seemingly good and safe one at that!
Oh, and excellent comments regaring independence, the Biblical family structure, etc. Thank you for sharing your wisdom. I so appreciated your input and would happily welcome any future comments you may want to leave. Thank you for your very kind words and encouragement. They blessed me more than you will know!
May the Lord greatly bless you,
Rebekah
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteMrs. Webfoot never said that God brings those flashbacks. She said that Satan brings those, and God can use them for good. So, respectfully, I do not think Mrs. Webfoot failed in her comment.
I agree-the Bible never commands women not to work. They are to work! The Proverbs 31 woman certainly did work, and women are not to be lazy. However, I find that the Bible does indeed command women to work at home-not outside of it. I would encourage you to read this article:
http://byhisgraceandforhisglory.blogspot.com/2009/10/beginning-at-beginning-lords-beautiful_23.html
In it, I address the Greek word and the meaning thereof which is used in Titus 2:5, where women are commanded to be homemakers, that the Word of God be not blasphemed. The entire Scriptures speak of the woman's place as being the home, and I address that fact in the article mentioned above.
Also, I never said that Dinah for sure went out without her father's permission. I said that I thought that was likely the case and I quoted Matthew Henry who felt likewise, but I never ever said that that was for sure the case. You're right-because the Bible doesn't expressly say that, it would be wrong to try to say that she absolutely did what she did without his permission. That was the very reason why I didn't go so far as to say that that was positively the case.
I agree that we have to be cautious in dealing with this issue. And perhaps I didn't explain myself in the most perfect terms I could have. I appreciate your compliments. They were very kind!
I also agree that the best protection availbale is that of the Lord. So very true.
I admit that, due to my age, I do not have the experience nor knowledge I will have when I am older. I understand that. However, there are things which I do know about this issue which those who are far older than me agree with.
I have to say that I really appreciated your last comment, as the two which preceded it were deeply hurtful. To read that I need to go to a phychiatrist because I hold to ideas that you disagree with was upsetting. I know you didn't intend to hurt me, but you did nonetheless, and so I wanted to say that I really appreciate you taking the time to leave the last comment you did.
You said, "Men do NOT attack women because they thought they wanted sex and were then disappointed!! How could you say this? Rape is always, ALWAYS about control, not passion." I beg to differ with you. Some time back, I was flipping through the tv channels, and came across a movie. I clicked the info button to read what it was about, and it stated that it was based on a true story of a highschooler who was raped by a fellow classmate who she had been sexually involved with. Apparently, the movie recounted the incident and his trial for rape. I didn't proceed to watch the movie, but based on the description of what was supposedly a true story, it would not be far fetched for me to say what I did. Just because situations like that do not happen very often, doesn't mean they don't exist and that I need to go to a phychiatrist becaue I believe that they do. I hope I'm not coming across as disresectful in any way here in saying that. If I am, I apologize.
Furthermore, you said, "They do NOT rape out of LUST." I believe that some indeed do. That's only realistic and makes sense. I'm sorry we can't agree on this.
Thank you for your input.
Rebekah
"Some time back, I was flipping through the tv channels, and came across a movie. I clicked the info button to read what it was about, and it stated that it was based on a true story of a highschooler who was raped by a fellow classmate who she had been sexually involved with. Apparently, the movie recounted the incident and his trial for rape. I didn't proceed to watch the movie, but based on the description of what was supposedly a true story, it would not be far fetched for me to say what I did. Just because situations like that do not happen very often, doesn't mean they don't exist and that I need to go to a phychiatrist becaue I believe that they do."
ReplyDeleteRebekah, your statement above backs up what Jennifer says, that High school boy raped his girlfriend out of a need for control. Whether or not they had a past sexual relationship is irrelevant. At that time during that sexual act she was an unwilling participant. That is rape. Because she was willing before doesn't mean she has to be willing the next time. Now could she have made the best choice and not become involved with him at all, yes but even that one poor choice doesn't make her to blame for his one poor choice.
Kyla,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind words.
At one point you said, "The only way to prevent bad things is to live a sheltered life which as Christians we are told explicitly to go out and spread His love. We aren’t told that because we are born women we are exempt from being fearless and brave. What is that telling the world about our faith. Is our God so small that he can’t protect us or that he can’t use a tragedy (rape) to grow us as his children?" First, I would say that the word sheltered is not being understood accurately in our day in age. The word shelter speak of a protection, security, as a hotel is a shelter for someone caught in the middle of a thunderstorn. Sheltered does not mean that you never walk outside, are unaware of what goes on in the world, etc. It is a blessing to be sheltered, but not in the manner in which the word is used today.
Second, all of us are called to go out and spread his love. But I don't believe this truth in any way abolishes stay-at-home daughterhood. We can share His Word when we practice hospitality and have hurting people in our homes, when we go grocery shopping, when we take a walk in the neighborhood, when we go on a family vacation, etc. We are called to be His ambassadors, but on His terms. I believe that it wouldn't be right to reject stay-at-home daughterhood on the basis that we are to share His Word. Our methods must be based on that Word we are wanting to share. For example, we are to avoid even the appearance of evil. Well, some would say that they are to be witnesses for Christ, so they go into sinful, wicked clubs in order to share His Word with those there. This would not be in obedience to His Word, however. We are to not be involved with or expose ourselves to what goes on in those clubs (David, in the Psalms, spoke of putting no evil thing before his eyes). Christ did associate with tax collectors and sinners, but we can do this very same thing without going to terrible, terrible places to share His Word.
Women should abosulutely be brave and strong. But not in a senseless manner. For example, someone might stand in front of an approaching train saying that they'll be ok, because they're being brave. That wouldn't be being brave, it would be being senseless. Christians were not given a spirit of fear, but I don't believe that means we should live a wild, adrenaline-filled life. We are also called on to be as wise as serpents. We take procautions, don't search out grave danger, etc. Third, the Lord definitely protects us, but that of course doesn't mean we go out looking for danger or go sky-diving without a parachute because we know God can protect us. I'm not saying that you are saying this, but I do think it's a point that should be made. God can definitely use a rape for good and to work on our lives, but that of course doesn't mean we should live in a way as to make rapes more likely or easier to occur.
Daughters should definitely proclaim God's truth to the lost, but again, she must do so in God's way, as should men.
You spoke of not seeing any passages in the Scriptures which support a father controlling his adult daughter. I would have to respectfully disagree, for Numbers 30 and 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 (which even speaks of a father not allowing his daughter to marry) are just two that speak quite clearly on this topic. The command for children to obey their parents does not issue an age limit. If an adult daughter is living at home, she should obey her father and mother. Granted, when married, you no longer have to obey your parents. You are to still honor them, however.
You wrote the following to Mrs. Webfoot, who stated that stay-at-home daughterhood was normitive until relatively recently: "This isn’t even a historically accurate statement. How society functions has been in a constant state of change and is influenced by cultural, economic and geographical conditions. If the Bible is true than its true for all time and all people." Stay-at-home daughterhood was indeed the cultural norm for many, many years until very recently. I addressed that here:
ReplyDeletehttp://byhisgraceandforhisglory.blogspot.com/2009/11/biblical-case-for-stay-at-home.html
and here:
http://byhisgraceandforhisglory.blogspot.com/2009/09/introduction-to-stay-at-home.html
I couldn't agree more that the Bible is true for all time and all people! :) That is precisely why I embrace and proclaim stay-at-home daughterhood even in a culture which no longer endorses it.
You also said that "With Him as my protector I shouldn’t be worried about my safety I ought to love him enough to follow him anywhere." I agree. However, we shouldn't live a reckless life. We should still be sensible and wise, discerning and cautious.
Thank you for your input and words of compliment.
Rebekah
Hello again, Kyla! :)
ReplyDeleteI don't find their past sexual relationship to be irrelevant at all. I had said this:
"For example, a woman wears terribly provocative clothing and a man thinks that due to her attire, she would be willing to begin a sexual relationship with him (this is what that sort of attire is saying about the wearer thereof, whether she intends that or not). He therefore pursues such a relationship, but she fights back while he does so-thus, a terrible rape occurs. This kind of situation can-and most certainly does-occur. This rape occured-in part-because of the woman's attire. I am not placing all blame on her! She didn't force him to rape her. But, the rape perhaps may not have occured were it not for her attire."
To which Jennifer said:
"So they obviously don't care if they're advertising sex or not. Men do NOT attack women because they thought they wanted sex and were then disappointed!! How could you say this? Rape is always, ALWAYS about control, not passion."
It was then that I made the reply I did about the movie. He may very well have wanted control, but due to the fact that they had had relations before, he obviously thought she wouldn't mind doing so again. So, he pursued that. This time, she refused, and it was a rape.
Thanks again for your comment.
Rebekah
Rebekah:
ReplyDeleteOh, and excellent comments regaring independence, the Biblical family structure, etc. Thank you for sharing your wisdom. I so appreciated your input and would happily welcome any future comments you may want to leave. Thank you for your very kind words and encouragement. They blessed me more than you will know!>>>>
Thank you, Rebekah. Keep in mind that I went to college. Also, our daughter recently graduated from a secular college. I have been many places and seen many things, and I find your Biblical defense of the stay at home daughter model to be very well done. After all, that is what we clearly see modeled in the Bible. What you are defending has also been the norm for Christian cultures everywhere in the world until very recently. Even now most Christians keep their children at home longer than non-Christians.
It is fairly common for daughters in Christian families to stay at home until they marry, even in families that do not home school. There is obviously more protection within the Christian family than outside it.
Even though we followed a modified stay at home daughter pattern, I still think that what you are defending is actually the best. It is the traditional way that Christians have always done things. You have truth and millenia of tradition on your side.
Just reading the Jane Austin novels will confirm that fact. Even Little Women, - which had a more progressive view of women,- demonstrated that young girls stayed at home until marriage. Jo broke with tradition, but in the end she could not resist the homeward pull, either. That was the norm, and still should be, IMO. If anything, the world is a far more dangerous place now than ever before.
Yes, in the Lord we have confidence, but why be foolish?
I am enjoying your articles, and the way that you handle those who leave comments. Your parents have done a good job of training you to be firm, but polite; kind, but strong; willing to listen to others, but not willing to accept falsehood. God bless you and your parents! You are the strong woman that feminists wish they were. ...and you did it without the feminist mindset!
Rebekah, I suggested you see a psychiatrist NOT as a patient, but to ask questions about the psyche of criminals; that's all. I'm sorry this wasn't clear to you :/
ReplyDeleteThat boy in highschool did indeed rape his girlfriend out of control. You yourself said he thought she wouldn't mind a sexual relationship, but pursued one anyway; this means he KNEW she didn't want one once she resisted, and raped her out of control, anger, you name it, but not lust UNLESS it aroused him to hurt her. Don't you see that? If rapists have any lust, it's to see people in pain; there is something fundamentally wrong inside thier heads that women CANNOT put there with their dress or anything else. Your words are very clear on this matter and have not been twisted, not by the grand majority of commentators. Did you know, Rebekah, that heterosexual men sometimes rape other men in prison?? They do this out of control, anger, and often a show of dominance; this is unhealthy men at their most animalistic.
"That's only realistic and makes sense"
No, it really isn't. If it were, any man could be a rapist.
As for grown daughters and sons for that matter, there is indeed an age limit to obedience; the idea of adult childrne obeying their parents is nonsensical in the extreme. Children are raised for the purpose of caring for themselves as adults, not passing from one state of dependence to another.
Your comments about stay-at-home daughters sound pretty well-balanced, Mrs Webfoot; I hope you don't think going to college is foolish, because not a single woman here advocated that women act foolishly. Tradition doesn't always work, and nor does God call everyone to the same pattern. Children staying home longer is awesome, but they should still live as adults in adult relationships with their parents. I love being home, but when it's time God wants me elsewhere, all He has to do is say so.
ReplyDeleteMy goodness, Mrs. Webfoot! You are so very kind. I don't know that I deserve your amazing compliments, but they are such a blessing to read. Especially at a time like this! Thank you so very, very much for your kindness! You are a dear woman of God, and I look forward to meeting you one day, either here on this earth or at least in Heaven! :)
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your input very much. You're so right about Jane Austen books; I made that very point in "The Biblical Case for Stay-at-home Daughterhood Part 1". I noticed this very thing in Little Women, as well. As you said, even Jo (who was more of a feminist in ways) finally went back home and joyfully remained there until marriage. These books do indeed represent the way life was for years. Stay-at-home daughterhood was a normal practice followed by both non-Christians and Christians.
I completely agree with your assessment of stay-at-home daughterhood and appreciate your kind words about my articles.
Thank you for your kind words about my dear parents. They have indeed taught me to always respect my elders but to also always defend the truth.
I enjoyed your comment about feminists and strong women. Women should indeed be strong, firm, and highly intelligent. Yet they should also be meek, quiet, submissive, and under the authority and protection of either husband or father. Feminism doesn't understand this and can't seem to see how these two could go together. These characteristics came together beautifully in Anne Bradstreet, a woman that modern feminists claim as one of their own due to her strength and intelligence. If they would read her poems, however, they would realize that she was by no means a feminist!
I was greatly blessed with your words regarding being willing to listen to others and being kind and respectful, but yet not giving in to falsehood or failing to stand up for truth. At times, when defending my positions on my own blog, I've been accused of being self-righteous, disrespectful, and not willing to listen to those who are older and wiser than myself. I'm so glad that you see that that is not my intention whatsoever.
Thank you again for your kindness! The Lord has clearly given you the gift of encouragement! :)
The point of Little Women, though, is that Jo had to leave FIRST in order to fulfill part of her life's work. Louisa May Alcott hated the idea that many saw women as being made only to marry and rejected this fully. You don't have to be a feminist to do that. Christ is our covering, not a permanent flesh one. What the women here at least have told you is not falsehood at all. Many of us have been to college and benefitted greatly from it.
ReplyDeleteJennifer,
ReplyDeleteOh! I see. No, that wasn't clear at all. Looking back now, this is almost humerous. I'm relieved that you weren't saying that I needed to go to a psychiatrist because of my beliefs. When I read that, I couldn't believe it! It was so hurtful and shocking. I'm so glad it was only a misunderstanding! :)
I agree that men rape due to a desire for control, etc., and that there is something totally wrong in the mind of a rapist. No doubt a desire for control is the main reason that the majority of rapists do what they do. I do, however, believe that lust is another reason why they commit rape. Because of this, we may have to agree to disagree to an extent.
I, too, believe that adult relationships between parents and children are important. As I have gotten older, my mom has become one of my dearest friends. I'm not yet an adult, but we have grown closer and closer as years have gone by. The adult relationship between us will be a blessing which I look forward to.
I'm not advocating sons going from a state of dependence upon their parents to another state of dependence. As for daughters, they are to be provided for by their parents and then by their husbands (or the church if their husbands die; we never see women given the responsibility to provide for themselves in the Scriptures). In that sense, they are to be in one state of dependence and then go to another. But they musn't be some mindless, wimpy, good-for-nothing type of dependent. They should be as the Proverbs 31 woman who was highly intellectual, who helped the family economy through home industries if the need arose, etc.
Thank you again for clearing up that psychiatrist issue!! Boy, am I relieved! ;)
"I hope I'm not coming across as disresectful in any way here in saying that"
ReplyDeleteYou have not at all :) I just wanted to confirm this.
LOL No problem Rebekah, I'm sorry you ever thought that! It does seem a bit humorous, now :) I feel dorky for giving that impression!
ReplyDelete"I do, however, believe that lust is another reason why they commit rape"
This is actully somewhat true. The difference is that they lust for pain, not sex the way normal men do.
I'm very glad you look forward to an adult relationship with your parents :)
Hi, Jennifer!
ReplyDeleteI, too, abhor the idea that women are only good for marriage and that's it. It is true that woman were created to be a helper to man (Gen. 2:18), but to say that they are only good for marriage is rediculous. Some women have been given the gift of singless, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7. Marriage is the norm by far, but some are given the gift of singleness nonetheless. There have been countless unmarried Christian women down through the ages that have accomplished great things for Christ's Kingdom.
I, too, am so glad that was cleared up!! :) When I first read that comment, I thought, "My goodness, I didn't know she could be so mean!" lol It was very hurtful at the time, thinking that you thought I should go to a psychiatrist because of my beliefs. We will definitely laugh at this in time to come! ;)
I'm so glad we agree that some men rape because of lust.
I greatly appreciated your comment about me not coming across at disrespectful; that meant a lot! That's one thing I'm always concerned about when responding to someone who disagrees with me. Thanks for the assurance! :)
I do definitely look forward to the adult relationship my parents and I will have. Once I'm an adult, family dynamics will no doubt be different, and I look forward to our continued friendship. Granted, they'll always be my parents, but now they'll be my dear friends, too. :)
Thanks for your kindness, Jennifer!
Rebekah
You are welcome :) Thank you for your own patience and maturity in allowing such strongly dissenting comments to your own! Your heart, I think, is where your greatest strength and wisdom lie.
ReplyDeleteThank you also for comfirming your thoughts about women's worth. I'm very glad you have this wisdom! Men and women were created to work sometimes on their own and sometimes in glorious completion; both are beautiful things to behold.
I'm glad you understand what I mean about the nature of beastly men; God created us to have healthy sexual yearnings, but Satan wishes us to lust for sin and pain. This is why sadists and masochists are sick and confused. Did you know that Ted Bundy's horrific addiction began with a sadistic porn magazine? Such kinds of porn show women being hurt, sometimes crying in pain, and horrifyingly, some troubled men become attached to this. Bundy did, and soon his addiction became so great it wasn't enough to look anymore; he moved on to rape, and then murder, to sate his satanic thirst. It's truly horrible how Satan will try to twist God's design :(
Because of things like this, I'm very glad you're protected and I understand the desire to protect daughters. It's wonderful for children (even older ones) to be protected, and when anyone ventures out, I hope they have protection of some sort.
God bless :)
Ladies, I will take time to read the comments with more care, but later. I want to say, Rebekah, that if you keep on this same path, you will do very well whatever you do.
ReplyDeleteThen, I am glad to see Jennifer here. I don't agree with all that she says, but she is able to see things from more than one point of view and is a thoughtful person. I think that some day we very well may see books published by her.
I hope that God gives you both good, kind, decent, Christian husbands and some loving children.
It's nice to visit with you girls. Come over for tea anytime.
See you later. :-)
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
You're very kind Mrs. Webfoot. Thank you :)
ReplyDeleteKyla, sorry for getting your name wrong. I think that I understand where you are coming from. Thank you for responding to my questions. I appreciate that.
ReplyDeleteIf I understand correctly, you are now a stay at home mom. You are a committed Christian woman.
I wish to address the topic a "spirit of fear." Here is what you said about that.:
Kyla:
I am not contradicting myself there is a huge difference in walking at night in an unsafe environment alone and avoiding an entire educational system based on the fear of attack or rape. There is a spirit of fear in saying that a 20 year old woman must be under the “protection” of a man at all times.>>>>
I don't think that an entire educational system is being avoided solely based on "the fear of being raped." There are many good reasons for young people to avoid secular college campuses.
It is not just the rape issue. It is also the whole moral climate that is actually promoted and enabled on our state run campuses by those who are in authority. It's really pretty awful, don't you know? I mean, the fact that you yourself have to discuss when consentual sex becomes rape shows how degraded our system actually is!
One issue on the campus of my alma mater - which is also the school that our daughter graduated from - was whether or not to have "dry" dorms! Say what? These are state owned facilities where mostly under-age, under-classmen live! Even the parents put their foot down on that one. There should be no drinking allowed in dorms - but we know that it is! Some dorms are more like bars and brothels than places where responsible, mature college students are living.
The state would close down a bar that allowed under age drinking, so why do they keep their college dorms open?
Then there is the decidedly Marxist worldview that is taught on most of our campuses.
The dangers of being sexually harassed, not necessarily raped, even by teachers is just one of the issues I have with college campuses. I find it very odd that you would think that a young woman without the benefit of the protection of her family - especially her father - would be safer on a secular college campus than a young women living at home with her parents. That is very odd to me.
You MUST mean that going to college is worth the risk, since it does involve greater risk.
It was not always easy for our daugher - or for me, even when I went. She did have a group of strong, committed Christians that helped her a lot. She came home often, too, and we talked on the phone a lot. Remember, I was not entirely excited about the idea of her going to a very liberal, secular university, but God was gracious to her and to all of us.
I don't see that 20 years old is all that mature, actually. A person is not considered to be an adult until age 21, after all.
We just see things differently. I don't see the spirit of fear.
Hey, thank you for taking the time to respond to my points.
Hello, Rebekah. I just want to thank you for your ministry through this, and your amazing attitude toward the comments you are receiving. I do not have time to read articles or comments while on the internet, so I copy and paste, then read them when I can, and I’m deeply saddened at the way some are treating the clear Word of God. Keep believing in Him, and don’t let anyone teach you anything other than according to the Scripture. I believe you have stated things very clearly and articulately and those who have misunderstood you have not been open to God’s Word on this subject, just as I have struggled. May you continue to uphold His teachings, and may they open themselves to His teaching. May we all follow Him, no matter what the cost.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Webfoot, thank you so much for your thoughtful comments and questions you raise.
I agree, Miss Leah. Some have been very heavy-handed with Rebekah. It saddens me, since some of those who have been unkind to her are adult women who should know better - no, I'm not talking about you, Jennifer. I'm talking about the ones who are married and have children of their own. I cannot believe that they take such a cavalier attitude towards the safety of young women - 20 is VERY young - yet are quick to blame alleged rapists for their heinous acts - and rape is a terrible crime.
ReplyDeleteI cannot believe, either, how Scripture is used by some Christians to defend the secualr worldview of feminism, which actually runs counter to Christianity. No, I'm not talking about you, Jennifer.
It is absurd to say that a young women who finds protection in her father or her husband - along with the rest of her family - is doing so out of a "spirit of fear." What do the FEMINISTS fear is my question? Why is Biblical marriage and the Christian family so dangerous in their minds?
"Free" women wandering around alone, looking for protection in some random security guard that might be there to walk them to their car at night is certainly not the smart way to keep safe. Do we call that a "spirit of foolishness"? No, I have not always done things the smart way, either.
You know, I'm not sure how I stumbled on this blog, but when I did, I saw what was being done to Rebekah. I have seen this happen online numerous times, and I will not stand by silently while a young woman is being mistreated by the "sisterhood."
I'm kind of playing watch dog, so ladies, behave yourselves with Rebekah. Remember your manners and act like the mature women you pretend to be. If you have suffered some personal tragedy in your lives and are having flashbacks, remember that Rebekah is NOT to blame. There are good, Biblical pastors and counselors in your area, I am sure, and it might be good to see one if you are having emotional difficulties. Online is not the place to find real help and support.
Read some of Martha Peace's works. She is excellent. Damsels in Distress is a good resource, for example.
God bless you, Rebekah, and take care,
Mrs. Webfoot
Mrs. Webfoot- If I may, I have a few questions about your comments for clarification purposes. I only ask out of sincere respect.
ReplyDelete"Free" women wandering around alone, looking for protection in some random security guard that might be there to walk them to their car at night is certainly not the smart way to keep safe. Do we call that a "spirit of foolishness"? No, I have not always done things the smart way, either.
In this part of your comment, it seems that you professing a belief that women who go outside the walls of their home alone at night are acting sinfully or foolishly for they have a rebellious feminist spirit.
As the wife of a soldier, I have been forced to leave my home alone at night for emergency medical on several occasions. In two instances, I called the hospital and was able to be met at my car by security, in the other instances this was not possible and I had to walk in alone. There was no husband or father to walk me to the door of the hospital. There have been times I was caught in traffic despite my best planning and had to walk in at night from my car. Taking out the garbage, especially in the winter, has had to happen during a time of darkness due to community rules. At all these times I'm vulnerable, but they are not the only times.
If somebody with bad intentions is watching, they would easily realize my husband is away for a year or more. They could learn my routine and harm me outside during the day or night, or they could break into my home to hurt me. This has, in fact, been happening in the town we are moving to later this month. Women, including the wives of deployed service members are being targeted in their own homes during the night and being raped by a sick man. One of the crimes has even occurred on base, along with a string of break-ins in the base housing community; a place where these women should have the utmost of safety.
Sometimes we do all we can to prevent the enemy from harming us physically and emotionally as we lose still. While my husband is off fighting for the US, my daughter and I are left behind vulnerable. We lock our doors, only go out at night when we absolutely must (for the ER), plans trips wisely, and let others know where we are. I dress modestly as not to draw attention to myself and avoid situations where an individual of ill will could potentially have privacy and control over me, the two things most necessary to commit a savage crime against me. I am well-trained on the firearms my husband owns and carry concealed and have other self-defense training. I pray fiercely for safety and protection. But all of this might not be enough. Something could still happen to me despite all of these precautions, even if my husband is not away.
I agree wholeheartedly that safety is important, that family can often provide the utmost in safety, but I am disheartened at the idea a woman like myself is a feminist or might be thought to have done something to provoke a rape simply for bringing my child to the ER in the middle of the night or sacrificing the protection of my husband at home so that we all may enjoy the safety and freedom of the efforts of him and his fellow soldiers overseas. I take responsibility for my own safety not because the Biblical model of family scares me; I was, in fact, married at eighteen and became a mother at twenty, but because I must do so to be submissive to my husband and a good wife who supports her husband's chosen career.
If I have misunderstood your comments, I do sincerely apologize and it is for this reason I ask for clarification as not to judge a sister wrongly due to misunderstanding.
Thanks for your clarifications, Mrs. Webfoot. You're a kind woman, but why do you say, "yet are quick to blame alleged rapists for their heinous acts"? We've spoken of real rapists, not alleged ones, and they ARE the only ones to blame for their acts.
ReplyDeleteAs for the doctrine of keeping daughters at home, I see no problem with Rebekah's family, but some fams coerce their daughters into doing this, and feminists by far are not the only ones who object to this; even regular complimentarians do. Wayne Grudem even said that women are oppressed if they're not allowed to vote and have jobs outside the home, and I've seen some in the uber-patriarchal circle do just this. Understandably, many in the "sisterhood" of common sense react in a volatile manner to this.
Excellent points, Amy. I'm sure no one of sense would convict or condemn you.
ReplyDeleteAmy:
ReplyDeleteIn this part of your comment, it seems that you professing a belief that women who go outside the walls of their home alone at night are acting sinfully or foolishly for they have a rebellious feminist spirit.>>>>
Kyla said that to keep young women at home until they get married - even seeking alternative options for a college education - involves a "spirit of fear." I think that is a very foolish thing to say. I think that it is foolish to trust strangers or friends that a woman does not know very well rather than one's own family - especially a woman's own father or husband. What do feminists fear?
Do you understand my point? What is the real objection to the stay at home daughter model? What is the problem with it? I have not seen any real arguments given in refutation of what Rebekah has so very eloquently presented.
In fact, the whole rape issue tends to lend a lot of weight to Rebekah's points.
1. Young women are safer when living at home.
2. Young women are safer if they do not go out at night alone.
3. Young women do not have to go to a college campus in order to get a good college education - especially in our day of the Internet.
4. College campuses are pretty wild places and it does not show a "spirit of fear" for a family to decide to keep their daughter at home until she marries.
5. When it comes right down to it, a young woman at age 21 can do as she pleases. There are actually young adult women who like to live at home and who are getting a wonderful education right where they are.
6. The stay at home daughter model has been the norm in our society until fairly recently. It is only since the 60s that this model has been trashed so thoroughly by radical feminists, especially, that now we see this pattern as being oppressive for women! That is a sad commentary on our society, actually.
7. What real flaws do you see in the model being presented by Rebekah?
Are the above 7 statements true or false in your opinion? You are missing the point of Rebekah's arguments it seems to me.
Jennifer:
ReplyDeleteYou're a kind woman,...>>>>
Yes, by God's grace, I am a kind woman. Thank you for saying that.
Jennifer:
... but why do you say, "yet are quick to blame alleged rapists for their heinous acts"? We've spoken of real rapists, not alleged ones, and they ARE the only ones to blame for their acts.>>>>
There was at least one example of an alleged rape in the ones that were given. The partner of a young fornicating woman who suddenly decides that he has now tried to rape her is certainly an alleged rapist. Until and unless he were convicted of his crime, he is not a rapist.
Many woman cry rape when there has been none. Women are totally depraved, after all, and are not above trying to destroy a man through a false charge of rape. Remember Potipher's wife?
Jennifer:
As for the doctrine of keeping daughters at home, I see no problem with Rebekah's family, but some fams coerce their daughters into doing this, and feminists by far are not the only ones who object to this; even regular complimentarians do. Wayne Grudem even said that women are oppressed if they're not allowed to vote and have jobs outside the home, and I've seen some in the uber-patriarchal circle do just this. Understandably, many in the "sisterhood" of common sense react in a volatile manner to this.>>>>
Yes, I know how volatile the "sisterhood" can get! Believe me, I know! I used to listen to their wild tales of patriarchal abuse, until I started looking at the "uber patriarchalists" in my real life. A different picture emerged.
Most of the objections to Christian patriarchy are pretty wild and with little basis in fact or reality - and even less basis in Biblical teaching.
No, we did not follow the patriarchal model, but remember. Our 25 year old daughter is living at home with us. My husband and I now think that the old way of doing things - where the daughters live at home under their father's protection until they are given in marriage to their husband - is really the best way to do things. No other way really makes much sense in our fallen world.
Other ways may work out in individual cases, but in general, what we have now as a cultural norm is pretty much a disaster.
I'm sorry Mrs. Webfoot, I've had quite a different experience: I've seen rampant abuse from men in the patrio circles. Their doctrine alone is unBiblical and very forceful. I don't need feminists to tell me this; in fact, all my info comes mainly from Christians and even comps.
ReplyDelete"Women are totally depraved"
Um no, not all of us.
"Women are totally depraved"
ReplyDeleteJennifer:
Um no, not all of us.>>>
All mankind - including all men and all women - are totally depraved, but not utterly depraved. If you like, it may be interesting for you to study the doctrine of total depravity. You could also call it "total inability." That is, every part of our being - including intellect, will, and emotion - is tainted by the effects of sin. We are unable in any way to please God in anything that we do, since even all our righteous acts are like filthy rags in God's eyes.
It is only when we are justified through grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone that we have Christ's righteousness credited to our account - i.e., imputed to us - that we are able to please God in Christ.
Women are no exception. Males are no more fallen or more prone to sinful actions than are women. You believe that, don' you?
Hey, no one has even tried to refute Rebekah's Biblical arguments. Again, the examples that have been shared tend to support her thesis.
Good job, Rebekah.
Thanks for explaining. And Webfoot, people HAVE refuted her arguments: there's no proof Dinah went without Dad's permission whatsoever and no command for women to stay home. Besides which, times have changed and God issued no decree for them to not do so. You must know this is so, or you wouldn't have let your daughter leave at ALL.
ReplyDeleteWell, Jennifer, it's just you and me still talking. I think that I understand what you are saying. Let's see if I get close. You believe that in many cases, such as that of Rebekah, it would be fine for young women to stay at home until they get married.
ReplyDeleteHowever, women in our day have many more choices than they used to have. There is nothing wrong with a woman leaving home in order to go to college or even to live on her own with her own career. Times have changed and it is no longer necessary or even good for young women to be bound to the home. In fact, married women do not have to feel tied down to the home maker role as they used to be. Women are now free and can make their own, mature, adult choices with little or no interference from family, friends, or even a husband. Sure, a woman might ask for advice, but she is the mature one who must decide for herself.
In fact, a woman may put herself in great danger if she allows her father or her husband to make decisions for her or on her behalf. She must be her own person and others must respect the boundaries that she sets up. She is free. She should not submit to the men in her life.
There can be give and take in a relationship, as long as the women is not made to feel like she has to give up her own will in the decision making process.
Is that more or less the view you and others are espousing?
That's all fine and dandy, but where do we see this kind of thing anywhere in the Bible? We don't.
No one has been able to show that there is any other pattern set before us in the Bible than the stay at home daughter. In fact, we don't see very many unattatched, unmarried males wandering about the pages of Scripture on their own either. Even the apostle Paul was an exception, since the other apostles who travelled preaching the Gospel took along their believing wives. Of course, Paul always had at least one travelling companion, too.
This idea of young, single people - whether male or female - living on their own is very new. It is an experiment, really, and one that has largely failed miserably.
Sure, people can do it, but is it wise - especially for Christian women?
No, we cannot keep our daughter home until she marries if she doesn't want to. However, we have said that she doesn't have to move out. This is her home. I HOPE she stays until she marries, but we shall see.
Besides, you must not think that the stay at home daughter model is so terrible since you are still single, in your 20s, and still live at home. It's not such a bad thing, is it?
I think that Rebakah has made an excellent case for the stay at home daughter model being that Biblical one. In fact, I hope that she puts her writings into book form and gets them printed up. She has very clear thinking on the subject, IMO.
The assumption in the Bible is that young people will get married and will live at home until that happens. Why is that a bad assumption? In fact, Biblically speaking, a person is considered mature and adult when they get married.
In our culture, a person is considered an adult when they can live on their own. There's something wrong with our idea of maturity, since living on one's own often does not involve being married, but often does involve having a live in sexual partner. There's nothing mature about that set up, and it does indeed put young women in great danger.
Again, why are the Christian women opposing the stay at home daughter model so cavalier about the grave dangers that young women expose themselves to when they move out of their parents' homes? That is odd to me.
Yeah, that's exactly the view I'm espousing. What's the problem with it? And where's the command for all daughters at all times to obey their fathers as adults?? There isn't one.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible holds many practices from different times, Webfoot. Your view that if it's not done in ancient Biblical times then it's not right is very off-kelter. Women were less protected and had less rights back then; for the past 50 years women Christians have been venturing forth and traveling. And who said anything about it being alone? Women do travel alone now, yes, but they don't have to; what the patriarchals object to is not them living or traveling alone, just doing so without Daddy's permission, as grown women, the way they should. Your claim that the practice of grown women acting like grown women has failed is blatantly untrue: every woman I know has lived, without exception, out from under her parents' home and not a single one has been violated because of this. Your claiming that it failed is a statement with the spirit of fear that I and others spoke of. I don't know when you decided to adapt to the thinking of the severely patriarchal, but it's very weird to me. The stay-at-home daughter isn't terrible; the forced one is.
When did I decide to "adapt to the thinking of the severely patriarchal?" That's a good question, Jennifer. For one thing, I am old enough to remember that what you call the "severely patriarchal" was actually the societal standard.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what Rebekah is promoting is obviously the only pattern that we see in the Bible. No one has been able to refute that point, and no one has even tried. The alleged refutation of Rebekah's arguments are mainly appeals to post modern, "post feminist" cultural norms - which are pretty degenerate, actually.
Then, when I got to know those online who were so opposed to "uber patriarchal" teachings, I started to see the hatred that was behind a lot of it. I was totally and utterly turned off by the anti-patriarchalists.
It seems to me that those who oppose what Rebekah is saying are the ones with the "spirit of fear", though I am not sure what machine is being used to measure "spirits." That's just kind of weird to me.
Hey, we're repeating ourselves. Take care, and have a good week, Jennifer.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
PS
I'm not sure why you keep saying that there is no command about obeying one's parents.
There IS no command to obey parents when one is an adult, Webfoot. I can't believe anyone would support that. And no, there's no command to rule over adult daughters, either. Citing ancient practices as commands for all time is not accurate. The norm for women to act like grown women is not degenerate, it's healthy and vital. I've seen the uber-patriarchalists, seen THEIR hatred to feminists, egalitarians, and complimentarians who don't agree, and above all gauged their hearts by their doctrine, which is un-Biblical.
ReplyDeleteGod bless
Jennifer, I think that you obey your parents. Come on. Admit it now. ;-)
ReplyDeleteHey, have a good week, okay?
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Nope. There's no curfew, no grounding, etc; that's what being an adult means. Have a good week.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteI have to reply to just a few of your points.
Firstly, domestic violence is "at home" violence, often committed by family members. So please, do not use that statistic to back up your position that stay-at-home daughters are safer.
I once thought "stay at home daughter hood" would be an ideal thing for myself, and yes, just like you thought it would be the ideal for all women.
I was an obedient daughter.
My family was a very devout, Christ loving family. We were 100% bible believing Christians. Like you, my family followed many of John MacArthur's teachings... We were home schooled and practised biblical wifely submission.
But we had issues: major issues. Abuse type issues.
My abuse occurred in the home, committed by the very man (according to you) that was supposed to protect me. How does an 8 yr old seduce her father? She doesn't, and she can't.
And yes, I forgave my father: according to biblical practice, and he was dealt with according to biblical practice, for !3! years. Did he stop? NO! He continued his devious, sick ways. It was not until I finally turned to the "world" in the form of the police, that he was finally dealt with adequately. And yes, that does mean prison, and complete removal from my life.
I am telling you all of this, because it struck me as I was reading your entry, that it was remarkably one sided, and neglected the necessary "But" statement.
Praising "daddy dearest" is one thing, but please, remember that the ideal situation, is sometimes completely opposite to what is needed. Sometimes, it is best to leave. Sometimes Daddy is not worthy of the "headship" position that you so strive to put them in.
;-)
Jo
Mrs. Webfoot, I'm going to disagree with number 6 that stay at home daughters has always been the norm. This was the norm only for the very wealthy. My great-grandmother in the very early 1900's worked outside the home as a seamstress starting when she was 15. From reading her diaries and hearing the stories that have been passed down, it was the norm for young ladies to go find some way to help bring in money. She even had friends who left to live in other cities and worked as housekeepers when they were very young teenagers. My grandmother started work in a local store when she was 17 in the 1940's and after she graduated from highschool, it was expected of her and all of her friends that they would find some way to work and bring in money. She also walked for miles by herself to and from work and if she had been attacked, no one would have blamed her or claimed she brought it on herself by working outside the home.
ReplyDeleteThe romantic stories and beautiful paintings that depict stay at home daughters in the past are not of the working class. They don't show the women who tied their children to posts and left them as the went into the mills and factories to work. They don't show the four and five year olds who spent all day working in factories to earn money. Even Laura from Little House on the Prairie worked outside of the home, and no one thought a thing about it. Wasn't she just 16 when she went to live far away and work as a teacher? And don't forget about amazing people like Amy Carmichael who knowingly put herself in danger doing the work of the Lord. She could not have accomplished all she did if she had been a stay at home daughter. Instead, she trusted God with her life and went to dangerous places to serve HIM.
I also wanted to address your comments about women's attire causing men to want to rape them. I know plenty of men who would look at you with your long uncovered hair and say that you were being provocative and that if you were attacked, you played a part in it by flaunting your hair. That you were sending a message that you were open for sex. You may find this silly, but so do the women who you claim by YOUR standards are dressing in an unGodly way. I wear long dresses, pants, shorts, and even a two piece bathing suit. The ONLY times I have ever had anyone whistle or flirt with me were actually times when I was with my brother and wearing long skirts and long sleeves. I have found that i attract more attention to myself when I dress like that then when I dress in jeans and a t-shirt. And since my goal to to draw attention to God, not what I'm wearing, I usually dress in jeans when serving others.
ReplyDeleteIf a perverted man wants to rape you, being a SAHD and covering from head to toe isn't going to protect you, they will find away. That is why I trust God that as long as I am doing His will, He will protect me. I work with a lot of poorer children in a Christian Children's ministry and I go into what many consider bad neighborhoods all by myself with only God as my protector. I would rather die doing God's will then live a long life staying at home being protected by my parents and disobeying God.
If you feel led by God to stay at home, then you should and doing otherwise would be a sin. But I and my parents do not feel like this is God's plan for my life, so being a SAHD would be a sin for me.
Hi again, Jennifer. I can't help but ask some questions of you, if you don't mind me doing so! =)
ReplyDeleteYou talk of women never being commanded to stay at home. May I ask you what you do with passages such as 1 Timothy 5:14 and Titus 2:5, both of which state that if women do not remain at home, that they are causing God's Word to be blasphemed? What about Proverbs 7:11?
What about these words of Rebekah's:
******
"The Greek word translated "keepers at home" in the KJV is the word (in some manuscripts) "oikouros" (a compilation of "oikos" which means "a house, dwelling" and "ouros", meaning "a keeper or watcher") 2., thus indicating that the Christian woman is called on to be in her home, watching over it (Prov. 31:27a) guarding over it, and keeping it from all ungodly influences and ideas. Other manuscripts of Titus 2 contain the Greek word "oikourgos" (which is translated "homemakers" in the NKJV). The word "oikourgos" is constructed from two words-"oikos" (which we noted above means "a home or dwelling") and "urgos", which is from the root word "ergon" which carries the meaning of "to work or be employed". 3. Thus, put together to form the word oikourgos, we discover that, through the inspiration of God, Paul is commanding women to be, literally, employed at home, working at home, and guarding and watching over the home-a very lofty task! Thus, God's definition of homemaker and the phrase keeper at home is the same traditionally held by the masses-a homemaker is one who remains at home, diligently working there, as opposed to out in the workforce at an independent career.The phrase in the KJV makes this clear-women are not simply commanded to be keepers of the home, but rather keepers at home. They are to be employed at home, that the Word of God be not blasphemed (Tit. 2:5).
A notion prevalent today, especially in evangelical feminist circles, is that Paul is not commanding women to work at home full-time, but rather he is saying that he wants them to make sure they don't neglect the home. "Paul is simply commanding women to pay careful attention to the home and to make it one of their top priorities," they say. However, while it is true that women are to pay careful attention to their homes, the remainder of their belief is by no means faithful to the evident and literal meaning of the Biblical text. Paul did not, when writing Titus 2:5, choose a Greek word which carried the meaning, "to focus much attention on the home". This would have been an easy thing for Paul to do, if this was his (or, ultimately, God's) meaning or what he was wanting to teach. After all, Greek is a very detailed language! Instead, however, he chose, under the inspiration and guidance of God, a word which means "to be employed at home" (as opposed to being employed outside the home).
There is a second common notion which abounds today regarding Paul's meaning, which states that Paul is simply making it clear that it is a woman's duty to dedicate a little time each day to work inside the home. If this had been Paul's intention (which, according to the Greek text itself certainly was not!), there would not have been need for such a command. All women-even the most radically feministic, dedicated career women perform some manner of work in their homes, whether it be making a sandwich, rinsing out a kitchen sink, or rearranging furniture. Not only would such a command have been rendered useless, but there especially would not be needed the sobering phrase "that the Word of God be not blasphemed". This notion, as well, simply cannot hold up under the true teachings of God's holy and unchanging Word.
Despite the above false notions, Paul is clearly revealing to us in Titus 2:5-as he did in 1 Timothy 5:14, where he speaks of the roles God has given to abandoned women
******
Apparently my comment was too long!
ReplyDeleteHere is the remainder of it:
Mrs. Webfoot described your stance in this way, "Women are now free and can make their own, mature, adult choices with little or no interference from family, friends, or even a husband. Sure, a woman might ask for advice, but she is the mature one who must decide for herself. In fact, a woman may put herself in great danger if she allows her father or her husband to make decisions for her or on her behalf. She must be her own person and others must respect the boundaries that she sets up. She is free. She should not submit to the men in her life."
I do not want to sound dramatic here, but your agreeing with this assesment disturbed me greatly. What do you do with passages like 1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:23 and following, Colosians 2:18, Titus 2:5b, etc.?
You also said that, "And no, there's no command to rule over adult daughters, either." What about the law laid down in Numbers 30? What about, as Rebekah has mentioned, 1 Corinthians 7:36-38?
As Christians, it is positively crucial for us to heed the wisdom of sola scriptura(Scripture alone) and tota scriptura (all of Scripture). We must bend our every opinion and belief to the Holy Scriptures, not the other way around. We cannot take cultural teachings of the day and push them into the Bible. As Spurgeon once said, "Always stand to it that your creed must bend to the Bible, and not the Bible to your creed, and dare to be a little inconsistent with yourselves, if need be, sooner than inconsistent with God's revealed truth."
Jennifer, I do not want to come across as preachy to you! I simply had some concerns regarding your beliefs that I wanted to bring up and address.
I thank you for your time,
Anna
Thank you for your kind words, Jennifer. I appreciated that compliment. :)
ReplyDeleteNo, I did not know that about Bundy. That is tragic; how very terrible!
Thank you for those words regarding protection; you're so right!
As for what Grudem said, I have to disagree, to an extent. If what he was saying was that, as pertaining to the subject of working outside the home, women were oppressed if they are chained to their homes and not allowed outside, so to speak, then, yes, I agree-that would be highly oppressive. However, it could be that a father or husband is not allowing his daughter or wife to work outside the home because he does not want her to be exposed to all the sexual harassment, danger, etc. that is all too common in the workforce. If this were the case, to call such a thing "oppressive" is, I believe, a terribly grave mistake. Having a father or husband that desires to lovingly protect you is a tremendous blessing! Also, I'm surprised he would say such a thing, in light of Titus 2:5, and the fact that women are commanded to be homemakers, that the Word of God be not blasphemed!
As to this comment of yours issued to Mrs. Webfoot, "Besides which, times have changed and God issued no decree for them to not do so. You must know this is so, or you wouldn't have let your daughter leave at ALL." First, Mrs. Webfoot, at the time her daughter attended college, did not believe in Biblical patriarchy, whereas she does now. Second, Christ never changes-He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and His Word never changes. Yes, there are some OT laws which are no longer applicable, for they were fulfilled in Christ. But there are others, such as Num. 30, which were never done away with, and are in fact illustrated in the NT (i.e. in 1 Cor. 7:36-38). Times change, but God's Word never does, and therefore our interpretation thereof must never change either.
You went on to say, regarding Bible times, "Women were less protected and had less rights back then." I disagree. Throughout the Scriptures, we find examples of women being lovingly protected-something which is not nearly as common now as it was then. Also, women had rights in Bible times. Granted, not as many as they supposedly have now, but property rights, for example, were not brought about by feminism or the women's rights movement. God instituted those in Numbers 27 (I believe that's the correct chapter).
Thank you for your time! :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Webfoot,
Excellent, articulate points about the dangers of the college campus. So very, very true! Thank you for that input! :)
Thank you for being a "watchdog" so to speak. :) I appreciate your kindness and encouragement so very much. You have really been a great blessing to me!
Thank you also for elaborating so eloquently on the topic of total depravity. If you hadn't, I was actually going to attempt to! Excellent defense of this Biblical doctrine! :)
As for making this series into book form, that thought has crossed my mind, and Mama is encouraging me to pursue that. I may just do that very thing, but again, you're too kind! :)
P.S. I know what you mean about the hatred of some of those on the other side! Some go so far as to make up stories and spread a considerable amount of gossip about those of us who embrace Biblical patriarchy. I'm afraid some of them could be likened to those in 1 Tim. 5 that were going from house to house gadding about, spreading the daily gossip! Of course, that can be a danger for all of us.
P.P.S. I'm so sorry for just recently posting two of your comments from February 25th! I must have been having computer problems, as they didn't even come through until recently.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Miss Leah,
What a tremendous blessing and encouragement it was to hear from you. :) I appreciate so much the time you took to comment. You are such a dear!
God bless you, and thank you again for your words of wisdom!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ReplyDeletePrincess Jo,
Hello! Thank you for taking the time to join the discussion; I appreciate your input. :)
First let me say that I am so, so sorry for what you went through. I can't imagine how difficult that must have been for you.
Second, I agree with you. There are times when daughters have to seek a different protector if their fathers are severely abusive, no longer want to protect them, etc. (as we see with Ruth refusing to go home to her parents, and instead residing with Naomi). I will be dedicating an entire article to this topic near the end of the series, so be sure to look for that! :)
In closing, let me just say that I'm not the one that put fathers in headship positions. Rather, I see the Lord teaching that (Num. 30, 1 Cor. 7:36-38, 1 Cor. 11:3, for example) and I just strive to proclaim the truths of His Word. But, you're right-some fathers abuse this role and are not operating according to Biblical leadership standards!
Thank you again for your comment! :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ReplyDeleteHi, Layla! Thank you for your input, as well!
However, I must disagree with your stance that stay-at-home daughterhood was only the norm for the very wealthy. Take the real to life book "Little Women", for example. This was an account (largely based upon Alcott's own family) of a very poor family that was comprised of stay-at-home daughters (even Jo ended up coming back home and remaining there
until she married). Likewise, the daughters in "Pride and Prejudice" were from a relatively poor family, as well.
Also, working outside the home does not keep a daughter from being a stay-at-home daughter. A stay-at-home daughter is one who remains at home with her family until marriage. Therefore, many of those daughters who worked outside the home during those years were nonetheless stay-at-home daughters.
Also, having daughters find ways to bring in money often did not include sending them into the workforce. Many wives and daughters operated as the Prov. 31 woman, having various home businesses to help support the family. This can be illustrated through Mrs. Ingalls.
Following the Industrial Revolution, women did go to work in factories. My great-grandmother worked in a factory during WWII. However, the existance of women who worked outside the home does not negate the historical fact that stay-at-home daughterhood was the cultural norm for centuries here in America. Even the existance of some daughters leaving home prior to marriage does not negate the fact that the norm was still for daughters to remain at home until marriage. Down through history since the beginning of time, there have been women who did not practice stay-at-home daughterhood or stay-at-home wifehood, so to speak. Consider these words of Johm MacArthur as written in his book Different by Design: Discovering God's Will for Today's Man and Woman, "The Corinthian church faced the same problem as the contemporary church: a misunderstanding of male/female roles and relationships. Their confusion resulted from various feminist movements rampant in the Roman Empire during New Testament times. In Corinth, women demanded the same treatment as men. Similar to many women today, they regarded marriage and the raising of children as unjust restrictions of their rights. They resented bearing children for fear it would spoil their looks. Asserting their independence, they left husbands and homes, refused to care for the children they did have, lived with other men, demanded jobs traditionally held by men, wore men's clothing and hairstyles, and discarded all signs of femininity." So, you see, women (unmarried and otherwise) not remaining at home did occur in Bible times and has occured since. However, the norm for many years was nonetheless for daughters to remain at home until marriage and wives to work at home rather than in the workforce. There were indeed women who worked outside the home in the 1940s. However, the norm was for women to work at home, which is why radical feminist Betty Friedan wrote her book "The Feminine Mystique", trying to get women out of the home and into the workforce.
Yes, Laura Ingalls was a teacher. However, not too long before that, the vast majority of teachers were men. In the 1840s, feminism began to influence America and things began to change bit by bit.
Thank you for your input, Layla! :)
Blessings,
Rebekah
P.S. I agree that if a perverted man is intent upon raping you, he will find a way whether you are a stay-at-home daughter or not. However, that doesn't mean that we go parading about without any protection, of course.
Rebekah, the mere fact that Alcott and Austin were literate enough to write, means that they were not truly poor. Most of the character's in Austin's stories had servants. Women servants, who were young and working out of the home. Going back to the 1400's and 1500's you can find that the wealthy, royalty obtained servants and maids in waiting from the mass of poor young women. The norm has always been for weatlhy middle to uppper class to stay at home, but it has truly never been that way for the poor, which make up a huge percentage of people.
ReplyDeleteI know Prov. 31 very, very well, and it says nothing about her being a SAHM. In fact, "like the merchant's ships, she bringeth her food from afar." She went out into the world, she saw property and bought it on her own. It says nothing about her consulting her husband first.
Right now I have a lot going on here, but when I get the time, I will address why I don't believe it is a Biblical commandment to be a SAHD.
Hello again, Layla!
ReplyDeleteI'm not denying that for years, young women were servants. We see that in the Bible, as well. However, I still do not believe that that in any way negates the fact that the cultural norm for many, many years was for unmarried women to be stay-at-home daughters.
In "Little Women", the Marches have a servant, Hannah. But they were nonetheless truly poor due to the War, the man of the house being away, etc. Hannah was like a family member and had been with them for many, many years.
As to Prov. 31, yes, it does describe her as a merchant ship. But my own mother, who is a homemaker in every sense of the word, could be described as such, as well. For, she goes here and there and everywhere acquiring the best food and other items she can for her family. This in no way negates the fact that she is a stay-at-home wife and mother. As for the Proverbs 31 woman purchsing land, yes she did. Just because there is no mention of her consulting her husband does not mean that she didn't do so-not every little aspect of her life and conduct is mentioned in the passage. If she were not submissive and regularly seeking her husband's approval, etc., she could hardly be described as the ideal woman (for God repeatedly commands married women to submit to their earthly heads, their husbands) and her husband hardly could have trusted in her so fully as he did. One reason why an act of seeking her husband's will and approval is not mentioned may be that because she was so wise and discerning and given the fact that her husband knew he could fully trust in her, she didn't have to specifically ask his advice on acquiring the land. He knew that she was business savvy and knew what was in the best interest of her family.
As for her being a stay-at-home mom, I believe this is illustrated throughout the entire passage. For example, in verse 27, she is said to have looked well to the ways of her household. There are those today who point to verse 24, which says, "She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.", claiming that it proves she worked outside the home. However, I believe that nothing could be further from the truth. This verse speaks directly of a home business she operated. She didn't even go to the marketplace herself and sell there the girdles she had made. Rather, she delivered them to the merchants, who were the ones who would sell them in the marketplace. Therefore, I find no verse which supports the belief that she worked in the workplace, and I find every reason to believe that she worked at home as a homemaker.
Thank you again for your time and input! :)
Rebekah
Rebekah,
ReplyDeleteJust because a woman wants to use her God-given talents outside of the home does not mean she is asking for rape!
Men do not rape for sex. They rape for the power they have over women! 30 years ago, in our little town, elderly women were being raped at least once or twice a week. Neighbors and families began to harbor their elderly women and try to keep them from harm. All sorts of theories abounded about what type of person would want to have sex with an old woman.
When the police finally caught the young man, yes YOUNG man, he was a son of one of the local pastors. His father was one of the most influential men of the community and this young man felt powerless next to his father.
He sought out elderly women, not because they excited him; but because they were easily cowed and that made him feel like he was all powerful.
Rape is an act of power, not sex. And abuse of women and children is more apt to happen in the home than outside of the home.
Please do more research before publishing such out of date drivel.
Hi R,
ReplyDeleteYou replied that:
"There are times when daughters have to seek a different protector if their fathers are severely abusive, no longer want to protect them, etc."
I left home, and chose not to find another area of protection. Why? Because for me, it would have been too traumatic to do so. I was very afraid of being abused again. Finding "another area of protection" whilst sounding very simple to you (and you are not a victim of abuse as far as I know), is far more complicated in real life...
Life doesn't always fit in the beautiful little boxes you would like to fit it into. I used to be so like you, my dear. Then I realised that one size does not fit all: that the happy endings that get promised to us, don't always exist, regardless of how we struggle to fit into God's plan for our life.
Just a side note, Little Women is a fictional tale that is a heavily idealised view of life as it was then: so I cannot understand why you are using it as an example of life back then.
Jo
Hi Rebekah,
ReplyDeleteYou sound like a very articulate person, doing your utmost to be faithful to God's will. But, with due respect, I think your logic is misguided. The case of Dinah (and the commandments given about women in the O.T.) are case-studies from the ancient near eastern (A.N.E.) world. People back then were savages. Remember how Lot thought it was totally fine to give his daughters to a mob of crazed rapists? Or how the Benjamites took wives by kidnapping stay-at-home girls in the fields? (This one reminds me of the stereotypical caveman 'getting married' by bashing a woman over the head and dragging her to his cave.) Or how a woman accused of adultery was subjected to a magic "ordeal" test, having to drink a mix of dust, etc? If they made her sick, it was proof of her guilt and she was slaughtered.
Another commenter on this site wrote, "the happy endings promised to us" don't always pan out. In O.T. times, for the most part, they rarely ever panned out. Women were seen as property on the same level as livestock (re-read the "thou shalt not covet" part of the Ten Commandments again and see how they're categorized). Women could be taken as concubines. Slightly better in status than concubinage was the polygamous marriage, common to all then. (Remember how when David was rebuked for adultery, God told him that He would have gladly given him more wives had he wished; it was only wrong that he took Uriah's wife).
Instead of building a model of womanhood on these A.N.E. models, as though they were part of God's eternal will for all peoples everywhere, why not fast-forward up to the New Testament? We see neither Jesus nor the apostles beating girls over the heads with these old narratives and commandments. Instead, we're commanded to love God with our entire beings, love our neighbors, and love one another. Much less burdensome.
One more thing in regards to your rape and abuse statistics. Using that same logic, one could look at all the males who leave home and fall victim to crime. Men get robbed, assaulted, raped and murdered in our harsh world. Should they have stayed home on the farm to keep safe? On the other hand, many women who go off to college do not fall victim to crimes and atrocities.
I know that what I'm saying here will harsh you, and at this point you won't agree. And that's ok. I only ask that you remember these things; file this stuff away for the future. The world out there can be ugly; but not as dark and menacing as your church leaders paint it to be. Unlike in Dinah's day, we have ordered societies with police and criminal justice systems. We have cell phones with which people can dial "911" and etc.
Rebekah,
ReplyDeleteThis is going to be really quick, since I have a ministry to go do today. I know that you feel like I'm a sinner for doing this, but I don't look to the world for approval, just God.:-)
This is going to come down to where we are just going to disagree. I'm not going to address any of the OT passages, since the OT can be used to justify all sorts of things from rape to stoning.
Regarding 1 Tim. 5:14 and Titus 2:5, I do not feel like these verses command women to never work outside the home. As long as they are caring for the home, outside work is okay. I know SAHM's who live in filth and chaos WOHM's who run perfectly smooth homes where they take care of the family and truly show the hospitality of Christ. I know you don't agree with this, but I don't agree with your interpretation (and let's face it, it is just an interpretation) either, so there really is no use to fight over it. :-) We are both doing what we feel God is leading us to do, and that is what matters.
And yet again, I will plead with you as a sister in Christ, to please stop trying to ruin the name of Dinah with speculation and gossip. The name of this post is Dinah's Disgrace and that is something you have no proof of, therefore it is gossip. Mr. Henry that you admire so much must not be much of a gentleman if he has no problem casting aspirations on an innocent girl's character.
"First, Mrs. Webfoot, at the time her daughter attended college, did not believe in Biblical patriarchy, whereas she does now"
ReplyDeleteShe never said she regretted sending her daughter, or that she changed her mind based on patriarchy. Do you think God was wrong to send her daughter and protect her for years? Do you know how many older, Biblical women have left home to serve God?
Secondly, women had FAR less rights back then: they would be stoned if caught in a sexually immoral act, were expected to marry whoever their fathers chose for them, were often not allowed to read or learn as men did, and were sometimes sold in marriage to their RAPISTS. This was sick, unGodly treatment and not protective at all. I think you need to research this more; many Jews at the time were influenced by practices of wicked men, not God's design of human co-rule.
Well, not "sent" her daughter; she let her go. Sounds like Webfoot's daughter, like an English starling, traveled and ultimately returned home. And more than one Christian parent has testified to the bittersweet experience of letting a grown child go, even knowing they'll return. I think Rose Nyland, one of my favorite fictional characters said it best; she reminded her friends that in nature, animal parents raise their children with the sole intent of training them to live on their OWN. Humans are the only ones who sometimes inadvertently try to reverse the natural rule and feel the need to cling to and provide for their grown offspring. Living at home is fine, but there should be entirely different circumstances in adulthood. Orca whales, for example, sometimes live with their parents' herd their entire life; the difference is, they no longer rely on their parents to catch their food for them. They have adult skills, strength, and use them. They stay with their parents out of love and devotion, not need.
ReplyDeleteJo, I am so sorry too for your abuse :( You did nothing to deserve it and nothing REMOTELY sinful or earning of guilt by fleeing! Good for you; you are a lioness who overcame her wounds and knows how to fight against evil. Please don't misunderstand Rebekah's earnestness on this issue.
ReplyDeleteLayla and Anon, you have excellent and vital points!! Very articulately put.
Oh and you're welcome for the compliment, Rebeckah :) You are very nice to let us voice so many opinions here!
ReplyDeleteThank you Jennifer. I hope that Rebekah will address the fact that this entire post is not based on the Bible, but on the speculations of one man. Even she admits that this is the only instance in the Bible where a daughter is punsished for leaving without her father, but the Bible never says that this is Dinah's disgrace, never said that she brought shame and reproach on her family. The only ones who did that were her brothers for acting in foolish haste without consulting their father, and Shemech for raping Dinah. Despite God letting bad things happen to her, Dinah could very well be a "shining cornerstone" in her father's home. Accusing her of anything else with no proof is wrong. Hopefully Rebekah will feel free to explain why she feels it is okay to continue the defamation of Dinah's character. I truly pray that instead, she will have come to realize that trusting the speculations of a man over the Bible is far from wise.
ReplyDeleteAnd I do want to thank Rebekah for being willing to discuss this. :-) So many young people refuse to converse with those who disagree with them.
ReplyDelete"The Bible never says that this is Dinah's disgrace, never said that she brought shame and reproach on her family"
ReplyDeleteIndeed, and thank you for your points! People who didn't see this before do now. And yes, Rebeckah has a strong heart :)
"1 Timothy 5:14 and Titus 2:5, both of which state that if women do not remain at home, that they are causing God's Word to be blasphemed? What about Proverbs 7:11?"
ReplyDeleteHi, Anna. I'm sorry, but none of those passages are commands to stay home and nowhere else. Timothy and Titus encourage women to be diligent of their houses; we already know God expects both women and men to guard their homes, so this is no surprise. Proverbs 7:11 is a very often abused passage which describes what sounds in modern terms like a partying woman who neglects her home; quite obviously this doesn't sound like a mature, employed woman and it would be unfair to try and make it apply so. The Botkins even unfairly tried to force this passage on college girls as a way to shackle them to the Botkin-ordained way of living.
"Paul is commanding women to be, literally, employed at home, working at home, and guarding and watching over the home-a very lofty task! Thus, God's definition of homemaker and the phrase keeper at home is the same traditionally held by the masses-a homemaker is one who remains at home, diligently working there, as opposed to out in the workforce at an independent career"
Paul exhorted women, again, to be diligent of their homes; quite a stretch from telling them not to be anywhere else. By the same token, Paul said he advised THE younger women (as though referring to a particular group at the time) to be keepers at home. If everyone here knows that not all women are to be married, why should we try to apply this passage as a command for all women to stay exclusively at home? God's Word is blasphemed when homes are neglected, not when their owners work outside as well as inside them.
"After all, Greek is a very detailed language!"
Which is precisely why Paul would have made it VERY clear if working outside the hoem was a blasphemous thing. Don't you think, Anna, that more Christians would realize any job outside the home is sinful if Paul in fact said that? Most complimentarians I know don't even agree with you. There's no command for women to never work outside home; Wayne Grudem gets this, John Piper gets this, even Douglas and Nancy Wilson get this.
Mrs. Webfoot gave an incredibly simplistic and rather dramatic summation of my beliefs. A woman submits, as a man does, out of love, not authority, and no she is NOT to obey the men in her life; this is nonsense. A female is not bound by the whims of the males around her. A grown woman obeys God and the law, and that's it; this is not a description of a wild independent woman in the least. My summation of a woman's autonomy is this: "Sure, a woman might ask for advice, but she is the mature one who must decide for herself". Well, YES. Consulting others is GOOD; sticking with family, excellent. Letting others make your decisions for you, as an adult? Not good, not a sign of maturity. This should surprise no one.
"What do you do with passages like 1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:23 and following, Colosians 2:18?"
Anna, the meaning for the word "head" is one greatly debated among Christians and by no means a matter settled by patriarchy. I cannot recall offhand what I decided was the best translation, but I'll look it up if you wish. I believe submission in marriage is mutual and that a husband being head of his wife means a source of life, love, and exhortation. As for Colossians 2:18, what are you trying to say? this speaks of nothing about authority and instead about puffed up people and false doctrine. Is this what you're trying to say I am?
Here's the second half of my answer:
ReplyDelete"What about the law laid down in Numbers 30? What about, as Rebekah has mentioned, 1 Corinthians 7:36-38?"
I don't go by OT laws, or else we might as well still marry girls off to their rapists. This Corinthians passage mentions nothing of a father, but instead of a romantic relationship between a man and woman; indeed, this relationship is spoken of as being between THEM, not them and the girl's father. It even stresses that a widow (I believe it was) may marry whoever she wishes! No asking permission from male relatives or counselors, who modern patriarchals claim women must live under at all times.
"We cannot take cultural teachings of the day and push them into the Bible"
Indeed we cannot, though patriarchals who spread the obedient-woman doctrine do just this, in reverse: they try to take cultural teachings of the day and force them into Christian life now.
Thank you very much for your questions, Anna. It's been fruitful to my spirit to research and answer them.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteHello! Thank you for taking the time to join the discussion. Your input is appreciated.
First, I agree that there are rapists who rape for control. Absolutely; without a doubt. However, I still believe there are those who rape for sex, and I believe that if you were to conduct a survey of rapists, asking them to give the reason they committed their sin, it would prove this to be fact. I believe it would be naive for either one of us to say that all rapists rape for sex or that they all rape for control. Rapists are different, just as all of their victims are widely different.
Thank you again for our input,
Rebekah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello again, Jo!
You're right-things don't always go according to plan! And I can imagine that you would indeed have been scared to seek out an alternate protector. Life simply does not always go according to plan. In those times, I believe it imperative that we seek to make it a mission of our lives to provide our (Lord willing) future children with a more stable, Bible based home, and that we ourselves still strive our hardest to live according to the Lord's beautiful design for women.
As to "Little Women", it was actually largely based upon Louisa May Alcott's (who remained at home with her parents until the day she died; she never married and cared for her sick parents until they died; she herself died 2 days after her father passed away) own life. In the book, for example, the character of Jo is largely based upon Louisa May herself, and the plot itself is based on Louisa May's own family of three sisters.
Thanks again for your input! :)
Rebekah
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your input! You raised some thought-provoking issues; I appreciate the time you took to comment.
First, as to those in the O.T. being savages and those in the N.T. and today not being savages, I have to strongly disagree. Yes, many of those mentioned in the O.T. acted like a bunch of savages; there's no doubt about that! However, the problem then was sin, just as it is now-not that they were uncivilized then and that we are somehow very civilized now. That is what evolution would have us believe-that mankind is getting better and better. However, nothing could be further from the truth. For example, the whole grunting cavemen idea is completely rediculous. Yes, men lived in caves at times (some still do). Some may have had speech problems even (as some people today do). However, man was created in the image of God, able to reason, communicate, and react with others as God Himself can. The anctient Sumerians, for example (c. 3500-2500 B.C.), had indoor plumbing (including hot and cold running water and flushing toilets)! Their cities were much more advanced than are some countries of today. Also, treatment of women in much of the world (mainly in Muslim countries) is no better, and in some ways worse, than the treatment issued to women in years B.C. In islam, a woman who is raped can be stoned. In other words, she receives all the punishment, and the rapist receives none. So, the issue is not civilized vs. uncivilized. The issue is a total depravity of the human soul.
As to Lot, I sincerely doubt that he felt that it was ok to give his daughters to a mob of crazed rapists. I am in no way trying to defend his deplorable actions. However, in an instance such as that, one can be so frenzied and so desperate to fix a situation, that one doesn't think clearly and does that which he otherwise never would have done. I believe this was the case with Lot. Furthermore, you stated, "how a woman accused of adultery was subjected to a magic "ordeal" test, having to drink a mix of dust, etc? If they made her sick, it was proof of her guilt and she was slaughtered." This may have taken place at that time, but I have never read of such a thing in the Bible. And even if it is in the Scriptures, it was quite likely done by a group of crazies-not by God-fearing individuals.
Also, you cannot base how you handle the O.T. and your view thereof, upon the sins of those therein. We are all depraved sinners and all make stupid mistakes. The O.T. is God's Holy and inspired Word and is to be treated as such-not to be pushed under the rug because of the sinners and sins mentioned therein. I'm not accusing you of doing this, but I do believe that there are those in the world today who are unfortunately guilty of this very thing. Noteworthy is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." When this verse was first penned, the only Scriptures combined in book form were those of the O.T. Therefore, Paul is saying that the O.T. is profitable for New Testament believers, for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be pefect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. We must never, ever ignore the O.T.!
You further stated, "Women were seen as property on the same level as livestock (re-read the "thou shalt not covet" part of the Ten Commandments again and see how they're categorized)." That is not the meaning of that verse. Exodus 20:17 is simply saying that men are not to covet that which belongs to another. In 1 Cor. 7, we read that the wife's body belongs to the husband and vice versa. If I were to say to my neighbor that he sould not covet our other neighbor's wife and then in the same breath I said that he had better not covet our neighbor's car either, I'm not placing our neighbor's wife at the same low level as a car. I'm simply stating that he musn't covet anything which is our neighbor's. Furthermore, verse 17 is a direct command from the mouth of God Himself. So, if we're going to say that He put women at the same status as an ox, then we are saying that He went back on his declaration in Genesis 1:27 that He made men and women both in His image. We would furthermore be saying that in Galatians 3:28, when Paul writes that men and women are of equal worth, we would be saying that he, under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, was contradicting God the Father, which of course would open a whole can of worms of bad theology. Therefore, the correct interpretation of verse 17 is not that woman is placed on the same level as an ox!
ReplyDeleteYou said that women could be taken as concubines. Yes, but that was in direct disobedience to God's holy and pure standard and law. Women today are taken as concubines, too. So, again, the fact that women in O.T. times were taken as concubines by no means discredits the O.T.
You further stated that, "Slightly better in status than concubinage was the polygamous marriage, common to all then. (Remember how when David was rebuked for adultery, God told him that He would have gladly given him more wives had he wished; it was only wrong that he took Uriah's wife)." This is not a correct interpretation of 2 Samuel 12:8. It does not expressly say that He would have given David more wives. God hates polygamy, for He expressly instituted marriage as being between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24 says, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."). Furthermore, in the N.T., leaders of the church are to be only men who are the husband of one wife.
We should indeed live according to the N.T., and it is much less burdonsome in the sense that all the ceremonial laws, sacrificial laws, etc., are no longer binding, for they were fulfilled in Christ Jesus. However, the N.T. never abolishes distinct roles for men and women.
It is indeed true that men get raped and that there are college women who never do. This is why we cannot base our doctrinea solely on statistics. Statistics can help to illustrate why our doctrines are right and so crucial, but they cannot be the basis of our doctrines-only God's unchanging, infallible Word can!
Thank you again so much for your input!
Rebekah
Layla,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "I'm not going to address any of the OT passages, since the OT can be used to justify all sorts of things from rape to stoning." This is possible only when one does not accurately interpret the O.T. The N.T. could be used to justify sinful things if not interpreted properly, too. It is crucial that one looks at the entirety of Scripture and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Please also refer to the comment issued above to anonymous, which deals extensively with how to handle the O.T.
You further wrote, "As long as they are caring for the home, outside work is okay. I know SAHM's who live in filth and chaos WOHM's who run perfectly smooth homes where they take care of the family and truly show the hospitality of Christ. I know you don't agree with this, but I don't agree with your interpretation (and let's face it, it is just an interpretation) either, so there really is no use to fight over it. :-)" It's definitely not my intention to fight with you! :) Pertaining to this very issue, however, I wrote the following in a previous stay-at-home daughterhood article:
"A notion prevalent today, especially in evangelical feminist circles, is that Paul is not commanding women to work at home full-time, but rather he is saying that he wants them to make sure they don't neglect the home. "Paul is simply commanding women to pay careful attention to the home and to make it one of their top priorities," they say. However, while it is true that women are to pay careful attention to their homes, the remainder of their belief is by no means faithful to the evident and literal meaning of the Biblical text. Paul did not, when writing Titus 2:5, choose a Greek word which carried the meaning, "to focus much attention on the home". This would have been an easy thing for Paul to do, if this was his (or, ultimately, God's) meaning or what he was wanting to teach. After all, Greek is a very detailed language! Instead, however, he chose, under the inspiration and guidance of God, a word which means "to be employed at home" (as opposed to being employed outside the home)."
I agree wholeheartedly that there are homemakers who are couch potatoes, who have homes that are a wreck. There are likwise women who work outside the home whose homes are emaculate. However, first, having a clean house is not the sum total of the woman's responsibility in the home. Second, as I said in my comment to anonymous, we cannot base our interpretation of Scripture upon statistics, or upon what other people do and the outcome thereof, etc. We have to interpret Scripture based upon what it says itself and that's it. As to an interpretation, there is only one accurate interpretaton of Scripture, and that is the literal one. Christians must refrain from interpreting Scripture symbolically, or saying that there is one meaning for me and one for you. God is by no means a relativist-absolute truth does in fact exist and it is to be found in God's Word. There are passages, such as some in Revelation and elsewhere, that are symbolic. However, when they are, it is clear. I'm not saying my interpretation is perfect right across the board-I am fallible! I'm simply saying that we must abide by the only accurate hermeneutic-literal interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI can see how the title "Dinah's Disgrace" may have been somewhat unfair. Thank you for pointing that out. However, I believe it would be equally unfair to say that Dinah was completely innocent, as I stated in response to your comment on another, more recent, post of mine. And I completely agree that trusting one man's speculations regarding Scripture can be far from wise. We must again base our interpretations solely upon the Bible itself. Commentaries are very helpful (including Mr. Henry's), but commentarians are still nonetheless fallible. Only God's Word is not.
Thank you again, Layla, for your input! It is appreciated.
Have a good night,
Rebekah
P.S. Thank you for your kind words!
Hi, Jennifer!
ReplyDeleteYou stated, "She [Mrs. Webfoot] never said she regretted sending her daughter, or that she changed her mind based on patriarchy." She never expressly said those things, but I believe that that was clear based on her comments. She would have to say herself whether or not that is completely accurate.
And you're right-"many older, Biblical women have left home to serve God". It is not my intention to discredit older Christian women in any way. I will simply say that whether you are old or young, one must be so careful to insure that the method one uses to "serve God" is according to God's Word. Otherwise, it's not truly service, it's disobedience. This message is one that, unfortunately, many of today's churches would do well to learn.
You further wrote that women "were often not allowed to read or learn as men did." This isn't fully accurate. It is largely true (which caused Paul to be so countercultural when he commanded the church to let women learn -1 Tim. 2:11), but not fully. Take, for example, Proverbs 31:26, "She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness." She was well educated and was successfully teaching others the way of God. We likewise see many other women throughout the Old and New Testaments that were very educated. However, when we see women treated poorly in the Scriptures, it was indeed by sinful men who misunderstood God's Word.
You spoke of, "Orca whales, for example, [that] sometimes live with their parents' herd their entire life; the difference is, they no longer rely on their parents to catch their food for them. They have adult skills, strength, and use them. They stay with their parents out of love and devotion, not need." The vast majority of stay-at-home daughters have the ability to provide for themselves and have home businesses which bring money into the household (as I do). Stay-at-home daughterhood is not meant to retard a female's growth into adulthood. It is to protect her and help her to prepare for her womanly roles, etc. Women, like the Prov. 31 woman, should be able to bring money into the household economy if needed, through home businesses, but women are never ever given the responsibility in the Scriptures to provide for themselves.
Thanks again for your comments, Jennifer!
Have a good night,
Rebekah
P.S. Thank you for your kind words; they were a blessing to receive.
Do you no see how it is a tad bit hypocritical to in one paragraph state that we must interpet the Bible based on what it says and that is it. And then in the very next paragraph go on to explain how you are choosing NOT to do that with Dinah's story (because based on what is in the Bible, she did not sin), but instead read into it and speculate to create an elaborate story where Dinah shamed her family and was no longer a shining cornerstone. What you are claiming and what this whole post is about is NOT in the Bible. Period.
ReplyDeleteI'm just going to agree with what Jennifer said about those verses instead of typing it all out again. :) You are correct, only God's Word is not fallable, and it that Word, there is no place where it is clearly spelled out that women must not work outside the home.
I was not meaning that the Bible can be interpreted symbolically, I meant that when things are not clearly stated, that God can convict one person of something and not another. As an example, for me the commandment to have dominion over all the animals appears to mean that we must also take care of them even as we use them. Therefore I will only eat ethically raised meat, eggs, and milk. This is something that God has really convicted me of, and honestly something I fought with Him over for awhile, because it is not easy to live like that. But since I started obeying, I have such a peace that I didn't before. Does that mean that everyone who doesn't eat ethically raised meat in sinning, no because God has not convicted them of that and no where in the Bible does it say Christian must only eat ethically raised meat.
I view the SAHD/W in the same way, it is a personal conviction, not a Biblical commandment. And until you can point out the place where that is clearly stated, then you will not convince me otherwise.
"However, I still believe there are those who rape for sex"
ReplyDeleteRebeckah, this is the only thing you said (that I can see right now) that greatly offends me. You really need to look further into this; every doctor and therapist will tell you otherwise. I suppose you may have meant that those who rape sadistically are doing it, in a way, for gruesome sexual reasons. If so, that would be correct. And interestingly enough, it would prove us both right, because sadists are power freaks who get sexual pleasure out of their dominance! Please recall: there are many men who become sexually aroused entirely on the idea of dominance.
We are both correct in our comments re female education I think: it was largely true in the culture that women couldn't learn, but not in Christian circles. Followers of God almost always were counter-cultural. Thank you much for your re-consideration of the Dinah issue and your sweet spirit and intelligent explanations! And you're welcome :)
Hello, Ladies,
ReplyDeleteThe discussion is very interesting. I may pick up on a few things that Layla said, but I cannot right now. Some of what you say is very interesting and may have some validity. Thank you for reading my comments and responding. One caveat, Kayla; I think that you need to be careful in using the terms "hypocrite" or "hypocritical." That is a pretty strong accusation against Rebekah to be making. Why not use the word "inconsistent" instead - which is what I think you actually mean? A "hypocrite" or someone who is "hypocritical", at least Biblically speaking, is a person who is not a believer at all! I'm sure you were not saying that - at least I hope you were not saying that.
As for Jennifer's comments to and about me, I am not sure why she does that. I think that it is an attempt to discredit me. If I can be shown to have changed my mind about something, then that makes anything and everything I say suspect, right? Technically, when Jennifer does that, she is engaging in fallacious ad hominum argumentation. She points out my flaws in the hopes that my arguments will therefore be rejected outright.
I'm kind of used to it by now. :-)
We'll talk later, maybe.
God bless, and everyone please take care,
Mrs. Webfoot
Princess Jo:
ReplyDeleteFirstly, domestic violence is "at home" violence, often committed by family members>>>
Hi, Princess Jo,
That is true. Often that violence is committed by wives against their husbands and mothers against their children. At least until a few years ago, about 60% of the perpetrators of child abuse were their mothers.
Even so, the home is a much safer place than the streets, for example, or even a college campus. Young people are much less likely to drink themselves to death if they are under their parents' authority and if their parents know where they are at all times. Young people are much less likely to engage in perverted or promiscuous behavior if they are living under their parents' roof - especially Christian young people.
While our daughter was in college, she lived with 3 other strong Christian girls in off campus housing. One night they heard a lot of noise and saw that the neighbors were about to load a very drunk co-ed into a cab to send her away! One of our daughter's room mates called the police on them, and an ambulance came and saved that girl's life!
The "friends" she had been partying with were ready to just let her die, but not at their place! I wish that I could say this is a typical of what happens to many of our young college students. I could tell you more stories if you like. If we want to swap stories...
Thank God that our daughter is a very strong Christian and a very strong person. That is by God's grace.
I am sorry for what you experienced, Princess Jo. However, it was far from normative. I hope and pray that you get healing, but you must not characterize all fathers based on what you experienced. No, a person does not have to submit to criminal behavior, whether they are male or female.
I'll share some of my testimony. My father was not a Christian. He was an alcoholic and an athiest. However, he never abused me. As best he could be, he was a good father. When he got sober, he became an even better father and an excellent grandfather. I even obeyed him when after my sophomore year in college he forbade me to go to Bible school. Out of respect for him, I finished my degree first, and a few years later, God gave me my heart's desire to attend Bible school. I met my husband there, even.
So, my experience was very different, and I think pretty normal, actually. Fathers are not by definition abusive, despotic males! Rather, they are analogous to our Heavenly Father.
It is not the norm, either, that mothers mistreat their chidren or that spouses abuse one another.
Take care,
Mrs. Webfoot
Mrs. Webfoot, if you have a problem with how I speak, you can address me directly instead of talking to Rebeckah with a winking smiley. You should be used to me disagreeing with your arguments, but in this case you're incorrect. I don't need to resort to faulty tactics to discredit arguments I see as fallacious, nor have I ever done so with you; I'm quite capable of refuting arguments based on their own lack of merit. In fact, I admired you for allowing your daughter to go and pointed out that you never said you regretted it to, if anything, prove that you were NOT inconsistent with your feelings on the matter. Please read more carefully before you make such assumptions.
ReplyDeleteLastly, the above lady's name is Layla, not Kayla. Blessings
Great explanations, Mrs. Webfoot. I hope your father found God.
ReplyDeleteIt is also worth noting that it's not normative for all young people to act dangerously.
ReplyDeleteWow, what an interesting discussion. I am glad Rebekah is still allowing people to post on this as I can see it she is feeling rather attacked and sometimes people shut discussions down in those circumstances. Rebekah, as a fellow Christian who has been a SAHD please let me encourage you to really, really try researching the opposite viewpoints on some of your beliefs. The biggest growth in my life as a Christian has happened when I have done that, just as a curious, "Why do they think that, anyway?" I have frequently kept my original belief, but there are times I have changed my mind, sometimes in big ways. So far, I have been only benefitted by doing that and I truly do love God more now since I started actively doing that than I did before.
ReplyDeleteThere is so much I could say about the discussion here, but as a person who lived at home and worked outside the home at the same time:
"However, it could be that a father or husband is not allowing his daughter or wife to work outside the home because he does not want her to be exposed to all the sexual harassment, danger, etc. that is all too common in the workforce."
I have worked in some pretty bottom-of-the-barrel emploment places, with drug addicts and weird people. Sometimes I've had to deal with irritating guys making advances, but you know what? It was not a constant thing, it was in my case always quickly dealt with and ended safely, and it was not something that ever made me dread going to work. I have had jobs that I hated but never due to that sort of harrassment. Sometimes I worked around people who swore a lot too, which wasn't fun. But, I either was able to tune it out automatically or else many of them would graciously censor their language around me as I was so "innocent." These are drug addicts I am talking about, BTW. So please don't overestimate the dangers and vexation of the working world. Again, some of my first jobs were pretty far down the food chain and a corporate job or career job would often have far politer people and less harrassment. On the other hand, the majority of my girl friends have been molested to some degree by a family member or family friends. Tragic, so tragic.
The most harrassment I've gotten was when I was around 10 and living in a ghetto neighborhood and despite being a tomboy I could not go anywhere, even with a guy, without being whistled at. I never got a vibe of sexual attraction from that - it was really more about making me blush or something. Anyway, rapes happen because of lust for power, as others have said, and I strongly believe that Christians need to firmly separate discussions on rape and discussions on modesty, and we need to keep modesty at a Biblical level of emphasis - it is mentioned what, one or two times in the New Testament? Money and other topics are FAR more emphasized in the Bible. Modesty and careful living are important but it's also good to regularly check myself to see if I am majoring on minor issues a bit more than the Bible does.
As Christians, let's remember the many commands in the Bible about widows and ophans and the oppressed and realize how many, many people are oppressed IN their families. To show mercy to people in those situations and give them mercy and hope rather than one size fits all rules is an amazing thing to do and is part of that "undefiled religion" we want to live out.
R
Mrs. Webfoot, you are correct, inconsistent would be a better word. The definition I was using was one where you say one thing and do another. No one but God knows of our salvation status, therefore I would never speculate on that. At least I am not accusing her of bringing shame upon her family, being a disgrace, or not being a shining cornerstone in her father's house. But it boils down to Rebekah is being very inconsistant here. She is saying that the scripture is never open to interpretation, except when she does it with Dinah.
ReplyDeleteHello, Layla!
ReplyDeleteI understand your point, and could agree with you had I made my speculations out to be for sure Biblical fact. I never did that (please refer to my comment here: http://byhisgraceandforhisglory.blogspot.com/2010/03/fathers-home-daughters-shelter.html#comments ). Yes, it would be wrong for me to have mere speculations, present them as Biblical fact, and then in the next breath cry out for literal interpretation of Scripture (meaning, that the Bible means what it says and says what it means). However, I did not do that. We cannot say that based on the Bible she for sure did not sin in this account. That is speculation, as well. We can speculate that she may have not sinned in this account, but we can't present that as for sure Biblical fact.
I wholeheartedly agree that when something is not expressly stated as a command, God can convict one person of one thing and another of another thing, and we musn't state either one as command. Paul himself made that point. And, I admire your stance regarding meat. God gave us dominion, but He also set down laws in the O.T. as to the ethical treatment of animals.
I believe that the SAHD/W issue is different, however, as Numbers 30 is direct law that was never abolished and is in fact reiterated in 1 Cor. 7:36-38. And, Titus 2:5 and 1 Timothy 5:14 end with, that the Word of God be not blasphemed and that the adversary have no reason to revile us, respectively. Both lend credence to the stance, I believe, that to be at home and to work there versus in the workforce is a direct command issued by God Himself.
God bless,
Rebekah
Hello, Jennifer!
ReplyDeleteRegarding rapists raping for sex, as I said before, not all rapists are the same, and we can't say that they are. Therefore, while the majority likely rape for control and dominance, there are still those who, I'm sure, rape for sex.
In regards to what I've said before about women doing things or living in ways that can lead a man to rape, what about these words of yours: "Did you know that Ted Bundy's horrific addiction began with a sadistic porn magazine? Such kinds of porn show women being hurt, sometimes crying in pain, and horrifyingly, some troubled men become attached to this. Bundy did, and soon his addiction became so great it wasn't enough to look anymore; he moved on to rape, and then murder, to sate his satanic thirst. It's truly horrible how Satan will try to twist God's design :(" The women posing in these porn magazines lead the men looking at them, such as Bundy, to rape. Therefore, how can we not say that the actions of these women are, in part, responsible for leading the men to rape?
Thank you again for your kind words. :)
May you have a blessed day in the Lord Jesus,
Rebekah
~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Webfoot,
Thank you so much for sharing a portion of your testimony. I'm so thankful that the Lord was merciful and caused good to come through your time at college. That's a blessing, as is His protection of your daughter.
I, like Jennifer, hope your father came to the Lord.
Thank you again for your input! :)
Rebekah
~~~~~~~~~~~~
ReplyDeleteR,
Hello! :) Welcome to the discussion!
It has been somewhat discouraging at times to be so strongly disagreed with, at times in not-so-kind ways. However, it has been a blessing to receive all these comments, because, as you suggested, I have taken pause with them, gone back to the Scriptures, prayed for wisdom and Biblical knowledge, and then proceeded to respond. There's nothing like dissention to cause one to really study the Scriptures! If everyone always agreed with us, much Bible study would likely never occur. So, I thank you for your suggestion! :)
I'm not saying that all women in the workforce are harassed or abused day after day, or even that all are harassed but once. That's another reason why we must base our beliefs solely on God's Word, and not on the experiences of people or upon statistics alone.
I fully agree that it can be wrong to major on minors. When one does this, they tend to let majors go out the window, which can be very dangerous. However, the number of times a teaching is mentioned in the Bible does not necessarily dictate how important it is. For example, in the N.T., Hell is mentioned far more than Heaven. Does this imply that Hell is more important than Heaven? By no means. The "love of money" is mentioned only once or so in the N.T., while modesty and purity are mentioned time and time and time again throughout all of Scripture (and is addressed many times in the N.T. alone). For one thing, in Proverbs 7, the sinful, adulterous woman is described as being terribly immodest. The importance of modesty (and purity, which so often is linked with modesty) is clear in the Holy Bible.
It is completely true that there are those who are oppressed in their families. This is sadly evident in the testimonies of many people, such as Jo. However, we can't look at that and say that SAHD is therefore unapplicable to today. Abuse occured in homes in O.T. times, as well. When a daughter is in an abusive situation, she has every right to get out, to find some other alternate protection, etc. A full article will be dedicated to that issue near the end of this series. Please stay tuned! :) And, yes, it is so very, very important to care for the widows and fatherless; such is indeed pure religion undefiled.
Thank you for your comment!
Have a good week,
Rebekah
"Therefore, how can we not say that the actions of these women are, in part, responsible for leading the men to rape?"
ReplyDeleteNo, we can't! Firstly, do you realize Rebekah how women in that business are treated? They're abused as human beings and mentally sick/wounded themselves to be in such a business; these are no strutting fashion models or spoiled Hefner bunnies. Secondly, the grand majority of men would be HORRIFIED at seeing sadistic images of women being raped. The ones who are drawn to it are the ones who are ALREADY sick on the inside. Do you think just any man could be attracted to the image of a woman being abused? No, not at all. The sickness is born from within, not without. Thanks for your comments.
R, your thoughts are some of the most balanced here! Thanks
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteThe treatment of the women at the photo shoot doesn't really matter at this point or make a difference to our discussion. At least I don't really see it as doing so. If I'm missing something, I apologize!
I agree that to be in such a business (or in one like Hefner's for that matter!), you have to be hurt and wounded in some way.
I also agree that the vast majority of men would be positively horrified by such magazines, and would immediately throw them in the garbage. However, even a relatively upright man could be drawn into that sort of thing little by little by being exposed to it-Satan tears apart people's lives by little actions at first, and then more temptations, etc. until the person's life is destroyed and you no longer recognize him.
However, you said yourself when you brought this type of magazine up, that it was seeing this kind of work itself that influenced Bundy to peform the abominations he did. No one forces those women to be in magazines like that, just as no one forces women to be in Hefner magazines. Because of what you said about Bundy, I don't know how one could not say that the women who choose to pose in those are partially to blame for the impact the works have on men.
Blessings,
Rebekah
"No one forces those women to be in magazines like that, just as no one forces women to be in Hefner magazines"
ReplyDeleteWell, we don't know what goes on behind all the scenes. Most of them probably have some say, but I'll always blame the sadists in these matters more than their masochistic victims. The magazines appealed to something sick and dark that was already inside Bundy; they inflamed it, not put it there, and his sickness was inflamed primarily from the evil, pain lusting sickness of other MEN. Either way, neither the magazines nor Bundy's sickness had anything to do with normal sex. The men who had the female models pose in such ways did so because they, too, had inherent sickness. Satan can't inflict everyone with the same tactics; only some men have the corrupt seed that enables them to become aroused at such filth.
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteI, too, blame the rapists far, far more than I would any woman whose actions in some way influenced a man to rape.
I don't see how he was inflamed by the other men and their lusts. You said in a prior comment (where you first brought up these magazines and their link with Bundy) that the pictures of the women themselves being abused was what influenced Bundy to do what he did.
I couldn't agree more that everyone involved with these magazines, from the photo takers, to the models, to the men who purchase the works, are all completely sick and perverted. There's definitely no doubt about that.
I still think that the fact remains that if those women did not pose for those magazines, they would not be able to be made, and would not have led Bundy to do what he did. Therefore, I believe that those women are, to a degree, to blame for what they did to influence Bundy and his terrible actions.
Thanks for your comment,
Rebekah
"You said in a prior comment (where you first brought up these magazines and their link with Bundy) that the pictures of the women themselves being abused was what influenced Bundy to do what he did"
ReplyDeleteWell, what I meant was that it's men who come up with the ideas for putting women in those gruesome positions, and men who desire to put them there. But yes, certainly the models are partly to blame, whereas the women who end up hurt from the rapists the pictures enflame are not.
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteFirst, Paul never expressly commands men to guard their homes. Granted, they are to protect their families and watch out for their homes, but they are not commanded, as women are, to guard their homes. I think this shows that there is a difference in a man's role in the home and a woman's.
I beg to differ. Proverbs 7:11 does not speak of a partying woman (although, based on the passage, she may very well have been one, I'm sure), but of a rebellious, loud woman who simply would not remain at home. It seems to me that the rebellious and would not remain at home go together, revealing perhaps that women are to work at home.
I do not want to say that women are not allowed to be anywhere but inside the home. As Rebekah aptly wrote, the home is not to be a cage of some sort for women. But they are to work there, rather than in the workforce, as is clear to me by the Greek word used in Titus 2:5.
According to your belief, Paul is saying that women are simply to take care of their homes. And, according to your comment, he's only telling younger women to do so, as if older women do not have the responsibility to guard their homes. Further, I do not believe that Paul is only commanding younger women to be homemakers. If this were true, then we must be consistent, and deduce that only younger women-not older-at to love their husbands, love their children, be discreet, chaste, and obedient to their husbands.
My point in quoting Rebekah's teaching of the meaning of the Greek word used, and I'm sure her point, as well, was that the word means, quite literally, to be employed at home. What is the logical conclusion then? The logical conclusion is that they must be employed at home, that the Word of God be not blasphemed and that if they are not employed at home (meaning, they are employed away from home, in the workforce), God's Word will be blasphemed. The logical conclusion in "thou shalt not lie" for example, is likewise that it would be a sin to lie, and that people are to tell the truth. That seems to me to imply clearly that the command is for women to work at home-not in the workforce. Also, if this were not the case, then why is the Proverbs 31 woman described as clearly, as Rebekah again pointed out, working at home, with home businesses, and not outside the home? Why are younger widows not told to go get a job, now that they have no husband to provide for them? Why are they told to instead get married, have children, and guide the house? If women are not commanded to not work outside the home, why are older widows (even those who are able-bodied and could fully provide for themselves through a job outside the home) told that they are to be cared for and provided for by family members or the church? If there is no difference between the roles of men in the home and those of women, why are the widowers never told that they are to be provided for by the church? Why does the Bible repeatedly command God's people to care for the widows and fatherless, but not the widowers and motherless? What about the Genesis 3 curses and the Double Curse that working women are under? Sorry for the multitude of questions! =)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOk, so I deleted my own comment! lol :/ I was going to say that I want you all, if you have a chance, to go to the stay-at-home daughterhood article above this one, on a father's home being a daughter's shelter and read what I wrote about Dinah in a recent comment. I have other thoughts on my mind, as well, about this that I will be posting tomorrow!
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that Mrs. Webfoot's summation of your beliefs was dramatic and simplistic. I had assumed that you fully agreed with it when you said that it represented your views. I apologize for the mistake.
ReplyDeleteA woman is not to obey all the men in her life. Only her father when she is younger and unmarried, and her husband when she is married. She is commanded to obey her own husband-not other women's husbands, and there is much protection in this provision! If submission supposedly has nothing to do with obedience and authority, but only love instead, then we had better quit using the word submission as we do, and let the Bible translators know that they have no clue what the English meaning of the word submission means! I have to disagree with you. Submission absolutely means a placing of yourself under another in rank (this is what the Greek
word in Ephesians 5 actually means; it is a military term referring to putting yourself willingly under another in rank and obeying that person) and obeying that person. Even if we didn't know the Greek word, Scripture interprets Scripture. 1 Peter 3:1 commands women to submit to their husbands (even those who are not Christians) and verse 6 (I believe it's 6) speaks of Sarah obeying her husband Abraham, calling him lord. This is not speaking of a submission merely to love, but to authority. Verse 6 clearly shows what the meaning of submit is-husbands have authority over their wives. There's no way to get around the fact that the word translated lord literally means lord or master, one who has and exerts authority. Also, I do not mean to say that a Christian woman is bound by the whims of the men around her. She is to submit as is fitting in the Lord, meaning that if at any time his commands go against those of the Lord, she is to obey God rather than man.
Oh my, am I embarassed! I meant Colossians 3:18, not 2:18!!! I am sorry, Jennifer, for that typo!
The meaning of the word head in 1 Corinthains 11:3 is a hotly debated one. I, however, desire to not rely solely on English-speaking men and women who are educated in Greek, but rather to a Greek man himself, whose first language, if I am not mistaken, was Greek, and that is the late Spiros Zodiahtes, who stated that the meaning of the Greek word in the passages referring to husbands being the head is that of authority, not source. Ephesians 5, for example, would not support the stance that it means source, for a husband is not the source of his wife! Paul used the same Greek word in other places referring to Christ, and it is clear in the context that it is referring to the church's obedience and submission to Christ. Furthermore, we ourselves use the word head to refer to a leader (as in the head of the corporation). This is why the Greek word is translated lord in our English Bibles.
As a side note, men are never told to submit to women. I have heard many point to Ephesians 5:21, to say that mutual submission is expected in marriage. However, a reading of Ephesians 5 and 6 reveal a continuity. In the portion dedicated to submission, it begins with a command to "submit to one another", which then goes on to speak of wives submitting to husbands as the Church submits to Christ, slaves submitting to masters, and children submitting to parents. Ephesians 5:21 is a topic sentence, if you will.
I have gone on a long while now, and will leave it at that. I must go now, and will respond to your other comment when time allows.
Anna
Anon, I never said older women are not to do the same as younger. That would be foolish. I said I got the impression that in that particular passage, Paul could well have been describing a particular group of young women he wanted to see married.
ReplyDelete"It seems to me that the rebellious and would not remain at home go together, revealing perhaps that women are to work at home"
Of course they are to work at home, but exclusively? As Doug Wilson said, the Bible states that home is to be a woman's main place, not her ONLY place. You are entitled to your interpretation.
"I had assumed that you fully agreed with it when you said that it represented your views. I apologize for the mistake"
ReplyDeleteNo need to apologize :) It was my own fault, I agreed with it before reading the whole thing through, and perhaps gave Mrs. Webfoot the wrong impression myself.
"Oh my, am I embarassed! I meant Colossians 3:18, not 2:18!!! I am sorry, Jennifer, for that typo!"
Don't worry about that, I had a feeling there was a mistake :P One of the things we can laugh about.
We of the egalitarian belief system believe that submission is, indeed, done out of love and that husbands have to GREATLY submit in the command to die to their wives!! Countless people disagree that submission has to do with authority, and the Greek word used telling children to obey their parents was quite different from the one used telling wives to submit. This, too, is debated. In fact, the original text reads, "Wives, to your husbands". I don't recall what conclusion I came to about Sarah and Abraham, but the example is weird indeed; my husband is not my lord or master. Furthermore, some say the husband being source of the wife has to do with Adam being the source of Eve. Even so, more egals believe the term is simply a mystery, part of man and woman being one in flesh and being. Unfortunately, some of the research and explanations of this can require pages! I'll try to sum it up though if need be later on. Paul wouldn't call it a mystery if it was simply a matter of master and follower.
"As a side note, men are never told to submit to women"
Men are told to submit to their leaders and there have been many, many female leaders.
Rebekah, regarding the Ted Bundy/porn link: I would have to disagree with you. After doing my research I discovered the following information regarding Ted Bundy:
ReplyDelete"Most researchers believe Bundy's LATE [emphasis mine] insistence upon pornography as a contributing factor in his crimes was another attempt at manipulation; a vain hope of forestalling his execution by feeding James Dobson's own agenda regarding pornography and telling him what he wanted to hear." (wikipedia)
This is supported by a number of other sources. Ted Bundy had a history of lying about both his offences and his reasons for committing the offences.
Ted Bundy from the time he was a very young child (3) had a fascination with violence and implements of violence (ie knives). I think regardless of whatever position you take on porn (and trust me, I am in no way condoning sadistic porn) it can be safely said that Bundy would have committed those crimes anyway, regardless of whether or not those magazines etc were available to him. Bundy ALONE was responsible for his actions: thanks to modern technologies, we can now see that sexually violent/twisted tendencies (such as Bundy's), are due to brain development issues.
-------
R, you said:
"The treatment of the women at the photo shoot doesn't really matter at this point or make a difference to our discussion."
Actually it does. What if those pictures weren't taken in a "photo shoot" with willing participants? What if those photos were taken under duress or during an actual rape? A CRIME then took place, and you should be concerned about it. As far as I am aware, you have never seen/watched porn, so I don't know how you can draw such conclusions about the impact it has on a person, or even about it's content.
----------
I have never said that stay at home daughterhood, is any less of a valid choice: just that it is heavily dependant on any number of factors, including personality, home life etc. I am not using my story to send hate messages about stay at home daughterhood, but to issue some caution over it's presentation as the ONLY right way.
------------
Mrs Webfoot, I have never said that all fathers abuse. I am glad that yours didn't, and I know others do not as well.
However, I wish to reiterate:
"I left home, and chose not to find another area of protection. Why? Because for me, it would have been too traumatic to do so. I was very afraid of being abused again. Finding "another area of protection" whilst sounding very simple to you (and you are not a victim of abuse as far as I know), is far more complicated in real life..."
Abuse has serious repercussions. Please don't keep telling me that the right thing for me to have done would have been to find another "protection", or that by finding another "protection" it would solve the abuse issue. Do some research on the far-reaching effects of abuse and you will realise that most times, your ideal is from from what is best for the victim.
I had a very positive experience at university, and have never ever heard of any of my friends being treated that way, drunk or otherwise. But then, I do live in another country, so perhaps therein lies the difference.
I think it is fantastic that your daughter stepped up in that way.
From my own personal experiences, and from what I hear from others, abusive home environments (christian or not) are far more common than we like to think.
I won't be posting here any longer, as I find it an extremely hard thing to do, with some of the content of this blog being extremely triggering for me.
I have a blog, that you are more than welcome to visit and ponder. But please, remember that I am an agnostic and a free thinker, so I will have things to say that you won't ever agree with. So, please, respect the differences.
princessjo1988.blogspot.com
Jo out.
As my mother says, you can't truly know what a person believes, even if you live with them.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I disagree passionately about what you said about how those who dress in a seductive manner bring it upon themselves. A man is to have enough self control that he is able to either flee temptation when it does arises. A woman, could, as a male friend of mine says, look like a fruit ripe for picking, but if she is not your fruit(doesn't give consent) then back off. It's easy to say it's a woman's fault when she's dressed like a strumpet, it really is. But the truth of the matter is this: rape is not a crime of, how can I say this..sexual desire. It is a crime of overstepping ones' boundaries. It is a crime of power and subjugation. This act alone makes the proud woman very humble. It is why it was used by soldiers in pre-biblical times. It's even used today.
That, and despite the boundaries set by loving parent(s),grandparents, and family in general..horrible things do happen.
At age seven, while visiting an aunt, I was molested.
At age 19, while in my mother's home, a leader in the church attempted to rape me.
The first time I could not fight my attacker.
The second time I fought and won.
Both attempted to ascribe blame onto me(clothes I was wearing, pheramones), but the truth of the matter is that these, boys(not men..I do not believe real men do this) would have harmed me if I was wearing a burlap sack. And sadly in both cases I was wearing the equivelent(onesie footie pjs).
Was I in college? Yes
Was I not under my father's covering? The circumstances would not allow that. So, the question must be asked "Was I not under my mother's covering?" Yes, yes I was as that I was living with her and living according to her rules.
The truth of the matter is that the guy was a wolf in sheep's clothing. I allowed him in because he was a leader, gave him the respect he deserved, and sadly paid for my naivete.
I reported him to my leader, and recieved the lecture that obviously it was my fault and she refused to have him disciplined even though I had proof(in a haste to leave, he left his hat). Long story short(too late), he's still prowling the church.
I grew disheartened at the fact that no one honestly wanted to do anything about it.
Do I know if he's attacked any other women? I have an inkling.
Will he use the same arguement I've mentioned? Yes, unless he's stopped. But he won't be because of the faulty logic that some folks have about rape.
Now, as for Ted Bundy, he was a psychopath that thought of other folks as nothing but pieces of paper to mold and destroy. He himself mentioned that many folks will say it was because of his love of pornography that he became this way. But, he says, this is not true. He admitted he was flawed, and deeply so. And even if that stuff never came across his path, he would have still desired to exert power over others.
But I've said too much. I was just intending on saying my bit but I really got into the whole explaining bit. Have a good night everyone.
Jennifer, hi back and thanks :)
ReplyDelete"As a side note, men are never told to submit to women"
Wow. Um, one of the examples of Sarah and Abraham? What about when GOD told Abraham to obey Sarah? That's just one of the instances in the Bible.
Anyway, Rebekah, it might be more profitable for you to approach modesty from this angle - that by being immodest and flaunting it, a woman can assault a guy's eyes and if a guy does not want to be noticing her body/thinks it is not permitted to do so, then it is unkind to do that to him. Why all the detour into blaming victims for being raped? And why the hard either/or lines where it is impossible for a woman to even work parttime outside the home and still be in God's will?
Also, Esther was semi forcibly removed from her uncle's protection and taken to a pagan, sex saturated environment to be in a polyamorous relationship against her will. She did some things that go very much against the SAHD paradigm and she made some decisions without consulting her uncle, yet God blessed her and she is considered a righteous and Godly woman who was mightily used.
Actually, as I think about it Esther had quite a bit in common with women who work in the sex trade, women who are VICTIMS but who God can still heal and use for good.
R
Anna, you are correct. Any native speaker of the Greek language will tell you that "kephale" means "authority over" or "preeminence" or "highest rank."
ReplyDeleteJennifer:
Countless people disagree that submission has to do with authority, and the Greek word used telling children to obey their parents was quite different from the one used telling wives to submit.>>>>
Countless? What does that mean? Countless people believe all kinds of error. What you are espousing is only one of the countless errors that countless people have believed.
Tell us about those words you allude to. I would love to hear your explanations.
Jennifer:
I don't recall what conclusion I came to about Sarah and Abraham, but the example is weird indeed; my husband is not my lord or master.>>>>
Sarah considered Abraham to be her "lord." The Holy Spirit tells us to have that same kind of submissive attitude towards our husbands. She is our example as wives.
She even obeyed Abraham. I think that the following words are pretty clear. They speak for themselves. In fact, they are all too clear, and they cut across the grain of our post feminist culture. Yet, it is what the Holy Spirit instructs us to do. It cannot be a bad, evil thing to do. It cannot be offensive to God for women to submit to and obey their husbands.
It is extremely offensive to women in our present evil world.
1 Peter 3:1
Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives--
1Pe 3:2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.
1Pe 3:3 Do not let your adorning be external--the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing--
1Pe 3:4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.
1Pe 3:5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their husbands,
1Pe 3:6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that Mrs. Webfoot's summation of your beliefs was dramatic and simplistic. I had assumed that you fully agreed with it when you said that it represented your views. I apologize for the mistake. >>>>
Anonymous, how familiar with egalitarian teachings are you?
Anna:
ReplyDeleteAs a side note, men are never told to submit to women. I have heard many point to Ephesians 5:21, to say that mutual submission is expected in marriage. >>>>
Anna, I think that you did a good job of defending Biblical teaching. Personally, I don't think that the term "mutual submission" makes a lot of sense.
There are a number of Complementarians who do teach a version of "mutual submission." In the Complementarian version, the husband still has authority over his wife, since he is her head. However, in another sense they do submit to one another - the husband in one way and the wife in another. Each one in Christ - under His lordship - lives for the good of the other - the husband as the self-sacrificial leader and the wife as the loving and submissive help meet. The God-ordained roles are not denied.
When egalitarians talk about "mutual submission" they mean something a bit different. There are no gender based roles in the egalitarian versions. Sometimes the husband will lead and sometimes the wife will lead. The person who is best gifted for a certain task is the one who should do it. There are no gender specific tasks. Female empowerment is sometimes included as part of the equation.
Now, on the surface, that sounds very good and reasonable.
However, think about it a bit deeper. Where does the denial of gender-specific, God-ordained roles eventually lead?
So, the term "mutual submission" is not necessarily unbiblical, even though I am not crazy about it myself. It depends on the meaning that is poured into the phrase. The egalitarian meaning is skewed.
Trying again. My first attempt to comment appears to have disappeared into cyberspace.
ReplyDeleteI am very thankful, Rebekah, that for your sake, you appear to know almost nothing about rape and what motivates. That is a blessing. However, you really therefore have no business talking about something you don't know.
As people have repeatedly pointed out, men do not rape out of attraction but out of a desire for power. I am also thankful I know of only one first-hand account of rape. It illustrates this so well. There was a group of elderly people staying in a sort of hostel as they were traveling around the U.S. There were many couples with them. One day a man walked into the building where they were staying, walked into a room -- I believe it was a bathroom which would explain why the door was not locked -- and grabbed the first woman he encountered and raped her.
She was elderly. She was dressed like the rest of her elderly group in comfortable traveling clothes. She was not in any way dressed provocatively. And even had she been, that wouldn't have factored into the case because the man didn't see her until moments before he raped her. She was simply convenient for his purposes.
"What you are espousing is only one of the countless errors that countless people have believed"
ReplyDeleteSorry Mrs. Webfoot, all the people I've learned from are educated, often PHD-awarded teachers. And countless quite simply means countless.
"Any native speaker of the Greek language will tell you that "kephale" means "authority over" or "preeminence" or "highest rank."
Actually quite a few say just the opposite.
"It is extremely offensive to women in our present evil world"
No indeed, instead women in our present evil world like to believe that husbands are their masters and fleshly priests, even though the Bible CLEARLY says there are to be no more fleshly intermediaries. Do you call your husband "lord" and "master", Webfoot? Would you lie and say you were his sister if he asked (and you didn't hear the clear voice of God telling you to do so)?
"Anonymous, how familiar with egalitarian teachings are you?"
It doesn't matter how familiar she is, Mrs. Webfoot. I answer to my own beliefs, not others', and every egalitarian I know does not portray women as wild independent forces. If you think so, you really need to listen to more reliable sources.
"Where does the denial of gender-specific, God-ordained roles eventually lead?"
How often does the Bible say "roles", Webfoot? Rarely ever; in Genesis both man and woman are told to subdue the earth and practice authority. The belief that Biblical egalitarianism leads to people trying to blend the sexes and lose all distinctions is an irrational fear often spread by those entrenched in patriarchy and the belief that all will fall without it.
Mutual submission is understood by those who recognize it as giving in to someone else's wishes/needs out of love and not authority; it's harder for people who try to see hierarchy in everything to understand this. I really don't wish to focus on this topic anymore, since you and I have discussed this uselessly for a long time and, to the other ladies, it is not the topic of this thread. If anyone has anymore questions, I'll offer names and links to those more learned than I.
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "But yes, certainly the models are partly to blame, whereas the women who end up hurt from the rapists the pictures enflame are not." Glory be, we agree! :) That's what I meant in my comment.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Most recent anonymous (responding can get confusing when there are more than 1 "anonymouses"!),
Yes, apparently your comment did get lost, as it never appeared in my inbox. I'm sorry for that difficulty; it is quite frustrating when that happens!
Another anonymous related a similar story, involving another rape victim who was elderly. I do not argue with those facts, nor do I even remotely desire to do so. I fully acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of rapists likely rape due to a lust for dominance, control, and a desire of making another human being hurt. That is factual. However, as I've said before, not all rapists are identical in their method, place they rape, race of whom they rape, reason for raping, etc. etc., and we simply cannot say that they are. Therefore, I believe that some rapists may very well rape for sex. I do know about rape (thankfully not be experience, praise the Lord!). I do not know all there is to know about it, granted, but that fact does not make my stance necessarily wrong in any way. Also, rape obviously existed during a time when provocative clothing for women was not at all common. But the amount of rapes going on now, in a time when women are very provocative a lot of the time, have skyrocketed. Now, not all of the alleged rapes may have actually occured. But the number has nonetheless soared in our day. Granted, there are many factors contributing to this rise in the number of rapes, such as men not faithfully training their sons to be godly men themselves. But I do find it interested that a rise in provocative clothing has gone right along with a rise in rape. Just a thought...
Anyway, thank you for your comment! :)
Rebekah
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mr. Wilson that the home is definitely the woman's main place, but not her only place. This does not mean, however, that she is to necessarily to work in the workforce. Homemakers are not to be locked away at home, never allowed to see the sun or enjoy the great outdoors. That would be a miserable lifestyle! Women go to the grocery store, volunteer with their families at homeless shelters and rescue missions, visit friends, and the list goes on. So, I don't disagree at all with Mr. Wilson's assesment.
Blessings,
Rebekah
assessment*
ReplyDeleteIt's always fruitful to agree and have clarity, Rebekah :) I am actually waiting to apply for a job soon and I feared I'd perish of boredom in the meantime, being used as I was to the wonderful mental stimulation of the training classes I took for it. God however has been showing me all the great stimulation there's to be found in home as well! :) I look forward to work and need it to help my father and my family, but this is a welcome blessing in the meantime.
ReplyDeleteJo,
ReplyDeleteGood to see you again. Wikipedia is not always the most trustwothy source of information, as it can be changed by people who do not know what they are talking about. However, even if he said that the magazines were not solely to blame, they still fanned the flame of the depravity that was already inside him, and so were still to blame somewhat for what happened. According to Jennifer's research, Bundy himself admitted that the magazines at least had an impact for the worse upon him.
Blessings,
Rebekah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello, Monica! Welcome to the discussion. :)
I agree that men are called on to have enough self-control to look away from provocatively dressed women. But, while the rapist alone is to blame for the rape itself, the way in which a woman acts or dresses may very well fan the flame of the rapist depravity within him that may otherwise have been lying dormant. That's what I was trying to say.
I am so very, very sorry for what happened to you. That is tragic on so many levels. It seems all too common that seemingly godly men are some of the very ones committing rape and other haneous crimes. I sure hope he comes to justice. We know, though, that he will one day ultimately be brought to justice by God Himself! I pray that you have found refreshment and peace in Christ!
Blessings,
Rebekah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
R,
I completely agree that God can mercifully take less-than-perfect situations and turn them into something wonderful. Women in the workforce have led other to the Lord through witnessing, women have gotten saved at college, etc. etc. Our God is definitely in the business of bring good out of what may be a bad thing. That shouldn't dictate what our theology consists of, though.
Thank you,
Rebekah
~~~~~~~~~~
Jennifer,
Yes, it is, isn't it? :)
I so admire your desire to help and serve your father and family. So many daughters today are focusing solely on themselves rather than on what they can be doing to serve their families.
I likewise appreciate your words about the home. You couldn't be more right. :) As I have gotten older and have increasingly focused more upon my current home and family, I have been consistently amazed by all the intellectual stimulation which abounds here at home. The militant feminists could not be more wrong in their assessment of the home, that's for sure! For example, my parents and I have the greatest, most stimulating and thought-provoking theological conversations rather often. It's fun, too! :)
Blessings to you,
Rebekah
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response (and thank you, too, Mrs. Webfoot!).
Husbands submitting to the command to die for their wives if need be is not a submitting to women-it is a submission to God Himself, Who ultimately issued the command.
I am not interested in what countless people think. We are not beholden to the views of others. Pastors, Bible scholars, scholars of Hebrew and Greek, teachers, and commentators are all so very helpful, of course, but they are not our ultimate authority by any means. If we are going to base our theological beliefs on what others say, then we are no better off than those under papist rule who could not even own the Bible themselves, but had to listen to the pope's interpretation of the Bible. Furthermore, we have to, as Rebekah wisely pointed out (thank you, Rebekah!), our interpretation must be literal. And, when all else fails, we have to rely on our English translations if we are English speaking peoples and believe that the Lord preserved His Word as He promised He would. Further, the interpretation must not depend on what some say about Greek words and not upon the text itself. We are to come to Christ as little children. Also, what about pagans in Africa or people of third world countries that receive Bibles in their own languages? Must they be hopelessly without a knowledge of what the Bible truly means because they do not know the Greek? Of course not. That is why, like in the case of 1 Peter 3:6, we have to take the Bible as it is written, and not try to explain it away (I'm not accusing you of this! =) ) or find someone we agree with. It is helpful to study the Greek. But when we do so, we should seek the instruction of the Greeks themselves, such as Zodiahtes.
You are surely correct-the Greek word in Ephesians 6:1 (hupakouo) is not the same as in Ephesians 5:22 (hupotasso), although it does have the same root. However, you want to know something highly interesting and rather telling as to the meaning of submit? The word used in Ephesians 6:1 (speaking about children obeying parents) and 6:5 (speaking of servants obeying masters) is the *exact same word* used in 1 Peter 3:6, when speaking of Sarah obeying Arbraham! Further, the Greek word termed lord is not debated really....the meaning of it is lord or master, authority. As a side note, the root word of the words mentioned above, hupo, has a primary meaning of under. It is used as meaning under a husband or to place under, as 1 Corinthians 11:3 supports.
The original text reading, "Wives, to your husbands" makes perfect sense given the topic sentence of Ephesians 5:21.
As to people using source to mean that Adam was the source of Eve, I would agree with that, as I am sure anyone would likely do. But, no other husband is the source of his wife. What shows the meaning of submission in Ephesians 5:22 is defined by the example of the Church's obedience to Christ. It is not rigidly made to occur by God, rather it is out of love (which is the meaning of hupotasso in verse 22-it is a willing subjecting, a willing-out of love-placement of oneself under another in rank). But Jesus describes it as obedience to Him, nonetheless. And I am sure we would be able to agree on what Jesus meant by obedience to Him.
True, there have been women civil rulers and men are commanded to submit to their civil rulers. But that is not the same thing as saying that husbands are commanded to submit to their wives.
Also, as to the mystery, I think that refers to the fact that the ability of husbands and wives to be a picture of the Church and Christ is a mystery, not that it is a mystery as to what submission means.
I thank you again for your time and response. Forgive me for going on for so long, and I thank you for your patience, as well.
Anna
P.S. More later, as time allows.
Thank you for your patience and kindness too, Anna. Hupatosso means to submit, yield; a man yielding his life to his wife is OBEYING God, yes, but submitting to his wife! God wasn't merely referring to dying completely, but dying to SELF for the wife. Yielding to one's needs is a vital part in marriage and in any loving relationship. In fact, another way of saying it is "being subject to", and the Bible clearly tells a man to be subject to his neighbor; this is an ongoing, mutual flow in Christianity among all members. Understanding the meanings here are quite important and nothing like being under Papist rule. Sarah obeyed Abraham in the immediate sense by doing as he asked; likewise, it could be argued Abraham "obeyed" Sarah when taking Hagar. I stand by the belief that calling a husband a lord and master is idolatrous and resembles bdsm more than the Bible. Paul didn't call submission a mystery, but was referring to the headship issue. I'd prefer not to carry this off-topic issue too much further.
ReplyDeleteJust one question from a lurker...Rebekah, where did you get your facts that the number of rapes has skyrocketed (with the advent of more "provocatively" dressed woman)? I've been doing some recent research on sexual assault and statistics seem to show that the number of REPORTED rapes has increased. That fact does NOT mean that the amount of rapes has increased.
ReplyDeleteEven now, in today's society, it is very difficult for a rape survivor to come forward and make allegations due to fears of being stigmatized by society (i.e. she MUST have done something to cause the rape--like being provocatively dressed)and having to deal with judgmental, uncooperative attitudes by law enforcement and the legal system. You can only imagine what things must have been like in a time when women did not have the "support" we do now. It's no surprise to me that the number of rapes (back then) appeared to be so low in comparison to today's rates.
My point is, the way a woman dressed did not contribute to the amount of rapes experienced in the past and certainly don't contribute to the amount of rapes women experience at present. While the number of rapes appears to have "skyrocketed", in reality it's because the number of reported rapes has increased.
References:
Du Mont, J., Miller, K.L., & Myhr, T.L. (2003). The role of "real rape" and "real victim" stereotypes in the police reporting practices of sexually assaulted women. Violence Against Women, 9(4), 466-486
Page, A.D. (2008). Judging women and defining crime: Police officers' attitudes toward women and rape. Sociological Spectrum, 28, 389-411.
Ullman, S.E. Starzynski, L.L., Long, S.M., Mason, G.E., & Long, L.M. (2008). Exploring the relationships of women's sexual assault disclosure, social reactions, and problem drinking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(9), 1235-1257.
Anna, beautifully said and spot on!
ReplyDeleteRebekah:
ReplyDeleteHistorically rape was under reported or was called something else. Here are 3 scenarios for you and Mrs. Webfoot to consider:
1. Raped woman forced to marry her rapist (happens in Muslim countries). Rape not reported.
2. Raped woman executed (stoned in Iran & Saudi) as an adulteress. Rape not reported.
3. Rape victim (remember MEN can be and all too often are raped) too ashamed to report the rape. Prison rape is sadly a reality. And there are the war stories described so well above my post.
In all the above cases, these women were simply going about their daily business. It would be appropriate to note Arabic countries have strict laws about pornography: it is not allowed.
Sadly a man or woman could be at home "doing everything right" with the woman's head covered, her submitting to her familial head etc and still be raped. To say that "if she was dressed differently/living at home she would not be sexually assaulted (rape is one facet of SA)" (male rape is very rarely spoken of) creates a false sense of security.
Also as a polite reminder, there may be women and men in your church family who had been involved in less than savory actions prior to being saved. 1 Corinthians 6:11 "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God (Geneva Bible)."
It would be appropriate as well to note that Rahab who is a direct ancestress to Jesus Christ was a prostitute before God tore down the walls at Jericho.
Hello, all! :)
ReplyDeleteThe reason I have not responded since Friday morning, is because the weekend is family time and so I naturally spend less time on my blog. Furthermore, our computer has been out most of today, so I couldn't have responded anyway. I will be back to resume the conversation, though, tomorrow sometime!
Blessings,
Rebekah
Good for you! Weekend's often family time for us too.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mrs. Webfoot-great work, Anna! Those are some exact points that have been tumbling around in my head the past two years or so. I am planning to write an article series on those very topic, as well, sometime in the near future!
ReplyDeleteBlessings,
Rebekah
~~~~~~~~~~
Anonymous,
You're right about the amount of rapes reported, the bad attitudes received by those who claim to have been raped, etc. . The fact that the number of alleged rapes have skyrocketed, I believe, leads credence to the idea that actual rapes have, as well. Granted, not all the rapes that people claimed have occured actually have. However, for centuries in America and England, for example, women were honored, respected, and protected much more than they are today. During the Regency period, for example, men always rose when a woman came into the room, they pulled their chairs out for them, etc. Granted, some men did this solely out of duty and custom, as opposed to real honor and respect for women. History reveals the fact, however, that women were at one time much more highly respected than they are today. Many today are treated like things, mere objects to discard, or are treated with the bruteness with which men treat one another. Rape absolutely did occur throughout all of time and the victims may have oftentimes not spoken about the crime. However, I do think that the number of actual rapes has indeed gone up.
Thank you for your question! :)
Rebekah
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anonymous,
I agree that rape was under reported. Especially in Muslim countries (in my comment I was considering primarily the countries of the West)! Muhammad taught that woman has half a brain and therefore when in court, the witness of one man does not equal the witness of one woman, but actually two. If an Islamic woman reported a rape, it would do her little good, and may bring her much harm, given the deep and abiding hatred of women in the religion of Islam.
You wrote, "Sadly a man or woman could be at home "doing everything right" with the woman's head covered, her submitting to her familial head etc and still be raped. To say that "if she was dressed differently/living at home she would not be sexually assaulted (rape is one facet of SA)" (male rape is very rarely spoken of) creates a false sense of security." I agree with this, and made this very point a few times here in the comment section. Being at home does not protect you from everything, but I do believe that it naturally protects you from a lot.
And, excellent point made here: "Also as a polite reminder, there may be women and men in your church family who had been involved in less than savory actions prior to being saved. 1 Corinthians 6:11 'And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God (Geneva Bible).' It would be appropriate as well to note that Rahab who is a direct ancestress to Jesus Christ was a prostitute before God tore down the walls at Jericho." That's so true. How merciful and wonderful is the grace of our Lord! :)
Blessings,
Rebekah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ladies,
Due to the upcoming retreat, I will be unable to moderate comments from Thursday-Sunday afternoon or early evening. Feel free to comment during that time, but please just understand that those comments will not be posted until sometime Sunday evening or Monday! :)
Thanks,
Rebekah
Again, Rebekah, you are only speaking about the rich, mostly white women. During the Regency period, no man would rise when a woman servant entered the room. And if a lower class woman was raped by an upper class one, no one cared or believed her. Lower class women have always been treated as objects that can be easily discarded.Up until not so long ago, in the south, black women could be raped, beaten, or just treated like less then human by white men and no one blinked an eye. All women have not been treated with honor and respect and protected more then they are today for centuries, just those lucky enough to be born into the right families.
ReplyDelete"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?"
ReplyDeleteSojourner Truth
Women's Convention, Akron Ohio, 1851
Great-hearted woman, Sojourner.
ReplyDeleteanonymous:
ReplyDeleteI've been doing some recent research on sexual assault and statistics seem to show that the number of REPORTED rapes has increased. That fact does NOT mean that the amount of rapes has increased.>>>>
It could mean that the amount of rapes has increased - as has the number of abortions since Roe v. Wade. Also, the definition of rape has changed, which could account for some of the increase in reported rapes.
In the case where rape has been reported, how many bear out to be true rapes? Now, a young woman can accuse her partner of rape if she decides that in the middle of consentual sex, she wants him to quit. If the young man continues, he is somehow guilty of raping her.
There are many false accusations of rape, too, as we all know. It is one of the easiest ways for a woman to hurt or destroy a man.
Be that as it may, the present moral climate HAS to have an influence on the number of actual rapes. How could it not?
Layla:
Again, Rebekah, you are only speaking about the rich, mostly white women. >>>
Layla, you have yet to substantiate what you say about the history of the stay at home daughter model. So far, you have based your statments on anecdotal evidence. In fact, very few would try to make the argument that you are making - that the stay at home daughter model is new and that it was only wealth white women who had the luxury of keeping their daughters home until they got married. I am amazed that you are still trying to make a case in that regard!
The women that I have been talking about have been largely poor women, such as my family and those that we work with on the mission field.
In fact, many of my friends in Chile - rich and poor - still have their adult children living at home with them or are adult children living at home. This is also true among my friends in Mexico. Very few young people leave home before they are married.
The country I have visited where this pattern has been broken - stay at home adult children - is Cuba. There has been a big push of late to get high school students out of the home and into government run high schools where the students live in dorms.
The young people are even encouraged to be as promiscuous as they wish. Christians avoid sending their children into that kind of situation, and they pay a certain price for it. Those who go to the boarding schools are given better opportunities for their futures -such as it is in Cuba!
Of course, you can continue to try to make your argument, but you have to know that the stay at home model is indeed very ancient. It is fairly recently in our culture that this pattern has been viewed as somehow bad or repressive for women! It used to be the norm.
What is your point about rape, anonymous?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that there are many sexual predators out there has always been well known. There are more now than ever. Whever a society has a large number of unattatched adult males, all kinds of problems arise.
One of the safeguards that our society has had is that fathers and husbands give their wives and daughters protection from those who would try to rape or otherwise harm them.
When we tell young women that they don't need their fathers' protection, or even that their fathers ARE the abusive sexual predators that they should fear, it makes sense to me that women would actually be more victimized by predators and perverts rather than less!
What you say is actually a strong argument in favor of the stay at home daughter and stay at home wife model.
Then, in the story of Jacob's children, they are all pretty messed up - including Dinah. I can't believe that some are trying to paint her as some kind of saint or something. That is just strange. Think about the kind of people Dinah was looking for friendship from. What do you think she was doing with her pagan friends, or learning from them? She wasn't there as a missionary.
NO ONE has called Dinah a saint, Webfoot. But innocent she was to the extreme. Her entire family was shocked that this happened to her. There were no "Well, I TOLD her not to go out" or "If she'd only stayed at home and obeyed me" sentiments.
ReplyDelete"I am amazed that you are still trying to make a case in that regard!"
Layla's talking about MODERN such families. And indeed, if you want to do the whole shebang-homeschooling, stay-at-home daughterhood-it's pricey.
I never said that the model was not ancient, just that it wasn't always true for the working class. When Rebekah is speaking of the respect men showed for women, she is leaving out the servant and slave women. They were never shown any respect. Through out history, the lower class women have always been treated with disdain. If you read through books written during the Regnecy period, the upper and middle class families usually had at least one female servant who lived with them. The reason men stood when a woman entered the room was to show respect for her class. If it was for her being a woman, then they would have risen when female servants entered.
ReplyDeleteWhen people speak glowingly of the grand old days of America when women were treated with great honor, they leave out the entire population of slaves. There were over 4 million slaves in the south when the Civil War ended, that is a lot of people to leave out when speaking of the past. Even 50-60 years ago, in the south a white person could treat a black one with no respect at all.
There are several mentions of servant girls in the Bible, also. Not to mention all the slaves in the OT. These mostly nameless women were usually not living the model of a SAHD.
If I am wrong, feel free to provide me with the proof that the lower class women and slave women were treated with the same respect that the upper class women were. Or that the model of girls going away from home to be servants or slaves hasn't always been around.
Anecdotal evidence it may be, but it jives very well with what I know as a history teacher -- but of course if one refuses to look at statistics it is easy to ignore it -- every female member of my family that I know up until the 1960s (as in before the 1960s, not after) had to work outside of the home. Most of these young ladies lived in with their families, and no -- they were not treated with that much respect as the servant.
ReplyDeleteTaking a good history class that was focused on the truth and not on romanticizing the past would obviously be useful for several of the people commenting here.
Elisabeth
"What is your point about rape, anonymous?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that there are many sexual predators out there has always been well known. There are more now than ever. Whever a society has a large number of unattatched adult males, all kinds of problems arise."
Mrs. Webfoot, I've already explained my point about rape rate increases (and provided peer reviewed, scholarly references). I'd like for you to provide some credible references to support your point--until then, your sentiments are pure speculation.
Mrs. Webfoot, here are some links that you might want to look in regards to women working in the past. Layla was correct, a lot of the lower class women have always been forced to work for the wealthy and these women were not shown respect and protected.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.victorianweb.org/history/work/burnett2.html
http://www.victorianweb.org/gender/wojtczak/upperwork.html
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/work/burnett3.html
http://www.victorianweb.org/gender/wojtczak/servants.html
Women who lived like Jane Austin characters were just a portion of society. When speaking of women's lives in the past, we must not leave out the poor, working class.
So well-said, Anon! Bravo.
ReplyDeleteWhen speaking of women's lives in the past, we must not leave out the poor, working class.
ReplyDeleteOh but Anon, it is so dreadfully inconvenient to consider the WHOLE truth of a situation! It is so uncomfortable to realise that imaginings are a far cry from actualities, and it interferes horribly with the historical revisionist mentality. It shatters the pretty realm of fantasy and lays bare the Truth. Can't we just leave out all those prickly little facts that don't fit our pet theories? Pretty please?!
;)
It is assuredly a delightful thing to play dress up and make-believe. It is a quaint and charming game to imagine things that never were-- these are hallmarks of childhood, and the innocence required of a person to make such games a living, breathing part of their daily existence is, I think, one of the most endearing trademarks of little ones.
However, "when I was a child, I spake as a child" and I am not a child anymore. I may invent stories for the delight of children -- and I do! Wonderment at castles, legends of kingdoms that never were, and adventures to wake the imagination are all key features in these tales -- but if I, as an adult, actually believe or put about that the stories I tell have their basis in anything more substantial than so much candyfloss, then I am at best willfully blind; I am otherwise a liar, or an idiot (there is some small mercy in knowing it to be unlikely that I could, in this context, be both!)
It is my belief that it is the adult thing, the honourable thing and a thing suited to all thinking persons of integrity to examine the entire, intact truth of a matter and continue in steadfast pursuit of fact over fairytale.
Andrea, the mindset you describe perfectly suits many I know of, including some who design websites spreading lies such as: the white man was right to massacre the Natives, women have always failed as leaders, female slaves cooked for their hubbies all day like good Christians and ectopic pregnancies have been known to succeed for both mother and child. Rebekah, however, is not such a person. Please don't mock her so scathingly, especially on her own blog.
ReplyDeleteJennifer, I am sorry that you misconstrued my comment as mocking Rebekah. I hope nobody else made that error, most especially Rebekah herself.
ReplyDeleteAny vitriol you may have read in my words was aimed not at an individual, but rather at the overall attitude which upholds as good and right the willful ignorance of and revision of historic fact (or any fact, really) to suit a pet theory-- certainly, the examples you cited would fall under those categories, however my revulsion was not specific to circumstance, but rather was directed at such an attitude as a whole.
I am glad you expressed a wish to defend Rebekah, otherwise I would not have realised that my words could have been taken as aimed at her; I had actually thought I was very careful not to direct my comment at Rebekah, and I am grateful to you for mistaking my meaning, for it would not otherwise have occurred to me to clarify.
Thank you for explaining! Sorry I misunderstood you. In that case, I completely agree.
ReplyDeleteDid you know that rape is an act of VIOLENCE and not sex? The purpose is to force the victim to submit to him. It's an act of CONTROL.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you say about the babies who have been raped or molested? Did they dress provocatively in their diapers and onesies? What about incestuous rape? Did the daughter or son tempt the father or uncle while they slept in the safety of their home?
Is the gender of men so weak that every female he sees tempts him? What about the responsibility of the man (or woman, because yes, both genders are capable of rape and sexual assault)? Is it a problem of the parent who raised such a son who couldn't control his thirst for control and submission? (Again, it's not about sex, it's about control). Keep teaching your daughters to submit, and you keep the cycle going.
How do YOU address child rape and molestation???
Digressing from the current discussion, I would like to share my own story and perspective.
ReplyDeleteI am from a non-Christian family. I went to college (a large state university). Through the outreach of Christian women (fellow students), I came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. I don't believe I would not be a Christian today if it weren't for the choice that other women had made choice to attend a secular university and minster to me. I am eternally grateful.
I am the person who posted the links that showed that lower class women in the past commonly worked were not protected and treated with respect. I am interested in finding out if these links have helped you have a more rounded view of the past then you appeared to have before. Your using men standing when women entered the room as an example of respect for women showed that you did not fully grasp what life was like for working women at that time. Standing was a sign of respect for the woman's class, not her gender. Any thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI know that you are busy, but just wondering if you have had a chance to read over the links I posted and if you still maintain the stance that standing was showing respect for women, not respect for their class?
ReplyDeleteI noticed that you have never answered my question about those links. I provided links showing that the poor have always been forced to work outside the home and that respect hasn't always been shown towards lower women. So why are you refusing to either acknowledge that the past wasn't so grand for poor or black women or prove me wrong?
ReplyDeleteRebekah,
ReplyDeleteHave you ever been to a college campus? I've walked around many, and they are safe, peaceful places. For the most part, no one even notices you. Some are outstanding beautiful.
I went to college and had a blast! It was a woman's college, but men were permitted in the dorms, and even to stay over night. Nothing bad happened to me, ever. Nothing bad happened to my friends. No one got pregnant or raped. And I had a lot of friends. They were all OK.
So relax. "College" is not as scary or as bad as you think. Visit one--attend a class-- and THEN form an opinion.
Janine
Hi Rebekah.
ReplyDeleteWell done for your persistence in defending your understanding of Scripture in the face of often rather dismissive and patronising criticism.
Academic statistics nowadays are produced by a Leftist, feminist academy and peer-reviewed by people of the same mindset. You will be very hard-pressed to find reliable figures (i.e. reports free from ideological bias) on anything that relates to gender, race, education or crime (along with other miscellaneous subjects --- e.g. anthropogenic global warming, evolution, etc.).
The academy is an atheist stronghold and recruits from its own: any dissenting opinions on these "hot-button" issues are most unwelcome and often result in show-trial-like responses wherein the ideological enemy is coerced into a grovelling retraction, or (if he's brave) stands his ground and sees his career halted.
Moreover (as you are no doubt aware), statistics are notoriously easy to abuse and have been used to mislead people for years (as hinted at in Mark Twain's famous maxim). We live in an age in which the vast majority of intellectuals reject the Bible vehmently or openly --- in these times, "research" is used to attack Scripture (and God) from all angles. That academia contradicts God's Word should be no surprise.
You may not be aware of it, but some of the statistics you quoted at the start were themselves produced by feminist crusaders in order to prejudice young women against men whilst they are at college. That said, modern colleges are not healthy environments for young Christians, be they women or men --- I say that as someone who spent nearly ten years in academe, both as an undergraduate and as a postgraduate. Being British, I went to university in the UK, but I doubt things are wildly different from the US. I'd ignore the poster who rudely tells you to "visit one -- attend a class -- and THEN form an opinion" (implying that your opinion is uninformed and worthless): the fact that she writes breezily that men were permitted to stay overnight in the dorms should say it all...
Just for the record, in university here, fornication is the norm, usually with multiple partners throughout the duration of one's course, and anyone who speaks out against it is either harangued for being "judgemental" or simply laughed to scorn. Homosexuality is openly celebrated: those who dare to object to "gay pride" are regarded as hateful or contemptibly ignorant. Feminism is held as being self-evidently fantastic: disputing that untruth will earn you the epithet of "Nazi/misogynist/etc.". The general discourse is godless, self-promoting and lewd, and though I wasn't saved at the time, even I balked at much of it (drug-taking, orgies, etc.), and regret wasting so much of my life in college. I can also say that, having spent time as both student and staff and listened to their ideas, qualifications mean very little --- a lying knave with doctorate is still a lying knave!
ReplyDeleteThere is so much feminist misinformation on the subject of rape and the abuse of women that those few brave sorts who fight against it are all but resigned to the fact that they now cannot win. (For example Erin Pizzey, the woman who founded the first battered women's shelters in the UK, despite coming from difficult circumstances herself, predicted correctly that feminists would use whatever they could to do demonise men, and has vehemently opposed feminist propaganda for years, yet her voice is drowned out by shriller and more fashionable ones).
Unfortunately it is also my experience that Western women enjoy the sense of moral superiority over men that feminist propaganda has striven to give them. These days I certainly don't bother trying to correct women (or men) who are in love with feminism (or Socialism, or black liberation theology, or any of the other Marxist ideologies which are trying to replace Biblical truth in the church as well as outside it). In such cases argument availeth naught, as the foregoing discussion has shown: though they all might speak of being open to new ideas, none of your accusers has substantively altered her original stance one jot! The argument is to get you to ditch a straightforward reading of God's Word in favour of a feminist one. Sadly, such is the victory of feminism today that most feminist women don't even recognise themselves as feminist.
Many young people go to college with some kind of Christian belief (albeit not as firmly grounded in Scripture as yours is), and end up being hoodwinked into agnosticism or atheism through a bombardment of secular lies and emotional manipulation from professors who are either openly atheistic or are wolves masquerading in sheep's clothing. There are many good Christian ministries who specialise in "worldview", endeavouring to give prospective students some grounding to help them discern the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately there are so few who have the humility to accept what God teaches us and to stand on Scripture.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible is the size and weight it is for good reason: we need it to be! If God's message to us were only "love everybody and do not judge" (as so many seem to think it is nowadays), then why the hefty tome?! If we are all free to do whatever we'd like to do, then why on Earth did God provide us with such detailed instruction?! Why all Paul's letters dealing with so many issues?
Many who call themselves Christians have open contempt for parts of the moral Law (some of the comments above exhibit this same scorn). Though the Law, is to modern sensibilities, very harsh, it is nevertheless God's holy standard and Christians should thus approach it with humility; upholding the inherent goodness of the Law, whilst acknowledging that we now are under grace, and (thank the Lord) no longer need to go out and execute adulterers and adulteresses, etc. ...Or run the risk of being stoned ourselves for our own wickedness.
We live in an age of ever-expanding human rights and sadly this has taken its toll on the church. Too many people seem today to regard grace as their due, rather than seeing themselves as vile wretches who, were they given true justice, would end up in Hell. The chief expression of God's love for us is this: that even though through our wickedness we we deserve Hell for eternity, God in His mercy is willing to punish His own sinless Son if we will only humble ourselves before Him in acknowledgment of our offences against Him, repent and trust in Him. He conquered death so that we might live: it's the Gospel! If we cannot accept that we in truth do actually deserve a shaming, violent death (such as He Himself suffered in our place) and eternal Hell, then it means that we're still in rebellion against Him, and denying our sinfulness. That's a deadly game to play.
And, to pre-empt the rebuke about "seeing the other side" from your detractors, I should say that a few years ago, I'd have thought and advised just as they did. My own experiences and worldly reasoning had led me to hold their views. The problem was that I didn't realise I'd never truly been convicted of my own sin --- I wasn't saved.
ReplyDeleteI didn't realise how desperately wicked human beings are --- whether they're policemen or prostitutes, whether they have suffered abuse or whether they are dishing hit out to others. I would urge those who would dispute this to return to Scripture and meditate on the innumerable passages throughout warning of sin, punishment and judgement. If the moral Law that God gave to Moses (and which Jesus learned and revered) is something they reject as primitive and evil, then I would ask them to question whether they ever truly came to repentance. Jesus had absolutely no problem with the moral Law. ...And that same moral Law should convict us, striking fear into our hearts with its revelation of how far from God's perfect standards we truly are. As Paul explains, that's how Christians should use the Law --- as a mirror to shatter our illusions about ourselves and to show us that we're truly are totally depraved; to show us our desperate need for a Saviour.
I, like so many, was a false convert: the churches are full of them these days, making free with Scripture, rather than coming to God's Word humbly as a child would. Finally accepting the truth of the Law (along with the realisation that I deserved a summary ignominious death and Hell for my sins) was what brought me to truly understand Christ's sacrifice and to love the Living God, the God of both Old Testament and New; to realise for the first time just who He is and to love Him and praise Him as never before, rather than continuing my childish infatuation with the comfortable idol I'd created in my mind.
The perfect God who unleashed destruction on wicked men, women and children in Sodom and in The Flood (and who will do so one last time in the future) is the same perfect God who bore the sins of evil mankind in agony on The Cross. Only by that realisation, that reconciliation of the two perfect sides of his character, can we have any confidence that we truly know God. And the Bible is clear about the fate of those who know not God...
So be encouraged, Rebekah: continue to stick to God's Word, to accept it, and to get to know Him better each day!
God bless,
Paul.