Friday, March 5, 2010

A Father's Home-A Daughter's Shelter

What follows is the next article in the stay-at-home daughterhood series. If you have not had the opportunity to read the previous articles, please click here and do so now before continuing on with this one. Thank you! :)

~~~~~~~~~

One of the often overlooked blessings of remaining at home-and one of the precise reasons why the Lord has ordained the practice of unmarried daughters remaining under their father’s roof-is the physical and emotional protection which that sphere affords to unmarried daughters. In our day, it is by no means uncommon for daughters to be off on their own-be that at school, work, or one’s own dwelling place-forming relationships with one young man after another, oftentimes without the father’s knowledge or oversight. This is contrary to God’s Word and therefore very dangerous on many levels. When daughters are left alone with young men, emotions tend to flare and one thing leads to another. Meanwhile, there is no one to protect the young woman or to keep her from making hasty, sinful decisions in a moment of passion. It is for this reason that the Lord has commanded fathers to actively preserve and guard their daughters’ purity, in their homes, until they give them in marriage.


Deuteronomy 22:13-21


This passage and others similar to it express the fact that God has issued to fathers the all-important duty of guarding their daughter’s purity-body, mind, and heart. While daughters are responsible for the way in which they act, fathers are to protect them from any endangering situations, people, or places. They are not to send their daughters off on their own, admonishing them to guard their hearts and save their bodies for their future husbands. While they should daily impress the importance of doing these things to their daughters, it is their responsibility, as fathers, to take an active role in diligently guarding them from anyone and anything which would seek to deprive them of the blessed gift of their purity. This includes forbidding them from watching vile television programs, not allowing them to forge friendships with those who are living in a manner which is in direct disobedience to God’s Word, and creating any ground rules necessary for the preservation of their purity. Fathers are not “let off the hook” by God when something occurs which compromises their daughter’s chastity. Far from it! Rather, the Lord holds fathers to a high standard and bestows upon them a high and lofty responsibility-the responsibility of guarding, protecting, and leading their daughters under their roof until the day they give them in marriage. This is the teaching of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and other like passages. Now that we have laid the groundwork for our study of this portion of Scripture, we can delve into it and study the implications thereof.



Verses 13-21 speak of a situation in which a father gave his daughter to a young man in marriage, claiming that she was indeed a virgin. Sadly, the groom later has reason to believe that this claim was not accurate, and that she had rather lived an impure, unchaste life. The groom goes to her parents in the hopes that they can, in some way, prove to him that his suspicions are groundless and that she has indeed known no other man. If, unfortunately, it becomes known that his accusations were true, and this young woman did indeed give away her purity to another man prior to marriage then the guilty bride was to be stoned.


Now, before we proceed, allow me to make it clear that I am not advocating the stoning of daughters who have given away their virginity prior to marriage! Some may wonder why this is, seeing as how stoning the guilty party was the law. First, this was a law issued to ancient Israel. Second, Jesus, in a sense, abolished this law with his coming. John : - recounts the time when a woman was found to be committing adultery. She was brought before the to be stoned, as the Old Testament Law dictated. Jesus, being in the midst of the crowd about to stone her to death, calls for the attacker who was sinless to cast the first stone. Obviously, not one of them could claim to have no sin, and so one by one, they went home. Finally, only Jesus and the adulteress remained. She marvels that those who were to stone her had departed. He proclaims that He no longer , but that she is to go and sin no more. Therefore, while the passage in Deuteronomy we will be studying today is helpful and provides us with much wisdom and insight into a father’s role, the stoning aspect of this verse is not to be followed through by us today.


Having said this, let us continue on with this passage. First, notice in verse 15 that it is the young woman’s parents who were responsible for providing tokens of her purity. This is because they are to be watching over her, training her in ways of righteousness, involved in her life and knowing the state of her purity and guarding it with all their might.


Second, note in verse 21 where it was she was to be stoned. Was it at the place where she committed her sin of fornication? No-she was to be stoned at “the door of her father’s house”. Why is this? The reason is that it was the father’s duty to guard his daughter and her purity and to be actively involved in her life, that she might not find herself in a compromising situation. While the daughter is guilty for committing the sin (as is shown through her death), the father is disgraced for not fully preserving his daughter’s purity (as is shown in the stoning occurring at his home-the sphere which is to be a place of protection for daughters). Now, clearly, daughters will at times reject and rebel against their father’s authority and protection, leaving the father with little he can do to prevent her from committing an act of impurity. But this verse shows unequivocally that the father is held responsible to guard his daughter from any debilitating influences and entanglements with young men, so as to guard her purity. He has the responsibility of presenting his daughter to a husband as a pure, radiant virgin. This is his task, and this is why his home is to be her place of shelter until he gives her in marriage. Fathers rejecting their duty and instead releasing their daughters to the world to be on their own spells disaster. For, one of the greatest benefits of remaining at home until marriage is the protection it provides against defiling temptation, male predators, and sinful actions which daughters would one day greatly regret. When a daughter is alone with friends or perhaps with just one young man, without the protection of her father, it can be so easy for her to give in to flirting, fleshly desires, and actions which she would otherwise never dream of doing. How appealing the world and its ways can look when off on your own! This is precisely what Mr. Henry was saying when he wrote, “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.”1 He wrote furthermore, ““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.”2


Exodus 22:16-17

To further emphasize a father’s role to protect his daughter, we will now turn to Exodus 22. In verses 16 and 17, we read of a situation in which a young man tempts a young woman and lies with her. Notice whom he has to answer to for his sin: her father. Now, clearly, he ultimately has God to answer to; earthly speaking, however, he must answer to her father, for he is the one in charge of her and given the duty to preserve her purity. The young man must attempt to make things right with him and do what he says, whether that be to marry her or simply pay a dowry price for her. Again, we see illustrated the fact that fathers are the ones vested with the task of protecting their daughters-body, mind, and heart.


In Conclusion


You see, daughters are not called on to remain at home until marriage because God has some evil desire to lock them up and not allow them to see the light of day. Nor are they to be there so that they might be deprived of the opportunity to use their gifts or advance the cause of Christ. Rather, God has placed them in the sphere of home that they might be protected and guarded against the wicked, wretched influences and people which desire to destroy them. If you are a daughter with a father who actively seeks to guard your purity, praise God for that tremendous blessing! Do not ever take that for granted. Sadly, many girls today do not have a father like that. If you are a daughter whose father is not interested in the least in protecting you and your purity, take heart! Pray that the Lord would change your father; you never know what the Lord may do in his heart! He works miracles even in our day; with God, all things are possible!



Footnotes

1. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2991) pg. 73


2. Ibid, pg. 2370

113 comments:

  1. Okay, after this last comment I really must go. Please stop spreading the libal and total speculation about poor Dinah. There is no indication whatsoever in the Bible that Dinah did anything wrong. For all we know she was visiting friends and did this often. She was a real person, who really had these horrible things happen to her and due to the speculation of one man her name is being dirtied. By accusing her of sinning you and the man who wrote that are adding to the Bible which is a sin.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi, Layla! I was about to get off her myself when I saw your most recent comment.

    She was indeed likely visiting friends, as I wrote in my post and as Puritan Mr. Henry said, as well. Yes, she perhaps had done so numerous times. And, for the record-I feel very sorry for Dinah and what happened to her. I can't imagine how she must have felt watching all that took place and being sinned against as she was.

    If you go back to my post, you will see that I never said that she for sure went out without her father's protection and neither did Mr. Henry. Here are his exact words, "She went out, perhaps unknown to her father,". Note that he said perhaps-not that what he was hypothysizing was for sure truth. So, while adding to the Bible is absolutely a sin, I do not believe neither I nor Mr. Henry did so.

    Have a blessed evening,
    Rebekah

    ReplyDelete
  3. I know I keep saying I'm off, but this speculation, casting aspirations on her character, saying "See what became of Dinah's gadding" angers me on her behalf. It also anger me because he is making up an elaborate story that has no basis in the Bible, attributing it to the Bible, and then using it to prove a point.

    It is like if you regularly went to visit friends with your father's permission, and one time something bad happened, that in no way you caused, and then someone started spreading stories around saying "See, what gadding about causes! She perhaps was disobeying her father and all the problems are caused by her. See what going out in the world does?" Wouldn't you be angry? Wouldn't you accuse the person of lying? Your character would be damaged forever over one person's desire to make up a story to prove a point.

    If you are going to insist on continuing use this story, could you at least put a HUGE disclaimer that it is all speculation and that the Bible does not in anyway say that she was without her father's protection. If I did not know the story well, just reading your and Mr. Henry's words make it appear that Dinah was in some way sinning.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hello, Layla! I apologize for just now responding!

    I understand where you're coming from, and to an extent, I agree. It is indeed unfair to make up stories, so to speak, to try to discredit Dinah. I do not at all believe that that was what Mr. Henry was attempting to do, and I know that was not my intention. However, at the same time, I believe that it would be just as wrong to say that Dinah was 100% innocent as it would be to say that she was without a doubt 100% sinning. As you have said, it is sinful to add to Scripture; we must therefore study the passage closely and have Scripture interpret Scripture, but then leave it at that. I tend to think that one of the points being made in the passage is that Dinah should not have gone out (it reminds me, to a degree, of Prov. 7:11). However, it would be unfair for me to say she was sinning across the board!

    Thanks for your input!

    Rebekah

    ReplyDelete
  5. But the Bible does not imply that in anyway. Why assume the worst of her? I think that if the message of this story was that Dinah sinned by going out, then it would have been made more clear. The only clear sinners in this story are the man who raped her and her brothers for going against their father's wishes.
    To accuse someone of a horrible sin with no proof is really quite unforgivable. I know this sounds harsh, but I have personally experienced what it is like to have people speculate and spread rumors about me when something bad happened in my life. It has been 11 years and there are still people who believe I sinned, when in no way I did, just because someone decided to assume the worst and spread malicious rumors. And they did it in a way like you are, without knowing the whole story, they assumed I had sinned and warned others to not be like me or risk bringin humilation on their family.
    You may not want to admit it, but you are doing the exact same thing, but, unlike me, Dinah will never have the chance to correct you until you meet in heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I can totally see where you're coming from. I, too, have had that very thing happen to me and it is very, very frustrating and upsetting. I'm sorry you went through that, and I'm sorry if I came across as doing that to Dinah. I think we sometimes fail to realize that those mentioned in the Bible were living human beings, some of whom we will meet one day in Heaven.

    I can see that I perhaps did not go about the "titling" of my article in the best manner. My intention with it was to show what can happen when one does not have the protection of a father or husband, and to show that this is the only example mentioned in the Bible of a woman going off by herself (whether to live alone or to visit friends), without her father's protection, and it is a tragic example. I in no way wanted to heap disgrace upon her.

    Thanks for your time! :)
    Rebekah

    ReplyDelete
  7. But the blame is not on her, it is on the the people who actually DID sin. The man who raped her and her brothers. How can you say that you are not wanting to heap shame on her when you are writing things saying she brought shame to her family and was not a shining cornerstone in her father's home?
    If you are truly sincere in your desire to not heap shame upon her, then you will remove all remarks accusing her of sinning and bringing shame upon her family. You will present this story exactly as it is in the Bible, Dinah left her father's house (it is total speculation that she was sinning in doing this for all we know her father was okay with it), she was raped (her rapest was at this point the sinner), her brothers then tricked the raper, disobeyed their father, murdered people, and brought disgrace upon the house (also sinners). Anyone reading your posts as they are would come away with the belief that the Bible states Dinah sinned in someway, which it does not. Yes, this is an example of how a daughter off by herself got raped, it is not, however an example of how Dinah sinned and brought shame upon her family.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rebekah, I'm sorry for misspelling your name so much recently! :S I just wanted to thank you again for your patient discussion and open-hearted consideration :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Layla, you are speculating, too.

    Rebekah is raising the question: "Would Dinah have been raped if she had stayed home under her father's protection?"

    The obvious answer is "NO, of course not." Her father did not rape her. Her brothers did not rape her. A stranger from the village raped her.

    Then, there is some discussion of why Dinah went to see these girls. It is certainly within reason to think that she thought that she could get something from a relationship with them that she wasn't getting at home.

    Does that make her guilty of her own rape? No, of course not.

    Still, the question remains. Why did she go in the first place? She would have been much better off to have stayed at home.

    That is the point, isn't it? It's not just guilt or innocence that is part of this story and of this discussion. It also has to do with what is the best course of action for MOST young women - especially those who have fathers who want to protect them until they marry.

    The stay at home daughter model is the one that provides the maximum level of protection for a young, single girl. In fact, it is the only model that we see in Scripture, that is clear. It cannot be bad for a young women to stay at home, under her father's protection, until she marries!

    It can be VERY bad for a young woman to move out on her own, or even worse, to move in with her boyfriend - which is what is being done a LOT in our culture. That is the VERY WORST scenario for a young woman. Check out the stats on abuse in live-in situations.

    I think that you are missing the point, Kayla, in your speculations about Dinah's guilt or innocence. You are speculating, too, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  10. PS
    Rebekah is not heaping shame on Dinah! That is a strange thing to accuse her of.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Layla,

    I did present the story as it is in the Scriptures. I did include some speculations, but I never, ever stated that my speculations were for sure Biblical truth, nor did Mr. Henry do so. It is also mere speculation that she was completely innocent. The fact that this story begins with saying that Dinah went out may be in and of itself proof that she was in the wrong, as well. The account could have been presented differently. For example, if she had just been visiting friends with her father's permission, it could have stated that. Again, I merely am speculating, but speculation is not wrong. Saying that your speculations are without a doubt Biblical truth is what is wrong.

    Having said that, I so appreciate your concern for the feelings of Dinah. That is a rare thing these days, as many tend to forget that those in the Bible were real living, breathing human beings. So, I do appreciate your concern for her!

    Blessings,
    Rebekah
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Jennifer,

    That's ok! :) I'm used to it by now-having the "kah" spelling throws many for a loop, as the "cca" spelling is more common these days. I appreciate your apology, but don't feel badly.

    Thank you for your kindness. :)

    Rebekah

    ~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mrs. Webfoot,

    What a joy it was to see you here again! You are always such an encouragement and make such good points. Your input is always most welcome!

    Blessings,
    Rebekah

    ReplyDelete
  12. My name is Layla, not Kayla. :-) And if have spelled your name wrong Rebekah, I apologize. I have a friend who spells it 'cca', so I have a tendency to spell it that way.

    So, let me get this straight, women must neve leave the house without their father? Because the Bible does not say that Dinah moved out, just went to visit people. I am not going to speculate on whether or not she is sinning because it is not my place to do so. She may be, she may be not, but when it doubt, I like to err on the side of compassion.

    If you are not going to claim that Dinah's story is a Biblical truth, then you need to change the title from "A Biblical Case for SAHD" to something else. The title is misleading and you should make it more clear that you are speculating, even though you mention it, the speculation part is not clear. And really, how can you claim that you are not trying to disgrace her when you titled the one post "Dinah's Disgrace"?

    I am going to come back and share what happened to me and why your actions are bothering me so much, but I need to do some things first.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "It is certainly within reason to think that she thought that she could get something from a relationship with them that she wasn't getting at home"

    Well this is painfully obvious. Dinah had no sisters and wanted friendship, like most people. There's nothing REMOTELY unhealthy with seeking friendship outside the home; it's the most natural thing in the world, exhorted strongly in the Bible, and to imply there was something faulty with this thinking is just strange. There are plenty of things we can't get solely at home and it's totally healthy to get out once in a while. I think you really need to put more thought into these comments before you make them.

    "She would have been much better off to have stayed at home"

    Mrs. Webfoot..you seem to have a remarkable way of either drastically skipping over or connecting unconnected points. Dinah didn't move out; she went out to see friends!! Are you saying single daughters shouldn't do this either? You speak as though she went off on her own to live independently, when all she did was visit some people. The idea that she should have stayed home and not ventured out to visit the locals or make friends is just..not true or applicable here.

    "It cannot be bad for a young women to stay at home, under her father's protection, until she marries!"

    Um yes, it can be QUITE bad if it's not God's will for her. Claiming this is God's will for every girl would be just flat out false.

    "That is the VERY WORST scenario for a young woman"

    No, the worst scenario would be a young woman homeless on the street or a prostitute, or with loving male relatives in Afghanistan or Africa who'd be happy to genitally mutilate her or execute her to either punish her from "sexual crimes" or keep her in line. Quite a sweeping dramatic statement to make.

    "I think that you are missing the point, Kayla, in your speculations about Dinah's guilt or innocence"

    I think you are, actually. There's a difference you know between assuming someone's guilty when there's no proof and assuming they're innocent when there's no proof; which are we encouraged to do? It's not the former, especially not with the Bible, which painfully defines sin wherever it is. It's not in the least strange for Layla to think Dinah's being shamed if she thinks it's implied that she did anything to bring on her own rape.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Layla, I hope you're all right. I totally understand your objections and concerns and won't criticize you, but I also hope that you understand Rebekah's intent. She's very young and earnest in knowing the truth, and has been patient in receiving correction of all kinds. If she was an older woman expressing naivety and harsh judgement with no thought of reconsideration, that would be somewhat different.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jennifer, Rebekah is so well spoken, that it is easy to forget she is so young. I appologize for being so harsh, it was wrong of me.

    I don't share this often and wasn't going to, but I want Rebekah and Mrs. Webfoot to understand why speculating that Dinah sinned and brought shame to her family bothers me so much.

    When I was in my early 20's I still lived at home while I worked full time and went to school at night full time. We had some family friends that we hadn't seen in a long time coming to a neighboring town, and the whole family made plans to spend the day with them. Well, when that day came, my dad was sick and my mom was going to stay at home to take care of him, but they wanted me to go on. I went, had a great visit, but on the way home it was late and I was tired, so I stopped to get something with caffine to drink. I ended up getting attacked, beaten, and raped. It was horrible. But do you know what was worse? The people afterwards at my church who started this rumor that my parents had begged me to stay home and I had stormed off in anger. There was even speculation that I was sneaking off to meet up with a boyfriend that my parents didn't approve of. People believed I must have sinned somehow for this to have happened.

    By the time I recovered (it was several months) and went back to church, half the people thought I had sinned in someway and that God was punishing me. We even found out that some people were telling my story as a warning, not to sneak off, because look what happened to her.
    I was crushed. And no amount of explaining by myself and my parents could undo the damage that had been done to my reputation. Even now, over a 11 years later, there are people who still believe the speculated story and not the truth.
    You are doing to Dinah, exactly what those people did to me, except Dinah can't defend herself. Speculation, especially one that puts people in the worst light, can be very damaging to the person being speculated about.
    I pray that you will reconsider your stance of speculating the worst of people. I pray that you have a happy life, filled with the joy of the Lord. We are never going to agree on the SAHD/W issue, so there is really no point in debating it any longer. But the issue with Dinah has troubled my soul, because she was a real person, and no one deserves to have awful speculations thrown around about them. I'm not sure I will be back, because it bother's me that much.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "As a result of this daughter’s actions, shame and reproach came upon her family. Rather than serving as a polished cornerstone in her father’s home, she was a disgrace who brought disaster upon her entire family line, through the simple act of going off on her own, likely unbeknownst to her father"

    My God. I didn't see that before. I'm very glad indeed that all this was reconsidered, Rebekah. This makes Mrs. Webfoot's words that it's "strange" to think shame was being heaped upon Dinah all the more..strange. Matthew Henry has a LOT to answer for. I hope he repented before his death.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hello, Layla!

    I can understand that! I don't think you spelled it wrong, but if you did, that's ok. :)

    I never said that women must never leave the house without their father. If I in any way implied that, I apologize for the confusion!

    I think erring on the side of compassion is a good idea.

    You said, "And really, how can you claim that you are not trying to disgrace her when you titled the one post "Dinah's Disgrace"?" That's a good point. I admit that I see now how that was not the most judicious choice of words I could have used, to say the least! I could have written it better as Dinah's Dilemma, or something else.

    I agree with you now as to how my writing came across in that portion of the article, and how my speculation came off as my asserting it to be Biblical fact. And, with the fact that she was likely simply visiting friends, she herself more than likely didn't do anything wrong. She may very well have, but we can't say that for sure. Please forgive me for my unwise use of words. I see now that I erred there. Thank you for bringing that up; I appreciate constructive criticism like that, and apologize that I didn't grasp your point and take it to heart sooner. I indeed should have written my article as to the speculation in a clearer and less harsh manner. Again, I'm sorry if I hurt you in any way. After reading your testimony, I can see clearly why it was so important to you to defend Dinah. I'm so very sorry for what you went through. I can't imagine going through abuse and rape like that and then, to top it all off, going through the process of being unfairly speculated about in a most mallicious manner. That makes the times when I've been unfairly speculated about pale in comparison, that's for sure!

    Thank you again for your time and input!

    Rebekah

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jennifer,

    I don't want to be rude in any way, but please do try to refrain from using the Lord's name like that here on my blog. Again, I don't mean to be rude; I hope you understand.

    Dinah may have done wrong, but I now do not think that Mr. Henry's commentary on that verse is as great nor as accurate or fair as the rest of his work.

    Blessings,
    Rebekah

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thank you for your open-mindedness, Rebekah. You weren't rude, and I didn't intend to use the Lord's name in vain; I often say His name when I'm shocked at something. It's like a defense/reassurance method of summoning Him.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I will refrain from doing it though, if it bothers you.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jennifer,

    Thank you for understanding, and for your explanation. I can see where you're coming from, as David used the phrase "O God or Dear God" in that same fashion. In our day, however, such a phrase usually is a person's using God's name in vain. For this reason, I appreciate your refraining from using it here. That means a lot to me! :) I don't want any misunderstanding or an attempted using of God's name in vain here.

    Blessings,
    Rebekah

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jennifer,

    I do not at all mean this comment to be speaking out against you. I have to say, though, that it was a little amusing for me to read you refer to Rebekah as very young. If I'm not mistaken, you are in your 20s and she is...what? 17 or 18? I just found that funny; I hope you do not take offense at this comment.

    Goodnight,
    Anna

    ReplyDelete
  23. No problem, sweet sister :) Thank You for understanding too.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rebekah IS very young, and I said this because I think Layla is older and more experienced, Anna; sometimes even young "older" women (late twenties to thirties) need to be patient with younger women. I didn't think Layla was impatient or that Rebekah really required patience, but I wanted to be sure there was no misunderstanding of motives. This was a defense for Rebekah, not a patronizing "oh she's just young, ignore her" sort, but a reminder that she hasn't experienced the same things as Layla and isn't trying to be judgemental. I've seen older women speak out of ignorance about topics they SHOULD know some things about, and Rebekah is not that type; she's open-minded and trying to live by her convictions. I'm in my mid-twenties.

    I'm sorry if I at all sounded patronizing, Rebekah. I've had people of different older ages do that to me, and I HATE it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Layla:
    I don't share this often and wasn't going to, but I want Rebekah and Mrs. Webfoot to understand why speculating that Dinah sinned and brought shame to her family bothers me so much>>>>


    I can understand, Layla. However, let me tell you why young women's rush to leave their homes bothers me. Many such young women in our day end up "shacking up" with immoral and abusive boyfriends.

    If it will help you understand where I am coming from, let me share something. My niece and her boyfriend decided to move in together right out of high school. They talked about getting married in a few years.

    He turned out to be a dangerous, abusive person. My father was not abusive. My brother was not abusive. My nephew was not abusive. In fact, our family does NOT have a history of abuse. My niece was very young and naive, thinking that all guys were like her grandpas on both sides, her uncles, her father, and her brother.

    The end of the story is that my brother and nephew had to intervene - along with a court order. My brother told the young guy that if he came near his daughter again, my brother would shoot him.

    Remember, my brother is not a violent person, but he was willing to do what was necessary to protect his daughter. My brother is not a Christian. I am not from a Christian family, but there are more Christians now.

    So, I think that my niece's story is pretty common, actually, given the stats on abuse perpetrated by live-in partners.


    I wonder why older ladies would EVER encourage a young woman to leave her home - trying to give her the idea that she will be safer on her own than in her home! That is what I cannot understand for the life of me.


    I don't think that some of you actually know what is going on in our world and how young women are exposing themselves to all kinds of dangers that they would not have had in other generations.

    It's not just the danger of rape. It is also the danger of getting involed sexually with an immature young man - or even older man who may or may not be married. It is also the danger of getting involved sexually with different forms of perversion.

    I think that some of you ladies have a LOT to learn, yet you try to speak with great authority!


    Why don't you care at all the moral, physical, and emotional dangers that many young women expose themselves to in the name of being free? Rape is only one. Why do you care so little for young women who do run headlong into danger?

    Feminism has completely clouded your judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rebekah, there is nothing wrong with your title. Feminists will badger you until you conform to their way of thinking. Don't let them intimidate you.

    Look up some stats on partner abuse for unmarried women who "shack up" with their boyfriends. Feminists don't like to hear that kind of thing, since it shows that girls put themselves in greater danger when they leave home and the protection of their fathers.

    Dr. Laura was talking about that very thing last night on her program.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jennifer, I don't see that what you said in response to my points really has much to do with anything I actually said! Do one thing for me, would you? Look up the stats on "shacking up." Study it out to see how dangerous that set up is for young women, would you? Then, look at how many young women who leave home do so in order to move in with their boyfriends.

    It's pretty chilling, IMO. Young women, in the name of being liberated, are putting themselves in grave danger of every kind when they abandon the protection of their fathers' homes and the protection of traditional marriage.


    You are still very young. You have time to check this out for yourself. I won't do it for you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Layla:
    I'm not sure I will be back, because it bother's me that much.>>>

    I was wondering why this was bothering you so much. I'm glad that you clarified.


    You are having a flashback. In fact, you are projecting the bad attitudes of others onto Rebekah. You do realise that is what is happening, right?

    You worry me, Layla. There's a lot of hurt there, and understandably so. How are you dealing with it?

    Take care, okay?
    Mrs. Webfoot

    ReplyDelete
  29. Rebekah:
    And, with the fact that she was likely simply visiting friends, she herself more than likely didn't do anything wrong. She may very well have, but we can't say that for sure.>>>

    Remember, though, that her friends were ungodly pagans. I think that Mr. Henry had great insight into these events, actually. It is not politically correct in our day to talk like he did. You might offend a woman, after all, and in this "post feminist" climate in which we live, that is pretty much the unpardonable sin!

    We are seeing a clash of worldviews here on your blog, and I really don't think that it is Mr. Henry that needs to repent.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thank you so much Rebekah. Even though we disagree on some things, I can truly tell that you are a Godly woman.

    Jennifer was right to remind me to be more kind. I let my emotions take control which was a sin and I hope that Rebekah accepts my sincere appology.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mrs. Webfoot, I disagree totally with you opinion of my moral compass, but I am not going to discuss the SAHW/D issue any longer. I have total peace with God that I am doing exactly what HE wants me to do, not what others think I should be doing. But I do want to add that I know countless women who followed the SAHD path and the courtship path only to end up the same exact situation as your niece, married to an abusive man.

    The point of sharing my story was to show Rebekah how hurtful and wrong it is to speculate and accuse people of sinning without knowing the whole story. I do believe that Rebekah understood what I was trying to say. :-)

    After reading all these posts I asked my parents if they were scared that when I moved out I would start living a sinful life. And their answer was no. They knew they had raised me with a strong foundation in the knowledge of the Bible and that I had learned to depend of God and not man. Therefore, when faced with the dangers and temtations of the world, they had no doubt that I would turn to God and resist them. Fighting the temptations has only made my faith stronger. It is easy to live a Christian life if you are never tempted or put through difficult trials, but the true test of one's faith is when you have to face the world.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hello, Anna,

    I'm 17, and will be 18 in July. :)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Jennifer,

    I do appreciate that explanation and defense of me. I appreciate the apology, as well, as it otherwise may have come across as patronizing. I think I know you better than to truly think that's what you meant by it, but I definitely appreciate the humble and sincere apology anyway! :) I, too, have had people do that to me, and it is definitely frustrating! That used to really bother me when I was around 8-10 and was positively convinced that I knew everything there was to know! lol The only thing I would say is that a person's young age does not mean that they're wrong in their beliefs and theology. In 1 Tim. 4:12, Timothy is told to not let anyone despise his youth, but to be a good example in 6 areas of life. Jeremiah was likely 13 or so when called to be a prophet of God. Jesus was 12 when He was discussing deep theological issues. He also said we must be as a little child to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Granted, as one gets older and thus has more and more years of Bible study under one's belt, their theology will hopefully be more accurate than someone who is much younger. And experience can provide an assistance to theology, but our theology cannot be based upon the mere experiences of ourselves or others; it must be based only on God's sure Word. As a mere side note, If I'm not mistaken, it sounds as if Layla is younger, at home with her parents, as well.

    We disagree on various issues, but I am nonetheless thankful to have such a kind sister in Christ such as you. You have the evident maturity to at least compliment and be kind when you dissent. That is much appreciated (and very refreshing! :) ).

    Blessings,
    Rebekah

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mrs. Webfoot,

    :) I agree with you; thank you for your comments. And, you're right-one area where Dinah did indeed fail is in being close friends with those who were not God's people. We are told to not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers, and based upon the text itself that shows her friends to be outside the coventant community, the historian Josephus' statements, Mr. Henry's words about the friends, and the writings of the late Henry Morris in his book "The Genesis Record", her friends and herself were clearly unequally yoked. There's nothing wrong with being kind and loving towards unbelievers (indeed, it would be wrong for us not to be), but we mustn't be "buddy buddy" with them. In this area, Dinah did sin and that is clear, not mere speculation. Also, this lends credence to the idea that perhaps she went out unbeknownst to her father; while Jacob was less than perfect, I don't think he would have allowed his daughter to be intimate with such influences for evil.

    Thank you,
    Rebekah

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Layla,

    You are very kind to say that about me. :) Thank you! That was a great blessing. And I absolutely accept your apology. I'm not excusing what you did, but rest assured that your comments were not nearly as hateful, so to speak, as others I've received! So, thank you for your kind apology and compliment. :)

    Women on their own may absolutely be able, by God's strength, to resist temptation. However, that doesn't mean we should live on our own and see how strong we are in resisting. We are to flee temptation. And, yes, courtship and stay-at-home daughterhood are not full-proof, nor do they protect from all ills. However, they have been shown to be the safest methods.

    Thanks again for your kindness!
    Rebekah

    ReplyDelete
  34. Rebekah, at the time I was in my early 20's and living at home. I am currently in my early 30's and do not live at home.

    I would also like to point out that we do not know that Dinah was close friends with sinners. The verse merely reads that she went out to see them. This could mean a great many things and as always, when making assumptions about people without the full story, it is always best to err on the side of compassion and not to spread speculations that people are sinning.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Mrs. Webfoot, some of your words are very strange. Telling Rebekah there was nothing wrong with her title? Why, is it anti-feministic and therefore Biblical to blame a girl for something she didn't do? Accusing us of feministic thought because we disagree with you? You as well are speaking on a great many things you have no authority on, including our beliefs. You frankly have no business calling us feminists and blatantly trying to jade our words to Rebekah right in front of us; this is disrespectful and quite ad hominem. You, too, have a lot to learn.

    "Feminists don't like to hear that kind of thing"

    Actually they love to, Mrs. Webfoot, because secular feminists love trying to make all men look bad.

    "Jennifer, I don't see that what you said in response to my points really has much to do with anything I actually said!"

    It's quite simple: you said living with one's boyfriend is the worst scenario. This is wildly untrue, when you consider all the other possibilities for women in this world. Try looking up what homeless life is like and what prostitutes go through. Rape is "only" one thing?

    "We are seeing a clash of worldviews here on your blog, and I really don't think that it is Mr. Henry that needs to repent"

    No, it's not MORALLY correct for one to imply in any way that a rape survivor brought it on herself. Henry and anyone like him had/has a LOT of repenting to do. Note also that Dinah's family never blamed HER in the least, something unusual for men back then! A worldview is indeed clashing here and that view is that women bring on or cause their abuse. I see you're still going by your former words anyway, which are simply that Dinah sinned by exiting her house and looking for friendship. Not until now did you confirm that Dinah's sin was visiting pagans.

    "You are having a flashback. In fact, you are projecting the bad attitudes of others onto Rebekah"

    Please do not presume to tell Layla what she's going through. It is possible, I'll grant, that she projected your attitude onto Rebekah.

    "I don't think that some of you actually know what is going on in our world"

    FWI: I know of various people who have been in tough situations and have dealt personally with rape. I still can't believe you accused us of not caring about abused women just because we disagree that there's a Biblical COMMAND for daughters to stay home. You need to guard your tongue more.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Rebekah, your words to me and others consistently show nothing but kindness and patience. You are indeed a very wise young woman and I wish I had your strength! :) You are more than welcome for the compliments and thank you so for your own :) I thank YOU again for really listening to and considering our words as well as giving us the benefit of the doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mrs. Webfoot, I disagree totally with you opinion of my moral compass,...>>>>


    I said nothing about your "moral compass" - nothing at all. What are you talking about? In fact, if I didn't say this, I thought it: You were in no way to blame for what happened to you. You did nothing wrong. You were even following your parents' instructions and trying to do the right thing. If I didn't make that clear, I hope it is clear now. You were the victim of a criminal attack, and then were made to feel as though you were to blame.


    Please note, too, that I do not blame Dinah for her being disgraced. She is not said to have acted in a disgraceful way, but she was disgraced. You must not have been reading what I have actually said. I in no way blamed Dinah.

    Your words have nothing to do with anything I actually said. It SEEMS to me that you are projecting onto me the wrong reactions of those who hurt you in your church. I did not do that. You are not reading what I said, and then you are imagining that I have said things that I did not!

    Layla:
    ...but I am not going to discuss the SAHW/D issue any longer.>>>>


    You don't have to.

    Layla:
    I have total peace with God that I am doing exactly what HE wants me to do, not what others think I should be doing.>>>>

    Then why are you so upset? You don't have total peace with your past.

    At least you apologized to Rebekah, which was appropriate.


    Then, I cannot force you to look at what is actually happening in the world. You may wish to look at what "countless" young women are actually doing when they leave their parents' homes - including when they move onto our college campuses. Very few are able to keep any kind of moral compass intact!

    You do not know "countless" women who have suffered because they have chosen to obey their godly parents, trust their godly fathers, and then later trust and submit to their Christlike husbands.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Jennifer:
    Mrs. Webfoot, some of your words are very strange. Telling Rebekah there was nothing wrong with her title? >>>>


    That's easy to answer. There is nothing wrong with the title, "A Father's Home-A Daughter's Shelter." Look at what post you are commenting on.

    Do you think that a father's home is a dangerous place for daughters?


    Jennifer:
    You frankly have no business calling us feminists and blatantly trying to jade our words to Rebekah right in front of us; this is disrespectful and quite ad hominem. >>>>

    That's funny, Jennifer!


    The feminism being promoted by some is pretty obvious. You see it, don't you?


    Jennifer:
    FWI: I know of various people who have been in tough situations and have dealt personally with rape. I still can't believe you accused us of not caring about abused women just because we disagree that there's a Biblical COMMAND for daughters to stay home. You need to guard your tongue more.>>>>

    Tell me what you think about young women shacking up with their boyfriends when they move out of their parents' homes? Are these women in greater danger of being abused or less danger of being abused? Back up what you say with statistics. Clear your good name, Jennifer, by showing that you are concerned about how young women are being abused by immoral boyfriends? Show me that you care about young women who are living in very dangerous situations without the protection of a marriage license? Tell me about the grave spiritual, emotional, and moral damage that is being done to them when they follow the world's model of "do what feels good and right"?

    I can assure you that most young women do not have very strong moral compases, and many find themselves in really, really bad situations.

    You seem to be saying that it is a very bad and dangerous thing for daughters to stay at home until they marry, and that it is very safe for daughters to leave the home and strike out on their own.

    Tell me that is not what you are saying.

    In general, most young women do not leave home to be great missionaries. Most young women leave home to either go to college or to shack up with their boyfriends - or both. Is what I say true or false?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Layla,

    I apologize for getting your age, etc. wrong. When you said that "After reading all these posts I asked my parents if they were scared that when I moved out I would start living a sinful life.", I was fairly sure you still lived at home, as that's in essence what you said. If I misunderstood you, I'm sorry.

    As to Dinah going to be with evil friends, I came to this conclusion through study. For example, it says Dinah went out to see the daughters of the land. Genesis 33:18 says, "And when Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Pedan-aran; and pitched his tent before the city." Thus, Jacob and his family were now residing near Shechem. Mr. Henry Morris in the book mentioned above writes, "The King James translation says that 'Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem,' but most translators believe that Shalem (meaning 'peace') should not be considered a proper name here. That is, the verse may mean that 'Jacob came in peace to the city of Shechem.'" Regarding Genisis 34, he writes, "Living so close to an ungodly city as his family was, however, soon began to foster serious perils of a sort Jacob had not anticipated. As his children grew into their teens and then into adulthood, the low moral environment around them began to have its deadly effect." The daughters of the land, therefore, were Shechemite girls, who undoubtedly were lost pagans.

    Blessings to you,
    Rebekah
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Hello, Jennifer! :)

    The reason Mrs. Webfoot is calling you and others feminists is likely because 1)you hold to some feminist doctrine and 2)an in-depth study of feminism reveals that egalitarianism (or "evangelical" feminism or "Christian" feminism) arose directly out of secular feminism itself.

    As to guarding our tongues, I'm sure each one of us could work on that! I know I could.

    You are too kind, Jennifer! :) As to being strong, I don't know that I'm all that strong. Throughout this lengthy discussion, there have been times when I have gotten a little queazy and jittery waiting for my e-mail page to load, just waiting to see and wondering about what kind of criticism I'm likely to receive now! ;) This hasn't been the easiest thing for me to go through. I don't regret going through it a bit, for it has led me to the Word time and again; it has indeed been a tremendous blessing, I believe. I've been able to further explain myself, etc. If anything, it's been "strength through adversity"! :) I do think that that has been one of the blessings of my having this blog. When I was a little girl, I was so terribly sensitive as to my own feelings that if someone merely looked at me wrong, I would burst into tears! My mother has said before that she could see me one day being a pastor's wife. If that happens, it's a good thing that I've been able to toughen up a bit! ;) Anyway, your kindness was such a blessing. You are a dear, Jennifer! :)

    Blessings to you,
    Rebekah

    ReplyDelete
  40. You're so right, Mrs. Webfoot. The sexual revolution of the 1960s has been nothing but highly detrimental in so many ways.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Again Mrs. Webfoot, you need to refrain from telling Layla why she's upset. You accused both her and myself of having feministic and unBiblical beliefs, and gave us inaccurate analysis of our hearts and gross patronization. That's probably the moral compass Layla was speaking of.

    "Please note, too, that I do not blame Dinah for her being disgraced. She is not said to have acted in a disgraceful way, but she was disgraced. You must not have been reading what I have actually said. I in no way blamed Dinah"

    Thank you for confirming.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Mrs. Webfoot, are you accusing me of lying? Because I actually do know these people.

    You seem extremely angry at the moment. I too let my emotions take a hold and said things that were not in a Christ like way. Perhaps you too should take a step back. There is a way to disagree and be respectful at the same time. I failed in doing this, not because I do not have peace with my past, but because I do not like seeing people speculated about in a way that will damage their reputation.

    I know what is happening in the world. But I believe a lot of the blame is to be laid on parents not properly laying the groundwork for their children to grow into strong Christain adult. If a young person is strong in their faith, then the thought of living together or drugs or all other manner of sins will not appeal to them. They may be briefly tempted, but having learned to depend and trust on God, they will hold firm in their faith. And, if like all of us, they fail at times, then they will repent and run back to God. Like I said, my parents did not fear for me when I moved out because they knew how strong my faith was.

    And I agree the sexual revolution was a horrible thing.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hi Rebekah :) Indeed, we could all guard our tongues and I have learned from you about this as well!

    "1)you hold to some feminist doctrine and 2)an in-depth study of feminism reveals that egalitarianism (or "evangelical" feminism or "Christian" feminism) arose directly out of secular feminism itself"

    Egalitarianism is actually startlingly different from feminism: whereas the latter is self-empowering, the former hopes to allow women to serve God in all ways, even sometimes risky ways. Egals believe no one has the "right" to pastor and that pastoring is not a state of spiritual hierarchy anyway.

    You are SO like me in some ways! I was incredibly sensitive as a child and did you know I've had the exact same reaction when re-entering online discussions, including this one?? Jittery and uneasy. It always happens with topics important to me. You are not alone :)

    Thank you for your sweetness! :)

    ReplyDelete
  45. (Rebekah, I deleted my second response to Mrs. Webfoot and am now re-submitting it edited; I want to make sure it's worded properly. Thank you)

    "That's easy to answer. There is nothing wrong with the title, "A Father's Home-A Daughter's Shelter." Look at what post you are commenting on"

    Layla and I were both commenting on the one saying Dinah was disgraced.

    "That's funny, Jennifer!"

    Um, okay.

    I don't need to clear my name because I never exhorted women moving in with their boyfriends. This is a tactic of yours: you enter discussions challenging, almost daring anyone who criticizes patriarchy to also list every single thing that's wrong with feminism, as though you require us to prove to you personally that we're not feminists. This tactic is a red herring, especially when I never defended boyfriend situations. My vehement defense of Dinah, Layla and other rape surviviors should be livid proof to you that I care VERY much about victims of abuse. No matter where you go, you obsess over feminism and have lately attempted to drag every aspect of egalitarianism through the mud with it. I could give you the same retort: admit that spiritual abuse is real, that patriarchy's been grossly abused. Should I assume you don't care about this?

    "You seem to be saying that it is a very bad and dangerous thing for daughters to stay at home until they marry, and that it is very safe for daughters to leave the home and strike out on their own. Tell me that is not what you are saying"

    What did I just say to you last night, Mrs. Webfoot? What did I just tell Rebekah about my feelings regarding being at home right now? Staying with family is good, so long as it's HER choice. You, on the other hand, I don't recall even once saying leaving home could be good or God's Will, even though your daughter once again will be departing; you certainly didn't condemn her actions last night when sharing them. You don't appear to be listening to me at all.

    ReplyDelete
  46. If anyone was wondering how I have the freedom to post since I work outside of the home. I own a business and it gives me a great deal of freedom. I am in the process of trying to figure out how to do this from home, because there is a good chance that marriage is coming up. :-) And since I do want to stay at home once I have kids, I want to have the business running smoothly from home before that happens. So, that was just in case anyone was curious as to how I have the spare time to post.

    ReplyDelete
  47. BTW, Layla, I am not angry at all - not in the least. Not to worry.

    Then, I'll let Jennifer's words stand. I agree with Rebekah's analysis of what I was saying - though what I said was pretty clear and needs little or no further clarification.

    In this post, Rebekah is discussing the idea of a father's home being a place of shelter for a daughter.

    I found that to be true in my own life. My niece that I shared about found that to be true. My daughter finds that to be true.

    A home should be a place of refuge for everyone living there, actually. The world may be a brutal place, but our homes should not be.

    No one is saying that a young lady or a wife should never leave the house alone! I have never said that, ever. Rebekah has never said that.

    What do you ladies think? Do you think that a father's home is - or should be - a place of shelter for his daughters?

    God bless,
    Mrs. Webfoot

    ReplyDelete
  48. Jennifer:
    You don't appear to be listening to me at all.>>>>


    Jennifer, I don't know what to say to you. You're not very nice to me.


    So, I guess I am tuning you out mostly! I don't know what to do about it. I cannot ask you to quit being so hard on me, but it would be nice.

    ReplyDelete
  49. What you could do about it, Mrs. Webfoot, is listen to me and stop mispresenting what I say; I'm hard on all people who do this, as I'm sure you are too. I can't make you listen and not presume negatively, but I'm telling you that's what would make my regard towards you change. If you won't do this, I'd be more than happy for you to tune me out. In a way, of course, that's what you've been doing already.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Yes, of course a parents' home should be shelter for their daughters (and sons). It isn't required to be so when they're adults, but that would be nice.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Mrs. Webfoot, it is easy to misread tone on the internet. Just as you thought my concerns regarding disgracing Dinah meant I had not made peace with my past, I misread your comments as if you were angry. Glad you are not.

    Should a father's home be a place of shelter? Of course. Is it always. No. This is the world, the world is full of sin and often time that enters the home. But, the home ceases becoming a shelter and becomes a jail when it is used to stop grown women from obeying God. God speaks to grown adult women, not just their fathers. Consider Mary, after the angel told her she was pregnant with Jesus, she felt moved to go see Elizabeth. She left home and went and lived with her for three months. According to what is laid out on this blog, this is a sin because she left her father's home temporarily. Mary's father would not have been sheltering her if he had tried to stop her from leaving, he would have been forcing her to disobey God and turned the shelter of his home into a jail.

    And as for the remark about me not knowing people who have followed their Godly parent, their Godly fathers, and obeyed their Christ like husbands ending up in abusive marriages. You are correct, but I never claimed to know people like that. A Christ like husband would not abuse their wife.

    I don't know if you are familiar with Bill Gothard and his ministries, but my family was involved with ATIA for a short while when I was a teenager. A vast majority of the people in this homeschooling group followed the SAHD and the courship model. Countless girls that I friended and watched follow their father's lead and marry "Godly" men, ended up in abusive relationships. Some of these women are still in them since because they have been taught from birth that if they just sudmit more their husbands would stop beating them. A lot of them are divorced and now happily remarried after finding a husband through dating. (Note that I said dating, not shacking up or sleeping together) Some of them are struggling to support small children as they try and go to college and find jobs. Almost all of them regret not listening to what they knew God was asking them to do, and instead letting their fathers decide for them.

    Now, you might then say, well those fathers weren't Godly. But according to what Rebekah has laid out here, the fathers were. The father who kept his daughter from becoming a missionary when she knew that was what God was calling her to do, was he being unGodly? I believe so. She stayed at home, she tried to find a job to work out of the home, she was miserable. She finally entered a courtship and even though she still felt the call to the mission field, her father and future husband told her that she needed to stay home. And then two months after she married and man who her family had known their whole life, had gone to church with their whole life, a man who to all appearances was Christ like, lost his temper and beat her. The church and family told her she should forgive him and try and be more submissive. She did and things were great for another six months or so when he beat her again. This time she left him and is currently a missionary and for the first time in her adult life she has peace. If her father had just allowed her to follow the leading of the Lord, none of that would have happened. Even he admits now that he was wrong in stopping her from becoming a missionary.

    If grown women do not have a strong moral compass and fall into sin the second they are tempted, then it is the fault of the parents. If they had trained their children in the way they should go, then when they are adults, they will not depart from it. It is sad that so many Christian parents have so little confidence in the ability of their adult children to obey God.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I made an assumption about Dinah that may or may not be true. I said that she did nothing wrong. I should have said that she may have done some things that were unwise or even wrong. As Rebekah has pointed out, Dinah seemed to be seeking close friendship with pagan women. That is very unwise. It almost led to an unequal yoke in marriage and the blending of the Covenant people with pagan Canaanites.

    God providentially saved His people and the plan of redemption! We are focusing too much on ourselves and on Dinah's defilement.


    Praise be to God for His mercy and grace!
    This is the human family that our Savior chose to be born into! God's plan could not be stopped. Many applications can be drawn from this story, but the main point is the unfolding story of our Redemption.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I don't know if my post went through. I'll try again. Our computer is acting up.
    -------------

    Jennifer:
    Yes, of course a parents' home should be shelter for their daughters (and sons). It isn't required to be so when they're adults, but that would be nice.>>>>


    I agree, mostly. Let me try to explain. My dad passed away a couple of years ago. He accepted Christ with my nephew just a few days before he died.

    My dad would always ask me, - even during his last month of life, - when we talked on the phone, "When are you coming home?"

    We have always told our daughter that her home is with us. That is why she always comes home. She has not moved out yet, either. When she was away at college for those two years, she came home many weekends, and spent all of her vacations at home and working for her dad. I wish that she would live with us until she gets married. We are not pushing her out at all, and never have.

    She did spend 9 months in Spain teaching English in a public school. She lived near some of our missionaries and spent much of her free time there. She also helped some in a church plant. We arranged for her to be met at the airport and accompanied to her next connection. At the other end, our missionary was waiting for her and took her to the village where she was going to live. We contacted the school where she was going to teach so that we could make sure she would be well treated. We were pretty involved in the whole thing, and even went to visit her while she was there. We talked on the phone for hours at a time.

    Family sticks together. It breaks my heart sometimes when I see young women all alone in airports with their backpacks heading for nobody knows where. Sometimes they are sick, but refuse any help. They are strong and can do it all by themselves! What do they think that they are doing? They hook up with whoever they find along the way. Others are with their boyfriends. What do they think that they are doing? That is not mature behavior for adult women, but it is how many young women are living.

    Our daughter has a burden for university students. She saw many of them in need of Christ and was very involved in ministry to students while she was in univeristy. She sees the problems that they are having and knows that Christ is their only hope in this world and the one to come.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "The stay at home daughter model is the one that provides the maximum level of protection for a young, single girl. In fact, it is the only model that we see in Scripture, that is clear. It cannot be bad for a young women to stay at home, under her father's protection, until she marries!"

    If by stay at home you mean a girl who does not do (nonministry) work outside the home, then what about Rachel in Genesis 29? It says she was a shepherdess. If you read various passages in the Old Testament, the flocks in those days tended to be hundreds or thousands of sheep per shepherd. It was not a part time thing for her, as shepherds need to stay with the sheep at all times when they are out of the safety of the fold. She was roaming around the countryside, apparently mostly by herself, and doing this full time.

    "Layla:
    I'm not sure I will be back, because it bother's me that much.>>>

    I was wondering why this was bothering you so much. I'm glad that you clarified.

    You are having a flashback. In fact, you are projecting the bad attitudes of others onto Rebekah. You do realise that is what is happening, right?

    You worry me, Layla. There's a lot of hurt there, and understandably so. How are you dealing with it?

    Take care, okay?
    Mrs. Webfoot"

    Layla, I am so sorry for what happened to you. I am glad you are recovering well and life seems to be going pretty nicely right now for you.

    Mrs. Webfoot, I have NEVER been abused sexually, yet I am having very strong reactions reading this thread. Is that a flashback on my part? To something that never happened? Or is it that I strongly believe people are being maligned and lied about and others are being lied to and that I cannot see much of the grace of God or the love of God in comments by some of the people here who say they are following Him?

    "And, you're right-one area where Dinah did indeed fail is in being close friends with those who were not God's people. We are told to not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers, and based upon the text itself that shows her friends to be outside the coventant community, the historian Josephus' statements, Mr. Henry's words about the friends, and the writings of the late Henry Morris in his book "The Genesis Record", her friends and herself were clearly unequally yoked. There's nothing wrong with being kind and loving towards unbelievers (indeed, it would be wrong for us not to be), but we mustn't be "buddy buddy" with them. In this area, Dinah did sin and that is clear, not mere speculation. Also, this lends credence to the idea that perhaps she went out unbeknownst to her father; while Jacob was less than perfect, I don't think he would have allowed his daughter to be intimate with such influences for evil.

    Rebekah"


    "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."

    So, if it's so terrible to be a friend to sinners, why did Jesus do it? And yes, I know people will say, "But he was trying to convert them and Dinah wasn't!" My point is that in the Bible religious people criticized Jesus for being FRIENDS with ungodly people. They thought it was terrible and showed that he himself MUST be being contaminated by them. (And yoked refers to MARRIAGE - Bible interpretation fail, there). BTW, the covenant community at that time was pretty much her immediate family, right?

    R.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I guess for me the conclusion with so much of new-patrio doctrines is that if a person is really, truly convicted by God to be doing something such as staying strictly at home, then for them to do otherwise would be sin. However, what you believe God has commanded you to do does not automatically translate over into everyone else's life.

    I think all of Romans 14, but especially the below, apply to this:
    "The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him."

    If you truly and wholeheartedly believe God has commanded you to do something that is seen by others as restrictive, great! Go for it and do it for God! But, do NOT condemn other Christians who tell you that God has given them more freedom. And, the other Christians should not be looking down on you for your choice. As long as we remain willing to listen to other Christians and even non Christians who have concerns about where we may be wrong, and as long as we honestly examine ourselves and the Bible when asked to, and as long as we do not dismiss others' beliefs/opinions/experiences out of hand, then both "sides" can be confident they are doing fine as far as God's will!

    R.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Mrs. Webfoot, I have NEVER been abused sexually, yet I am having very strong reactions reading this thread. Is that a flashback on my part?>>>>


    It is probably your post modern, post feminist worldview that is reacting strongly to the very thought that it was inappropriate for Dinah to go to the pagans to find friendship.


    Anonymous:
    As long as we remain willing to listen to other Christians and even non Christians who have concerns about where we may be wrong, and as long as we honestly examine ourselves and the Bible when asked to, and as long as we do not dismiss others' beliefs/opinions/experiences out of hand, then both "sides" can be confident they are doing fine as far as God's will!>>>>

    Have you ever heard of the law of non contradiction? A and non-A cannot both be correct. One side is correct and the other side is wrong.

    You are trying to synthesize two opposite worldviews and come up with a compromise position. The only thing is that the two do not mix well.

    What we can do is agree to disagree, but your solution is no solution at all. Either you are right and the stay at home daughter model is a new doctrine invented by the "patrios" as you call them, or yours is the new model with no real Biblical support.


    It can't be both ways.

    What is possible is that both sides are Christians, but on these issues, one side is right and one side is wrong.

    I'll compare it to a doctrine that is a little less of a hot topic in our day, but was in other times. It is that of the mode of baptism. those who promote paedobaptism and those who promote baptism of believers by immersion cannot both be right. Both sides can be believers, though.

    I think that the egalitarian feminist doctrines are very dangerous in their potential to undermine the Lordship of Christ - which is a Gospel essential. That is why I oppose it so much - not because I think that all egalitarians are unsaved heathens!

    Some are. Egalitarians stubborn refusal to face up to the origin of their theology is one of the main reasons that I have rejected it outright. At one time I was VERY sympathetic to egalitarianism, which you may or may not know. In fact, in many ways, I was a feminist myself.

    I have deep concerns about those who are not willing to examine the origins of their own beliefs - if you want to talke about self examination. I have great concern for those who refuse to acknowledge the fact that egalitarianism is a form of feminism.

    BTW, I also have a concern for those who are Complementarians but refuse to acknowledge that their is a version of patriarchy.

    There is a certain level of deception or self decepcion involved in those who do not "fess up" to who they are theologically.


    That's how I see it, and yes, I am convinced in my own mind, so you really have no reasonable response to give me given your worldview! All you can say is "you are okay, sister."

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anon and Layla, you speak so wisely! Praise God for His help and true, unique direction to every individual person. I wouldn't really say that Rebekah has less freedom staying at home, because she seems very free in spirit.

    Mrs. Webfoot, God indeed had blessed your family! I love home and you don't have to explain your reasons to me, but thank you for sharing your experience :) Your daughter's very fortunate.

    ReplyDelete
  58. As for the example of Rachel in Genesis 29:

    1. She was living in her father's home.

    2. You are speculating about how many goats she took care of and how many hours per day she was out there with the goats.

    3. She was harassed by the male goat herders, and it was Jacob who helped her with the stone and chased the other guys off. IOW, when push came to shove, she needed a man to defend her and to do the hard work. Her father was letting her down, as he did several times in that whole story.


    4. The goats belonged to her father.

    Were you trying to make some point about young daughters leaving home in order to serve God better based on Rachel's story?


    She went from being a stay at home daughter until she was given in marriage to Jacob. She then became a stay at home wife.

    You see no other pattern in the Bible - or all of history, actually, until after radical feminism got its strangle hold on our culture. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but they do not change the fact of what young women were expected to do with their lives.


    What was that you were saying about new patrio teachings? How about thousands of years of human history to support the stay at home daughter and wife model?

    ReplyDelete
  59. I just read your whole comment, Layla, and it is indeed very wise. Praise God for that wise woman who heeded Him and not man! There are so many examples of men just like that, restricting daughters and thinking they're right. Even if the young man a father wants his daughter to marry is good, it doesn't matter; it's her choice and if there's no mutual love, it's a road to misery.

    Anon, again, you hit it straight to the heart. Brilliantly said.

    ReplyDelete
  60. PS
    Rachel is not remember in the NT as the famous shepherdess. In Jeremiah 31 and Matthew 2 we see her metaphorically as the Jewish every mother, weeping for her children. Her service to God was not primarialy that of herding sheep - and she did not leave her home to do so. Yes, she had to leave her house, but not her home. BTW, of course both daughters and wives leave their houses to do different things, but they should not abandon the home.

    She became a shepherdess not out of some inner desire to find herself, along with her gifting and calling. She did it out of obedience to her father.

    Her service to God definitely had to do with her help meet and child bearing calling - her sacred calling. She was the mother of Joseph and Benjamin. That is what she is remembered for.

    Jeremiah 31:15
    This is what the LORD says: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more."


    Matthew 2:18
    "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more."


    If you like, read John MacArthur's sermons on a woman's high calling. Rebekah has referenced these sermons in one of her posts, so I feel free to recommend them.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Rachel was walking all over the countryside and NOT under the protection of her father, so whether they were his goats is a moot point. Patterns in history don't really reflect God's will or design. This is proven by the abuse often brought about by patriarchy. Those "few exceptions" you mentioned were clear signs of God revoking man's pattern.

    "What was that you were saying about new patrio teachings?"

    They are new in this age, and most Christians naturally oppose them. The spiritual reliance daughters are expected to have on their father once grown in the Gothard formula is not healthy, nor common for that reason.

    I don't know why you're contradicting Anon anyway: if you've forgotten, she's NOT criticizing or challenging Rebekah's chosen status as a stay-at-home daughter. All she's doing is contradicting the idea that it's a command from God for everyone. For all the reasons that have already been made here, as well as personal experience (including your own), stay-at-home daughterhood is not supported Biblically as a universal command. I'm sure you know this already.

    ReplyDelete
  62. ...and one more thing...


    Many of the "publicans and sinners" that Jesus was hanging with were repentant sinners. A sinner could not be in His presence long before being confronted with their need for salvation. Sinners were getting saved all over the place, but the religious leaders did not recoginize them as genuinely converted.

    Active sinners would not feel comfortable long in Jesus presence. His words to sinners consisted in "go and sin no more."

    ReplyDelete
  63. "Active sinners would not feel comfortable long in Jesus presence"

    Sometimes it took a while to come to repentance. Thank God He doesn't turn others away. He was VERY active among active sinners; otherwise, it would defeat the point to only be among REPENTANT sinners, wouldn't it?

    Many fathers instruct their daughters to go to college, too. I suppose Rachel resembles them, being on her own as she was. You know as well as everyone here that every woman has a different calling, Mrs. Webfoot.

    ReplyDelete
  64. And btw, we're all active sinners. Being saved doesn't mean we cease sinning, it means we sin less and now ask for forgiveness.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Rachel's remembered for far more than giving birth, though. She's remembered for her struggle with God and trust, her patience in waiting for Jacob all those years, and her ultimate bravery in God's service. The latter is the zeal of belief, not motherhood.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Mrs. Webfoot, when it comes right down to it, the Bible does not say that Dinah was disgraced or that she was not a shining cornerstone in her father's house. We also do not know if she was sinning, we do not know the reason for her going to see the ladies, we do not know if her father was aware. She may have been in the wrong, she may have not been, we will not know till we get to heaven. I do no think it is kind to speculate and accuse her of sinning when we don't know the full story. And I think it is flat out wrong to say that she was no longer a shining cornerstone in her father's house. If God did not see fit to put in the Bible that she was a disgrace to her father, then is it right to add that to the story? I don't believe so.

    When I said I was so bothered that I wasn't sure I would come back, it wasn't because I was having flashbacks, though I can relate very well to what it is like to have people speculate and spread false rumors around about me. It was because it bothers me that Christians see no problem with speculating and adding very unkind details to a story. I would think that the Christian reaction, when faced with a situation where we are incapable of knowing all the details, is to err on the side of love and compassion, not the side of calling the person disgraced. The story should be told exactly as it is in the Bible, leave the speculations out.

    And I do realize that Rebekah did not call Dinah disgraced in this post, but in another one she said that Dinah was a disgrace who brought disaster on her family. Those are some very harsh accusations to spread when there is no proof of them.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Jennifer, I apologize. I started saying that Rachel was taking care of goats, but it was sheep!

    I was thinking about goats! Maybe I got her confused with Heidi! Sorry. I agree with you that Rachel's father was not giving her much protection, and he should have been.

    Also, I think that if people actually read what Rebekah is proposing, they will have little or no problems with it. Is it God's will for every young woman? In a broader sense, yes.

    As far as Abraham obeying Sarah, you are correct. God told him in that instance to obey her. Remember what happened the last time he obeyed Sarah? Imagine Abraham's confusion! ...and I will say a very politically incorrect thing here... We wives often do that kind of thing to our husbands. They want to please us, but we often send mixed signals, and they don't know which way to jump.


    I think that to mischaracterize males as domineering and ready to crush their daughters and wives into powder if they disobey is very false. In general, husbands want to please their wives, they want to see their wives happy. They shouldn't always try to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  68. PS
    I think that I said that Jacob was Rachel's father? I meant Laban. Oh, well...

    Hey, I'm going to write some of my thoughts over at my own blog. I'm afraid that Rebekah is feeling overwhelmed.

    I am glad to see that everyone recognizes her excellent qualities and her kind nature. Please be as respectful to her and as kind to her as she has been to all of us.

    Today I had a very interesting conversation with my Mexican friend, Patricia. She would LOVE Rebekah's defense of the stay at home daughter model.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Don't worry; ya'll aren't wearing me out too badly with all this conversation. ;) haha Actually, I really enjoy it, and have been blessed by it in some interesting ways. The 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

    ReplyDelete
  70. No problem, Rebekah :) and thanks!

    Those are interesting points, Mrs. Webfoot; I think Sarah and Abraham both got each other into trouble sometimes! I don't think anyone will hold it against you that you confused goats with sheep :P

    Great points as always, Layla. To Rebekah's credit, she's been reconsidering a lot of the old ideas about Dinah.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Jennifer, yes she has, and I am very glad of that.

    Rebekah, I think it is great that you save the weekend for family.

    Mrs. Webfoot, I think it is wonderful that you have allowed your daughter to follow what she feels is God's will for her life, even if it involved leaving the home for a short time. That is what parents are supposed to do, support their adult children in doing what God is directing them to do.

    What I have seen so many parents do is try and dictate their adult children's lives according to what the parent's feel they want them to do. Yes, adults should always be able to go home and ideally it should always be a loving shelter for them. But home should not be a place where adult women are forced to stay when they feel the call of God to serve elsewhere. I think of Elisabeth Elliot (who I have met and is an amazing woman), she not only went to college, she also was a missionary before she got married. Just think about how many lives she has touched. Now just think about what would have happened it her parents had not allowed her to pursue God's calling for her life.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I don't like Elliot's gender views at all, but she's a spitfire all right. What a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Jennifer,

    You wrote, "Egalitarianism is actually startlingly different from feminism: whereas the latter is self-empowering, the former hopes to allow women to serve God in all ways, even sometimes risky ways. Egals believe no one has the "right" to pastor and that pastoring is not a state of spiritual hierarchy anyway." I won't go into all the details now, as I haven't the time and will likely do a post on this anyway at some point, but I do believe that egalitarianism is closely linked with, and stems from, feminism, for many reasons. Yes, there are vast differences in certain respects, but I still see interesting similarities, etc. Also, it depends upon what you mean by spiritual hierarchy. Pastors do indeed rule (Heb. 13:7) and only men who are able to rule their households well are qualified to rule the church, thereby implying that pastor is an authoritative position (1 Tim. 3:4).

    Aw, who knew we were so much alike as children? That's kinda neat. ;) And, for some reason, I had assumed that I was the only one who approached this discussion with queezy/shaky feelings! :)

    As to Rachel, we don't really know where she was walking and where she wasn't. She likely had a large herd to care for and likely did go all over the countryside, but we don't know that for sure for sure.

    You said, "Patterns in history don't really reflect God's will or design." That's true-thy don't necessarily. One must look at His Word and compare the patterns of history with them. It is clear, however, that SAHD was far more common for centuries here in America than it is today. "Patrio" teachings may by "new" in our day, because they were abandoned decades ago, but they're really not new at all. They were embraced in America for many centuries, up until feminism changed things.

    Blessings to you,
    Rebekah
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ReplyDelete
  74. Layla, how exciting! :) Congratulations on your likely upcoming marriage! May the Lord greatly bless your union! I am also thrilled to hear that you desire to be a stay-at-home mom; it will be a great blessing to your future children to have you there with them! :)

    You wrote, "Consider Mary, after the angel told her she was pregnant with Jesus, she felt moved to go see Elizabeth. She left home and went and lived with her for three months. According to what is laid out on this blog, this is a sin because she left her father's home temporarily." No, that is not my stance. For example, my parents allowed me to fly to my great-grandparents' home prior to their traveling up for a visit, so that I could help them prepare for their arrival. They were able to go to the gate, I was not alone on the plane, and I was met at the other gate by my mom's cousin. The point is protection, not that an unmarried daughter can never visit someone outside the family home. Mary was never off on her own. Oversight and protection of Mary was momentarily delegated, or transferred, to Elizabeth and her husband, after which time Mary returned home, where she continued to live until she married Joseph.

    You spoke of some problems faced by followers of Mr. Gothard's teachings. One thing I would like to point out is that you cannot blame the events in one's life solely on another person's teachings. There are other wonderful examplea of joyous couples and families who followed Mr. Gothard's teachings on courtship (Josh and Anna Dugger being one of them). Furthermore, I've said time and again that courtship and stay-at-home daughterhood are not full-proof methods. They do not protect against each and every ill in the world. They are much more protecting than the alternatives usually are, though, I will say that. As for courtship, for example, how much safer for a father to actively be involved in his daughter's "love life"! As we all know, when a young woman is "in love", she often is so blinded by her feelings that she cannot always see the potential problems in her love interest. Therefore, because fathers are oftentimes not all that actively involved in their daughters dating relationships (at least not as involved as during courtship!), they fail to see the problems in these young men, too (as they rarely even know them very well), and these daughters sometimes end up marrying dangerous men. With courtship, however, fathers are actively involved and daughters get to know potential suitors much better before there are emotional attachments. Because of this, the danger of a daughter marrying an abusive man is less likely. There are exceptions, of course, just as there are exceptions in the dating arena, where dating can lead to great marriages. But, I would still say that courtship is much safer than dating.

    comment continued below! :)

    ReplyDelete
  75. You said, "Almost all of them regret not listening to what they knew God was asking them to do, and instead letting their fathers decide for them." I don't know if you're mainly talking of the daughter's lifestyle or her mate. Courtship does not equal arranged marriages. Different people have somewhat different opinions as to what courtship entails, but courtship the way the vast majority practice it, does by no means equal an arranged marriage with no say from the daughter! If a young man is interested in a young woman and wants to begin a courtship with her and he goes to her father to talk with him about his desire, the father then approaches the daughter if he himself thinks the suitor would be ok (if he's downright dangerous, he doesn't even have to get the daughter involved-he can say "Absolutely not!" right then and there), then he goes to the daughter and gets her input. If she's interested, too, then the suitor gets a yes. Otherwise, the answer is no.

    "It is sad that so many Christian parents have so little confidence in the ability of their adult children to obey God." Parents whose daughters are remaining at home until marriage are not necessarily doing so out of little confidence in the ability of their children to obey God. Rather, it is so that they might be protected, discipled further, etc.

    Blessings,
    Rebekah

    ReplyDelete
  76. Mrs. Webfoot,

    I am so happy to hear that your father repented and turned to Christ prior to his death; praise the Lord! :)

    Excellent comments, by the way! And how gracious of the Lord to deliver you from the lies and ensnaring traps of feminism. I never would have guessed that you were at one time so feministic, based on your comments here! :)

    Blessings,
    Rebekah
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ReplyDelete
  77. R,

    You wrote, "If by stay at home you mean a girl who does not do (nonministry) work outside the home, then what about Rachel in Genesis 29? It says she was a shepherdess. If you read various passages in the Old Testament, the flocks in those days tended to be hundreds or thousands of sheep per shepherd. It was not a part time thing for her, as shepherds need to stay with the sheep at all times when they are out of the safety of the fold. She was roaming around the countryside, apparently mostly by herself, and doing this full time." First of all, in the introduction to this series, I say that "stay-at-home daughter" does not mean exactly what "stay-at-home mom" does. A stay-at-home daughter is one who lives at home with her family until she is given in marriage. A daughter who works outside the home but still resides with her family, is still a stay-at-home daughter. As to Rachel, the herd was likely large, but we do not know that for sure, so we can't say positively (as I've learned, it's fine to speculate, but we musn't push our speculations into the text as unquestionable truth). Second, she was a stay-at-home daughter (she lived with her father until she married Jacob). Third, she was caring for her father's sheep. And, we do not know that she was alone when caring for the sheep. The chapter never says that, and given the importance placed upon protecting women, she was likely not alone.

    You stated, "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions." So, if it's so terrible to be a friend to sinners, why did Jesus do it? And yes, I know people will say, 'But he was trying to convert them and Dinah wasn't!' My point is that in the Bible religious people criticized Jesus for being FRIENDS with ungodly people. They thought it was terrible and showed that he himself MUST be being contaminated by them. (And yoked refers to MARRIAGE - Bible interpretation fail, there). BTW, the covenant community at that time was pretty much her immediate family, right?"

    First, notice that what the said about Jesus being a glutton and a drunkard was dramatic exaggeration-it was not true. Therefore, we could assume that what they said about Him being a "friend" of tax collectors and sinners was not true either. He indeed spent time with them, ate with them, reached out to them, etc., but He was by no means "buddy buddy" with them, as friends are with each other (this is clear throughout the 4 Gospels). He called many sinners a brood of vipers, commanded them to repent, said they were of their father the Devil, etc. Again, as I said, it's great to be friendly to the lost, but it is not right to be close friends with them. And I do not see Jesus reversing this in any way through His interactions with sinners.

    more below! :)

    ReplyDelete
  78. Second, how do you know that unequally yoked is referring just to marriage? Because the context of 2 Cor. 6:14 is not dealing with marriage specifically. If this statement were in 1 Cor. 7, then I would agree with you, as all of that chapter is dedicated to marriage. But 2 Cor. 6 is not. Verse 17 says, "'Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, 'saith the Lord, 'and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.'" This passage is clearly not talking solely about marraige, but about any close association with darkness (see verses 14-16). 1 Cor. 15:33 states that bad company corrupts good character. The Israelites were not to intermarry with the pagans, nor were they to closely associate with them, and become close friends. 2 Cor. 6:14 applies to our earthly relationships, rather friendships or marriage.

    The covenant community in that particular city may have consisted of little more than her own family, but there may have been close cities nearby filled with God's chosen people; I would have to further study the preceding and following chapters to know for sure.

    Furthermore, you may not mean it this way, but you are sounding relativistic- "What's right for me is right for me and might not be for you, and vice versa." However, the Bible is the source of absolute truth. There can be no relativism when dealing with commands issued by God! Let's pretend for a moment that there was a man who had a wife and children, but suddenly felt called by God to quit his job and stay at home with them all day, because he feels that he's not spending enough time with them, and he has no plans of having a work from home job, either. Well, I don't care how called he feels-he is commanded by God to provide for his family, and if he does not do so, he is worse than an infidel (1 Tim. 5:8). Many today say they feel that they should do this or that, but their actions and lifestyles are contrary to God's Word. If this is the case, they may feel they should do one thing or another, but such a feeling is not a call from God. So, we all have to be very careful with that! God is not going to call us to do something which goes against His revealed will and approved ordinance. His Word is ultimate revelation, and all other "revelation" (such as a call to something) must be in accordance with that Word, or else it is not revelation from God. Women are commanded in Titus 2:5 and elsewhere to be homemakers. It would therefore be wrong to say that this woman has one career calling, that one has another, etc. They may desire to have different careers, but such cannot be said to be a calling from God if it goes against His Word in some way.

    Thank you for your time! :)

    Have a good evening,
    Rebekah
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Jennifer and Layla,

    Thank you for your kind understanding for my lack of commenting over the weekend! :)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    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

    ReplyDelete
  79. No problem about the commenting, Rebekah; I'll be heading out with family to see my grandma on Saturday, so this way I won't have to worry about the conversation really going on without me :)

    It's not relativistic, though, to say we all have different callings. The NT abolishes the need for an earthly priest and makes us all members of a priesthood, judged equally before God. I recommend you read "Who is Your Covering?"

    As for egalitarianism, there's evidence that women were allowed to have authority positions in the early church, LONG before feminism, and I likewise see egalitarian views in the Bible; neither have to do with feminism. Feminism was a human attempt to correct a spiritual problem.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Hi, Jennifer! :)

    I'm glad it will work out so well for you! That's good! I hope you have a great time with your Grandma; I always so enjoy time with my grandparents and great-grandparents. :)

    It wouldn't be relativistic to say that we will have different duties in terms of this woman will have a home business, that one will not be called to have one, this wife will be on the foreign mission field with her family, that one will live in the U.S., etc. But when it comes to what I find to be rather clear commands set forth in Scripture, it's then that I would say that to say various people have various callings would be relativistic.

    I agree that there were women who held leadership positions during the early church times. There was an early church father (I forget his name at the moment) who was ousted by the other church fathers for ordaining women into the pastorate. Much of the early feminism was linked, and grew out of, 2nd century Gnosticism. More on that in a future article series on the history of feminism!

    As for egalitarian teachings in the Bible, I've seen many people point to Galatians 3:28 for support, as if it does away with all differences between men and women in terms of roles. To say that, however, would mean that all differences between Jews and Greeks are done away with. This is not true, however, and does not mean that their respective cultures are to be blurred into one. It simply means that in God's eyes, they are all equal.

    Blessings to you,
    Rebekah

    ReplyDelete
  81. Commenters,

    As to Dinah, I would still use the account of her life as found in Genesis 34 to support the doctrine of stay-at-home daughterhood. In the Scriptures, there is no example of an unmarried daughter going off to live on her own, autonomously. And there is only one clear example of a daughter going off to visit someone, an example in which the daughter is raped. I'm not saying that an unmarried daughter cannot go to visit people. But the fact that this is the only example given in the Scriptures of such and the fact that there is no example of a daughter going off to live alone further cements the fact that stay-at-home daughterhood is taught in the Holy Scriptures.

    Have a great night, all!

    Rebekah

    ReplyDelete
  82. Hi, Rebekah. I'm glad you know about the early women of the church! This happened in even the most strict of circles and the reason is that they saw support in Scripture for such practices; church used to consist of people fellowshipping, not one man ruling all others. People like the Botkins insist on relating EVERYTHING supporting female leaders to feminism and this angers me. Unless they'd wish to call the Bible and its female leaders feministic, this is an emotional and subjective falsehood.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Oh and thanks for your sweet wishes about my trip :) I DO love visits to my family! My mom right now is sick though with bronchitis and possibly pneumonia; please pray that she'll be in perfect health again in time for the trip! My family's afflicted with sickness I'm afraid, except for me (I already went through inflamed sinuses and an upset stomach); my father just got over a throat thing and now my sister has a coughing thing going and her baby has a fever! I hope they're better.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Rebekah:
    I never would have guessed that you were at one time so feministic, based on your comments here! :)>>>>


    Rebekah, feminism in its various forms has had a huge impact on our culture, me included.

    My feminist leanings had more to do with theology than anything else. I had picked up quite a bit of the egalitarian teachings and reactions along the way. It has taken time to sort through it all.

    Egalitarianism is indeed a form of feminist theology. That is undeniable and well documented. Does that mean that all egalitarians live like radical feminists? No, of course not. A person may hold to a form of feminist theology, yet in their personal life be very conservative and traditional.

    Does that mean that egalitarians can't be Christians? By no means! No, of course not!

    It is very bad theology, though. Very bad.

    It is simply a fact that theological egalitarianism is a form of feminism in a broader sense. To say otherwise is a category error.

    Complementarianism is a form of patriarchal theology. Those are the two general theological constructs for gender theology.

    Not all egalitarians live like radical feminists at all, and not all patriarchalists are supporters of the Taliban!

    However, feminist theology is what it is.
    -------

    I am not trying to say that we followed the stay at home daughter model to a "T." Our daughter has stayed home longer than most young people in our culture do.
    -----------
    Then, as far as God's will goes, I am not sure that we would all agree on what that means or how and where we find it. What do you understand by the term "God's revealed will"?

    ReplyDelete
  85. I'm going to be really busy for the next couple of weeks too.

    I was not speaking of arranged marriages. I was speaking of women who have been told their whole lives that they can only be two things, SAHD and wives. Due to that teaching, they ignorned God's call to do other things that took them outside the house and married even when they knew that wasn't God's plan. Yes, there are wonderful courtships just as there are wonderful marriages after dating. What it comes down to is that the two adults must be following God's will for their lives, not trying to follow a path that their parents created. And that is what happens so many times to women forced into the SAHD lifestyle. They have let their parents discern the will of God for them for so long that even when they feel a direct call of God, they ignore it and go with what the parents want.

    As for Mary, do you mean that you could go to your parent as soon as you turn 18, say God has called you to go live with relatives for an extended amount of time and they would support you no questions asked? If God called you to leave to live relatives today, even if it involved missing all these events that they have planned for you, would they allow it? Do they trust that they have raised you up to the point that you can discern God's will for your life? Now, I realize you are only 17, but Mary was most likely younger then you when she left. If you were like Mrs. Webfoot's daughter and felt the call to go teach in another country for a short while, would they support you?

    What of Deborah in the Bible, she was a Godly judge who ruled over people? She is not a model of a SAHW. She worked outside the home and in fact left and went to a battle with Barak. I think that she was included in the Bible to show that it is okay for women to work outside the home if they are called to do so. As long as they don't neglect their home and family, they will not be sinning.

    Jennifer, that sounds horrible! I pray that everyone in your family is better soon.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I think that what both Layla and Jennifer are missing is the fact that God created women for a specific purpose in mind.

    Then, Layla is reading herself into the Dinah story and interpreting it in the light of her experiences. Layla's experiences bear little resemblance to those of Dinah.

    In fact, Layla is taking her experiences and using them to judge others it seems to me. That isn't really fair.


    Then, I am assuming that those who are following the stay at home model are preparing their daughters for marriage. All their education and preparation is aimed at helping young women become the best wives and mothers that they can be. The goal is marriage.

    What is wrong with that?

    ReplyDelete
  87. There's nothing wrong with the traditional interpretations of both Dinah and Deborah, except that it offends the sensibilities of egalitarians. I don't know if Layla is an egalitarian, but she is promoting at least some of their doctrines. Do you realise that, Layla? Do you think that your ideas are coming only from reading Scripture on your own without the influence of so-called "man made" religion?

    As for women leaders in the early church, if you check history, you will see that those women were deaconesses, not pastors. Olympia is one of the best examples of this. She was not a pastor or preacher, but she was a servant in the church under male, patriarchal leadership I might add.

    You see no female priests or Levites in the OT, nor do you see female pastors in the NT. They just aren't there no matter how many games are played with Greek grammar to find them!

    Layla:
    I was speaking of women who have been told their whole lives that they can only be two things, SAHD and wives.>>>>

    Poor dears! They will never reach their full potential!

    Layla:
    What of Deborah in the Bible, she was a Godly judge who ruled over people? She is not a model of a SAHW.>>>>


    So, you think that she moved out of her home so that she could sit under the tree and judge Israel? Where did she sleep at nigh, eat her meals, and so forth if not at home? Remember, at that time, Israel had not king or queen, so to rule Israel had more to do with mediating disputes and giving wise advice to those who needed some guidance. She was not a queen, a priest, or a pastor. She didn't leave home, either.


    Layla:
    She worked outside the home and in fact left and went to a battle with Barak.>>>>

    Some think that Barak may have been her husband! You are reading the feminist ideal back into a patriarchal culture. You may not realize that, but you are following the frminist interpretaion of this passage.

    She was one judge of many and the only female. Why not see her from that perspective and in her own cultural context? You take her out of the Bible and try to make her sound like an egalitarian feminist!

    She was not. She was a patriarchal wife and a mother in Israel. She did not go into battle as if she took up arms herself. She accompanied Barak as an advisor, but she didn't really think it was a good idea. She submitted to him, actually, since he was the military leader of the people of Israel. Put her in her own historical and cultural context and you will get a different picture of her. Women did not go to war, and Deborah knew that her role as a woman did not include heading out to the battlefield. That was men's work. Barak persuaded her and she submitted to him.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Layla:
    I think that she was included in the Bible to show that it is okay for women to work outside the home if they are called to do so.>>>>


    So, you do recognize that the home is the woman's place of service to God unless He calls her to do something else in addition to caring for her own household. The "mother in Israel" did not reject her God-given role in order to judge Israel. There is no evidence that Deborah neglected her family, or that she had small children at home.

    Home is her place of dominion, IOW. You see that don't you?

    In fact, most women missionaries are wives and mothers first - just as pastors' wives are. Most missionary women are wives of missionaries. Most missionary women are following their husbands to the field. They are submitting to their husbands who are following God's will. Yes, most missionary wives will also say that they were called to be missionaries, but the follow their husband's lead.

    What they do as far as outside ministry goes is in addition to, not instead of, their higher sacred calling to be help meet to their husbands and mothers to their children. Yes, they minister as a team on the field.

    Trust me. I know how it works.

    Of course, single missionaries have more time to serve outside the home. The truth is, though, that MOST single missionaries don't stay that way very long.


    Layla:
    As long as they don't neglect their home and family, they will not be sinning.>>>>

    If they don't work outside the home, will they be sinning? What is wrong with a young woman staying at home until she marries and then staying at home after she marries?

    What is wrong with the stay at home daughter and stay at home wife model?


    Remember, staying at home doesn't mean never leaving the house, never earning money to supplement the family's income, or never traveling to other places.

    Rebekah here even traveled on an airplane without her parents. Our daughter never did that until she was in her 20s, and even then we left her at the airport and our colleagues met her on the other end. We also picked her up.

    Airports and airplanes are some of the safest places on the face of the earth, now, because of all the security measures in place.

    Maybe we have followed the stay at home daughter model a lot more than I thought! We could have done more in the way of marriage preparation.

    ReplyDelete
  89. "Egalitarianism is indeed a form of feminist theology"

    No it isn't, and it isn't bad theology. I understand what you mean as far as saying "comp position=patriarchy, egal position=feminism", but it still isn't true. Try reading Joanne Krupp's book for a better understanding, or at least the introduction.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Well-said, Layla. And Mary was actually 14!

    Thank you so for your nice prayers :)

    ReplyDelete
  91. Mrs. Webfoot, you're speaking erroneously again. Deborah did not submit to Barak at all; she marched into battle with him and helped lead it. Why is this so threatening to you? Do you think you're reading the Scripture without the man-made patriarchal lens influencing it?

    We don't play games with Greek grammar, Donna; we don't need to when it comes to Deborah. I read her story after only reading the patriarchal twist on it and it was VERY clear to me. No matter what, you feel the need to force patriarchal shades on EVERYTHING. It doesn't work that way. Women still go to war, and many fought in history; you need to accept this and respect them.

    "Poor dears! They will never reach their full potential!"

    Your scathing sarcasm is unnecessary and frankly foolish, since it will NOT help these women reach their full potential and this is a serious matter.

    "She was not a pastor or preacher, but she was a servant in the church under male, patriarchal leadership I might add"

    You still don't see, as most patriarchals don't, what pastorship really is. I suggest you read "Rethinking the Wineskin". And don't you know what preaching means? It quite often means teaching the Word to others, including men, which many women are allowed to do everywhere-except the church.

    "I think that what both Layla and Jennifer are missing is the fact that God created women for a specific purpose in mind"

    Yes-serving Him, as men do. Deborah's role WAS to judge Israel.

    "What is wrong with a young woman staying at home until she marries and then staying at home after she marries?"

    You don't seem to listen: we've said, repeatedly, that there's nothing wrong with it provided that it's HER choice too.

    Layla isn't judging anyone, but you persist in judging her in a situation you know nothing about.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Mrs. Webfoot, I never said that the SAHD/W model was wrong. Just that not all women were called to do that life. There is nothing wrong with that model if that is what they feel is God's call for their life. And yes, some women will not reach their full potential if they are forced to be SAHD when God is calling them elsewhere.

    Deborah's husband was Lappidoth, not Barak. I agree there is no evidence that Deborah neglected her home by having a job outside her home, that was kind of my point. Women who work outside the home are not automatically neglecting it.

    I also agree that most single women missionaries do get married at some point to other missionaries, but not all are called to marriage. Some women are called by God to remain single and to serve as missionaries. Not all women are called to remain at home, some are called to leave and go serve God in other locations.

    I personally lived at home till I was 25. I worked full-time and went to college at night full-time, but I was living at home. I left when I felt that God wanted me to move to a location where I would be able to serve in the community better then I would my parent's house. My current location make it possible for me to have Bible studies and offer emotional/finacial/spiritual support to in a community that doesn't have a lot of Christian influence.

    Like I said before, there is nothing wrong with the stay at home daughter or wife model, I just don't agree that God calls all women to that model. Some women are called to leave home single and some are called to work outside the home after marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Layla, what I don't see in what you are saying is an understaning of God's design for women. What was God thinking when He created woman? What was His stated purpose in making Eve? Is Eve the design that God has for all women, or was she just one woman who happened to be called by God to be a help meet to a specific man?


    That is the crux of the matter, IMO. Does Eve's example of being created to be help meet and companion to Adam and the mother of all living say anything to you and to me as women? Is Eve's life to be the prototype for all women?

    I believe that she is the model woman and that all women are daughters of Eve. We get our programming as women from our first parents, especially from Eve. We are Eve. If so, in what ways?

    If so, then what about single women or those who never marry?

    I think that the best treatment of God's High Calling for Women was done by John MacArtur. I will reference it again because 1.) Rebekah references it in one of her papers 2.) it used to annoy me no end when I was more egalitarian in my thinking, though not so much in how I actually lived 3.) I think that he understands God's high calling for women better than most do.

    Would you read it? It will make you mad.
    :-) I'm smiling because it made me mad for a long time! I'm not making fun of you, but rather laughing at myself.

    It's a 4 part series based on 1 Timothy 2:9-15.

    1. God's High Calling for Women - Part 1 - 1 Timothy 2:9

    http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/54-14.HTM

    2. Part 2 - vv. 10,11

    http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/54-15.HTM

    3. Part 3 - v. 11 again

    http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/54-16.HTM

    4. Part 4 - v. 12-15

    http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/54-17.htm

    ReplyDelete
  94. Jennifer:
    Your scathing sarcasm is unnecessary and frankly foolish, since it will NOT help these women reach their full potential and this is a serious matter.>>>

    Some of what is said in opposition to this model that does not deserve respect.


    So, where will these poor benighted women find fulfillment and be able to reach their full potential?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Layla makes perfect sense and deserves respect, Mrs. Webfoot. So do the girls who suffer from being told they're made for men. John MacAurthur understands very little about women, less than many complimentarians, in fact.

    "If so, then what about single women or those who never marry?"

    "So, where will these poor benighted women find fulfillment and be able to reach their full potential?"

    In GOD, Mrs. Webfoot. In whatever calling HE has for them. In the knowledge that they are His daughters, in His image, not in any earthly relationship. What about single women? Why are you even asking this? God has plans for them too. No one has disagreed thus far that not every woman is meant to marry.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Let me clarify, Jennifer. The idea that I was mocking is that young women who stay at home are oppressed and will end up uneducated and miserable, which is what you seemed to be implying. You and I do not seem to have the same concept of what obedience is. It seems as though you cannot imagine that a young adult woman could be free and at the same time living at home in obedience to her parents' wishes. Am I right?

    I say that she can be both free and obedient. She can be mature and wise even if she never leaves her father's home.

    The example of Corrie Ten Boom has been appealed to, and actually, she is an excellent example of the stay at home daughter. She never would have left home if it had not been for the holocaust! She was in her 50s if I remember right when she "left home!" Was she benighted, immature, and repressed? I don't think so!

    ReplyDelete
  97. Jennifer,

    You wrote, "I'm glad you know about the early women of the church! This happened in even the most strict of circles and the reason is that they saw support in Scripture for such practices; church used to consist of people fellowshipping, not one man ruling all others. People like the Botkins insist on relating EVERYTHING supporting female leaders to feminism and this angers me. Unless they'd wish to call the Bible and its female leaders feministic, this is an emotional and subjective falsehood." First, the early church father I mentioned before was ousted for his Gnostic and feministic beliefs by the other church fathers because of the fact that they did not see women pastors as approved in the Bible. As Mrs. Webfoot said, there were no women priests or pastors. There were likewise no women apostles. There is a certain kind of Biblical female leadership (i.e. teaching and training other women -Titus 2:4-5), and the Botkin sisters (very dear and kind ladies, by the way) agree with this. But, as I will post about in the near future, there are other areas of leadership that are not appropriate for women Biblically speaking.

    I am so sorry to hear that your family is not doing well! :( I'll definitely be praying that they would feel better soon, hopefully prior to your visit with your grandma! It's no fun to be sick. It seems like oftentimes, the pollen of springtime brings the sniffles! Mama and Andrew are a little under the weather right now due to the pollen.

    Thanks for letting us know about your family, so that we could pray for them! :)

    Rebekah
    ~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mrs. Webfoot,

    You're so right-feminist philosophies have heavily infiltrated everything, and everyone has been influenced thereby in one way or another. I, myself, was at one time rather feministic in some ways.

    As to His revealed will, I was speaking, in that comment, of His Word, the Bible. Of course, His will is made evident to people now, as well, as when my father felt that it was the Lord's will that we move.

    Thanks for the question!
    Rebekah
    ~~~~~~~~~~

    ReplyDelete
  98. Layla,

    It sounds as if we will all have a busy weekend! :) That works out well.

    I'm glad you see and acknowledge that there are indeed great courtships. Some are so set against courtship (perhaps at least partially because they hold to some misconceptions about it), that they are unwilling to acknowledge that courtship has led to very joyous marriages.

    No, it would not at all be no questions asked. They would want to know what I was feeling and why. They wouldn't simply send me out, not knowing where I'm going or what I would be doing! But Daddy sees in the Scriptures that it is his responsibility (and Mama's) to protect me until he gives me in marriage. Likewise, I see that I am called in the Scriptures to be a polished cornerstone in his home until marriage. They definitely trust me and trust the way in which they have descipled me. That does not do away with our responsibilities, however. I will therefore be a stay-at-home daughter until marriage. And, yes, Mary was indeed younger than I am.

    As to Deborah, I won't go into everything that I could now, as I haven't the time (I'm getting ready for the retreat, studying for a test I have to take before I go, etc.) and will elaborate on her in an upcoming article series on women rulers. But, I will point out a few things since you brought it up and asked about her. First, she was not a civil magistrate. She gave advice and judged in arguments, etc., dispensing her wisdom. She was not serving as a ruler (as in civil magistrate) so much as she was a judge, as it says. Second, verse 5 of Jud. 4 says that she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah and people came to her for judgment. She was, in all likelihood, at home! People came to her. She was under her own palm tree and it sounds like her tent was there (people usually dwelt in tents, with a nomadic type of lifestyle then). So, I would not place her as an example of a woman working outside her home. Third, she rebuked Barak for not leading as he himself should. Fourth, she ruled during a terrible time. She was raised up when men did what was right in their own eyes and didn't heed God's Word. Fifth, she did not want to go to the battle and did finally submit to Barak when he kept insisting that she go to help him. And, sixth, she did not actively engage in the battle, fighting, herself.

    You said, "Some women are called to leave home single and some are called to work outside the home after marriage." Honestly, I don't see examples of this in the Scriptures. Nor do I even see women being called to be missionaries on their own. In the Scriptures, I see men being called and men and women ministering together to people, but not women on their own.

    Blessings to you,
    Rebekah
    ~~~~~~~~~~

    P.S. I have also been planning to do some articles on the topic of women in leadership positions in the church, so stay tuned! :)

    ReplyDelete
  99. Corrie Ten Boom was living as an ADULT, Webfoot. Once again: you don't expect your daughter to obey you, do you? That's certainly not what you said.

    "The idea that I was mocking is that young women who stay at home are oppressed and will end up uneducated and miserable"

    Um, no; you were mocking the idea that women who are taught they're to be nothing other than wives and mothers are repressed, which they ARE. This is not the role, or only role, of every woman.

    On your own blog, Webfoot, when I agreed that women should be treated as adults and complied with your request to give you a source proving the extreme tactics of certain patriarchals, you suddenly asked me for Scriptural proof that we should make our own decisions, of all things. I asked you in turn for Scriptural proof that we SHOULDN'T and asked why you were asking this since you let your daughter do that very thing, but you refused to answer or even post my question; I think you had no answer, or perhaps didn't realize you were contradicting yourself. I then unnecessarily answered your question in detail, which you still didn't post (perhaps you haven't gotten it yet). Here it is again: the Bible often speaks by EXAMPLE and what better example is there than by God Himself? HE gives us power to make our own decisions!! This is simply called free will. He commanded several in the Bible to follow His instructions, but they had the choice to obey; Joseph chose to stand by Mary, Mary chose to obey God's plan. The Bible says to train up a child in the way he will go, not the way you will take him. Here too is an excerpt from the article of a heavily complementarian man who speaks against this adult-ruling attitude. Here, he's quoting and answering a woman named Anna:

    ""Does the Bible say, "at the age of 18, daughters are no longer under the authority of their parents"? No, no and *no*."

    Perhaps, but the Bible does lay out some distinctions as to what age a person becomes an adult. There's a world of difference, Anna, between staying home and behaving like a young teenager who's still under her father's authority:


    Exodus 30:14 (38:26; Leviticus 27:3) Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD.

    Numbers 1:3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.

    Numbers 14:29 Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me.

    By the time a person's twenty, male or female, their parents should have allowed and encouraged them to make their own life choices."

    ReplyDelete
  100. Rebekah, there were women in powerful positions that they're denied now in the early church; some of my older and wiser friends were just telling me this and giving links. It's debated whether there were in fact female ministers and pastors in the Bible. I think the Botkins are very misled and often unkind in their beliefs. Also, Deborah did have a position as judge and one of authority. She didn't submit to Barak, but complied with him. Even John MacArthur praised her and didn't speak of her as a mere replacement for weak males. Of course, her authority wasn't of a "ruling over" type; the simple reason for this is that spiritually ruling over someone is not approved of in the Bible. Most comps don't even understand what egals are really fighting for! It ain't hierarchal power.

    Thanks so for your sweet prayers :)

    ReplyDelete
  101. I agree with you Rebekah, and almost said that Deborah was likely right at home when people came to her. I also agree that it is not correct to call her a ruler. Israel's only ruler at that time was God.

    Yes, she did rebuke Barak. She went with him under protest. She did not take up arms herself, nor was it her idea to go to where the battle was being waged.

    Then, the subject of single women missionaries has been brought up. I would like to point out that many single lady missionaries who feel called of God to the field gladly give up their single status and even their ministries in order to marry. So, then, which calling do they believe to be higher and more sacred? That of serving God single, and exercising their gifts in their own ministries, or that of marrying and having children?


    There is a hierarchy of callings, IOW. The Gospel call is the very highest. Then comes family. Then comes vocation or service in the church. That is as true of missionaries as it is of anyone.

    Single lady missionaries minister almost exclusively to women and children. There are many single missionary midwives, nurses, and children's workers. Others are in administration and hospitality. Others run orphanages and schools. Many that I know are teachers in schools for MKs. IOW, they exercise their gifts in ways that help families, especially women and children, even if they do not have families of their own.

    They don't head for the field, either, without the permission of their parents.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Jennifer, who said this?

    "By the time a person's twenty, male or female, their parents should have allowed and encouraged them to make their own life choices."

    You do realize that these young people were considered to be adults since most of them by that age were married?


    Then, what life choices did the young people in the passages you mentioned have? Their life choices consisted in "should I marry this person or that person"?

    You will not find our kind of society on the pages of Scripture! Then, by age 20, our young people should be ready to get married.

    The stay at home daughter model is the best way to acomplish that goal of preparedness for marriage and family life.

    Again, Jennifer, understand. We did NOT follow the stay at home daughter model. I have said that many times.


    None of you are able to undermine anything that Rebekah is saying, though. All your arguments are demolished by a 17 year old girl! I love it! All you can say is that for her, it may be a good thing, but it is not for everyone. You can't refute her at all!

    Do I wish we had followed it? I kind of do, actually. I love what Rebekah is saying, and find it to be Biblical.

    We followed a modified stay at home daughter pattern, since our 25 year-old is still at home! ...and still single... I WISH she were getting married.

    In fact, you are still at home, Jennifer, so I can't quite figure out your objections. I hope that God gives you a husband soon, and that you feel happy and fulfilled at home until that time. I think that you will make a good wife and mother if God gives you that joy.

    Hey, don't get so upset with me! Please?

    Then, why don't the ones who are "older and wiser" join the discussion. See if they can knock holes in Rebekah's Biblical arguments. You've not been able to.

    Take care, okay? and God bless,
    Mrs. Webfoot

    ReplyDelete
  103. On second thought, I suppose it could be said that Deborah "submitted" to Barak.

    Rebekah, thanks for all your clarifications. Please don't feel like you need to explain to me the reasons why you believe what you do, regarding female leadership etc; I and every seasoned egal knows what reasons the comps have and even the disagreements among them. I'm happy to listen, I just don't want you to think you have to spend a lot of time explaining yourself. I do respect your position and don't disagree with your choice to stay home; you clearly have a very mature mind and a healthy view of courtship and parental relationships. I wanted you to know that, in case my dissenting words were becoming discouraging :)

    ReplyDelete
  104. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Well, I think I've run out of things to say, believe it or not! I appreciate the fact that you young ladies are thinking these issues through.

    I suspect that somday we will hear about Jennifer's husband and children - as well as the books she is writing or has published.

    I suspect that someday we will hear the same thing about Rebekah.

    You are wonderful young women of God, and I love to see your passion for the things of God. It is refreshing, actually - though Jennifer and I fight like good sisters often do!

    I love both of you, and would be proud to be your mother.

    Layla, I am impressed by your love for God and your desire to serve Him. You have been through a very hard situation, and God is working even that for good in your life. It is so good to hear how God is leading you towards marriage. May He richly bless you!

    Anna, you did a wonderful job on those passages.

    What a joy to meet all of you! I think I'll let you young people talk among yourselves. You are special and blessed indeed! Keep digging deep into God's Word.

    It has been a pleasure indeed!



    God bless,
    Mrs. Webfoot

    ReplyDelete
  106. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Thanks for your kind wishes, Mrs. Webfoot. I hope to marry soon too; we'll see how soon God wants me to be a mommy, though. Enjoy your daughter's single years, they'll be gone all too soon. Maybe she'll meet her mate while she's off getting her Master's degree; our pastor's daughter met hers while on her missionary work and married at 27. Her brother married sooner and lived at home for his later single years until he did.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Hi Rebekah,

    I'd be interested on your views on the passage in 2 Samuel 13 vv 10-22, (the rape of Tamar by Amnon) especially in the light of what Mrs Webfoot implied about not being a SAHD putting young women at risk of rape/coercion.

    It seems clear to me that Tamar was, in fact, at home, and performing her duties as a daughter - providing food for the family. However even her being at home did not protect her from rape.

    This story is also interesting in the light of Deuteronomy 12 vv 23-27 about the rules relating to culpability in rape cases. Deuteronomy indicates that a girl raped in town is CULPABLE because she does not cry out (despite the fact that many rape victims are deliberately silenced!) However Tamar is not considered culpable and stoned to death: and it is clear that although the whole issue is 'hushed up' (see Absalom's comments about it in the passage)any retribution that will be dished out will be dished out to Amnon. (Although Tamar is not exonerated to the point that her reputation is restored :I would be interested to know if you think it could/should be.)

    Quite incidentally, and referring again to the Deuteronomy passage, the fact that the rules for rape when a girl is in the country (and therefore cannot be heard when she cries out) are different, or in fact, that they are there at all, do imply that it was suficiently usual procedure for a young girl to be working outside her home, and on her own in a lonely place, for a deterrent to be put in place for potential rapists.

    It also imples that this working outside the home, alone, (the girls must have been alone or the 'being heard when she cries out' rule would surely be the same as the rule for in the town)was sanctioned by the elders, and regarded as an appropriate use of the girls' labour.

    I'd be interested in your take on this. I hope you enjoy your retreat/conference etc.

    I'm English so I'm not good at doing the 'blessings' stuff: it doesn't fit my cultural or personal mores to be very 'sweet' in my language, and it would feel false to me to do it, although I understand that your ways of using language are more effusive than mine. (That is not a criticism!)

    I hope you appreciate this if I come across as rather stiff or serious.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Hi, Rebekah. I'm sorry, either my computer or Google is acting like a piece of JUNK. I can't delete one of my comments; it just asks me to sign in repeatedly with no results! Right now, in general I can sign in, but not when I want to delete a comment. Would you please delete my second-to-last comment to Mrs. Webfoot? It was made on the 23rd at 11:57 pm. I'll refrain from commenting on this thread until then to avoid confusion. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  110. Thanks, Rebekah ;) Things are working normally now.

    Thank you for your wonderfully kind words, Mrs. Webfoot; they are deeply appreciated. I decided to delete my detailed response to your last post before that one, since I don't think anyone else would require me to repeat myself again.

    Well-said, anon. I'm sure Rebekah holds Tamar to no fault, but some of the things you mentioned absolutely enrage me. The man-made laws in Deuteronomy are indeed signs of disgusting patriarchy; men were just so IGNORANT! Urgh. This is why I don't care to heed or repeat the treatment of women in Biblical times. Jesus was counter-cultural for a reason: He didn't like man's ways.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Well, I agree Mrs. Webfoot, there really isn't a whole lot left to say! But I have to say that after visiting your blog, I am frankly baffled by why we have been in disagreement about the SAHD model. It appears that you have raised your daughter to be a Godly young woman and that you have supported her as she has followed the will of God even though that has involved her leaving home and going to college. That is what I've been saying, parents should support their adult children, not force them to stay at home if they feel called to leave.
    If I understand Rebekah correctly, she does not support letting your daughter go teach in Spain or go off to college. If I am wrong, Rebekah, correct me.
    So it appears that your beliefs are more in line with mine then with Rebekah's, yet you have been arguing against what you are doing with your daughter. I've been arguing for the model that you are currently living: Women should live at home unless they feel call to go elsewhere. Girls should not be raised to believe that being a SAHD is the only option. It is obvious that is how you raised your daughter since she left to become a teacher.
    So again, I'm just baffled.

    ReplyDelete
  112. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Hi Rebekah,

    have you ever read a book called "In My Father's House" by Tamara and Naomi Valine?? It looks lovely, containing older writings encouraging daughters who choose to stay at home, but I need to know whether it condemns those who don't. Thanks

    ReplyDelete

Hi!! Thank you so much for visiting my blog! Please come back often. Thank you for your comment as well; your input is always most welcome! Even if you disagree with something, I encourage you to leave a comment; I just ask that you do so in a loving and Christ-like manner.

God bless you!

~Rebekah S.