How We Raise Our Daughters

by lora on November 1, 2007 at 1:10 am

There has been a great deal of conversation on various blogs recently discussing “hyper-patriarchy.” While reading many of the comments and assessments, it occurred to me that if others were to view my family from the outside looking in, they might believe that our convictions lie in that camp. I have spent the last few days mulling this over and scrutinizing why I believe what I do, and trying to put my thoughts into words. In this series of articles, there are some things I will and won’t do. I will not be naming names of proponents of various ideas, or linking to blogs that have discussions going on– I just don’t want to get into that. I will do my best to be complete in my thoughts and reasonings, though you may have to wait for subsequent articles to get the whole picture. I seldom ever have one reason for what I do. Usually there is a plethora of reasons. If I use “I” in this series, understand that Gene and I have come to these decisions together, and by no stretch of the imagination have “I” come to them alone. Gene and I have few things that we truly disagree on, and usually the disagreement is based on semantics.

One of the first things that struck me on these sites was the use of labels flying around. There are all types of descriptions: hyper-patriarchy, patriarchy on steroids, over-sheltering, feminism, humanism, etc. I have a problem with labels and boxes, because they never seem to fit just right. For instance, I am Reformed in my theology… to a point. I utterly and completely agree with the 5 Points of Calvinism… but don’t call me a Calvinist, as that implies that I agree with all of his teachings. I’m not reformed in my eschatology by a long shot, I don’t believe in dominion theology, and I’m not a paedobaptist… I believe strongly in credo-baptism. If you put me in the “Reformed” box, there is so much you don’t know about me. I wouldn’t even know where to begin with a label for myself in regards to doctrine… so I’ll just call myself a Biblicist. I take the scriptures to be totally inerrant and believe them to be literal, unless a passage is obviously figurative, and I strive to do my best to apply what I have read to my life. I believe some of the problems which scripture addresses were cultural problems, but I also believe too many people dismiss what they don’t like based on that premise.

We began homeschooling Lindsay when she was 5 ½ , after having her in public school for 3 months. I had entertained the thought of homeschooling before putting Lindsay in school, but at that time we had only two girls, and I wanted my “freedom”. We pulled Lindsay out of school after she was molested by two older boys in her class (at times when the teacher was in the room). It was a very hard and traumatic time, but the Lord brought us through it. After we started homeschooling we began to examine many areas in our life to see if they lined up with scripture or were they based upon the traditions of man. Many times we do things because “that’s the way it’s always been done,” without ever giving thought to the validity or the consequences of the action. Since becoming aware of this, we have striven to examine all that we do in the context of scripture.

We have had many conflicts based upon the convictions we have, from both family and friends. Looking from the outside in, things can be misconstrued, and misunderstood. Often people make assumptions based on what they “think” you believe, without ever taking the time to find out why you do something; I’m sure this has happened with our family many times. I know that several times people would make a comment about me “judging” them because they didn’t homeschool, when in actuality, it really didn’t matter to me. For years we were the only homeschooling family in a church of 1,000; there was only one other family having lots of kids, and we restricted the activities in which our kids participated within the church. Though I never said a word about homeschooling (other than to say that we did homeschool) or any of our other convictions to the people I went to church with, they still said they felt judged. My personal belief is they were feeling conviction, and were blaming me instead of dealing with it.

We have many convictions that do not meet the standard of normal, as many would see it. But our calling isn’t to be normal. It’s to follow Christ as closely as we can, doing all that we can to conform to His image. I will briefly discuss why we have these convictions, some of which I will more fully explain later.

One conviction that we have that has come under fire online in these recent discussions is that our daughters will stay under our roof until they are married. We have many reasons for this, some of which I will list here. We don’t feel that it is good for any person to live alone. The reasons for this are many, but a few of them are: safety; we believe that God didn’t intend for us to be solitary; and accountability. We have been asked, “What if they don’t marry?” The answer is that they can live with us forever. Our daughter Sarah will be doing this because of her disabilities, and our other daughters are free to do this as well. Our daughters don’t see this as restrictive or unkind, but as loving. How unloving is it to say to your child, “When you are 20, you either go to college or get a job and move out.” We love our children and love being with them. We are all best friends. I am so blessed that God gave me 5 daughters to be great friends with for the rest of my life. Don’t get me wrong… I don’t believe in being “buddies” with your kids to the point of not parenting, but my girls are now older, and deep loving friendships are growing.

Our daughters will not go to college. We believe that God’s role for a woman is to be a wife and mother, and a college degree is not necessary for that. The college atmosphere is not God honoring, even at most Christian universities. I know many adults who went to “Christian” universities who tell what party schools they were. We are told in Ps 1:1 not to sit in the counsel of the ungodly, and the truth is the university system regards those with a conservative, Christian worldview to be narrow-minded and unintelligent. (I will delve into this topic in greater depth later)

Our daughters will not have jobs in the general marketplace (unless there was some dire unforeseen circumstance). This is a conviction, and we don’t believe that others who let their daughters have jobs are in sin (just as a point of clarification). We believe it is our job to protect our daughters from potential abuse and mistreatment, and by them working under a non-Christian man and having to answer to him (in essence giving him authority over her) she loses that protection. Our daughters are free to have home businesses, or a business where they might have a booth somewhere (craft show, farmer’s market ) and we see that modeled in the Bible. Not having a job also gives them the freedom to minister to others as the need arises.

Another area that was attacked online, which falls into one of our convictions, is women going into the mission field alone. I know that there were women who did this and did great things, but I can’t base my convictions on what someone else has done. I have one place to look and that is scripture. This is another thing I won’t call sin, I would describe it more in terms of “not the best”. Part of this conviction also comes from my belief in raising indigenous pastors as opposed to sending tons of missionaries to live in other countries.

We have strong convictions in regards to the type of church we will attend. We have tried to work within the classical church (those not focused on homeschooling and family integrated), churches that had homeschoolers but weren’t family integrated, homechurch, and a family integrated church. We are currently attending a family integrated church which we enjoy greatly, but because it is nearly an hour away, it prevents us from ministering in the way we feel we should. We are in deep study over what church is and should be and how that should be worked out in our lives, so therefore we don’t have any firm conclusions on what we will do in the future in regard to this.

We will only homeschool our children, and all of our girls feel the same way for their future families. The benefits to homeschooling are numerous, as are the detriments of the public school system. We homeschool for a myriad of reasons, some of which are: the ability to train our children in God’s way; being able to meet their individual educational and spiritual needs; and we just love being with our kids. I can’t imagine only getting a couple of hours with them a day… and they can’t imagine being separated from each other for most of the day.

Our educational system would best be described as unschooling/delight-directed studies, with a dash of Charlotte Mason thrown in. Once again, the boxes and labels really don’t work. I have always been adverse to the duplicating of the public school model, and the classical model. I have found that my children don’t operate to their best ability in that setting.

We believe that girls should dress modestly. This does not mean in Georgian or Victorian clothing as there is nothing more modest or holy about clothes from a past period in history. My girls love to dress in historical costumes and period pieces, when appropriate. They have also modeled some of their contemporary clothes after historical dress, but we don’t feel as some do that you have to dress in such a way to be more spiritual. We also don’t believe it is a sin to wear pants, as some do. We encourage the girls to wear dresses most of the time, wearing pants when appropriate.

We are selective in what the girls read, but not hyper-restrictive. Lindsay, 22, can read what she wants, but doesn’t choose to read trash. I think it’s important to note that Lindsay has a lot of freedom of choice about what to watch and read. She has shown herself to be very discerning and level headed, not wishing to read and watch things that are inappropriate.

We believe in courtship, not dating. Courtship is a very vague term and doesn’t have a set definition or way that it works out. We don’t believe in “the Biblical” way to go about courtship. We are just trusting the Lord to direct us in this. We have come to see over the last couple of years that each situation is different, and to try to set in stone rules about how it will and won’t work out is sheer folly. Along this line, Lindsay regularly communicates with guys and girls who are homeschool grads via HSA and has made great friendships. We have found that when the parents are too restrictive over guys and girls talking to one another, it really just breeds more confusion and heartache. When they are allowed to be friends, without the pressures of dating and boyfriend/girlfriend being present, things seem to work much better.

We have strong convictions about family evangelism. Evangelism is one of the core teachings in our family. We take the girls out to hand out tracts and Lindsay has gone to Mexico (with supervision) and has gone witnessing on the streets with Gene.

We shelter our girls, but not as many do. Many teach that anyone who isn’t a Christian is our enemy and evil. While God’s wrath does abide upon those who are not His due to their fallen state, as Christians, we are to love everyone and have compassion on them. We teach our girls, and they see first hand when out witnessing, that there are many in this world who are lost and need Christ. Those that are living in nice homes driving fancy cars are in the same eternal desperate straits as the drunk homeless man on the street. It isn’t the environment or outward appearance that seals your eternal destiny, but the condition of your heart. Some would be appalled that we let our children see the dregs of society, much less have a conversation with them, but how are they going to learn compassion for them, if they aren’t allowed to practice compassion? What better way for them to learn it than when they have their parents there to protect them?

Since it is Halloween as I am writing, I want to share an incident that was related to me. This shows how some are not teaching/showing Christ’s love or compassion to others. A friend told of how he would take his child into Wal-Mart at this time of year. As they would go near the Halloween section, the child would begin to state that Halloween was “evil” and “wicked” in a very loud voice. They thought that it was great that their child has such a love for God. He turned out to be a pastor and his parents proudly tell this story as an example of how God was using him as a small child. Ya know what, he does the same thing as an adult. He told one man that his wife dressed like a temple harlot because she wore long shorts around their house. This is in no way exhibiting the love of Christ. When the woman (who was a sinner) anointed Christ’s feet with oil, did He say, “get away, you sinner?” No, he showed her compassion and love. It was the Pharisee who judged her. What picture of Christ was portrayed by that child shouting, “evil” and “wicked” in Wal-Mart? Did his heart break for those who were lost, or did he heap condemnation on them? I’m not saying that we sugar coat sin; we don’t. Homosexuality is wrong, and my children know that, but it is not necessary to tell a gay person, “God hates homosexuality.” You know what else God hates? A proud heart. This encounter Gene had while witnessing will make my point. Gene was standing on a corner in downtown Houston when a gay couple approached him. Gene offered them a tract and one of them said, “I suppose you are going to tell me I’m going to hell because I’m gay?” Gene said with sincerity, “No, I’m not. You’ll go to hell for being a liar, a thief, and a murderer at heart.”* He was then able to share the full gospel with the man, who listened intently. The truth is, it’s not our actions that condemn us, but our hearts. Our actions are just an outward manifestation of what our hearts are like.

We are very careful of our daughters’ associates, and they are becoming more and more discerning in this area as well. We have seen first hand the devastation a wrong acquaintance can cause. We have seen friends sway our daughters’ minds, encouraging them to do things they knew were wrong. When they were removed from the influence of this friend and things were shown to them according to scripture, they were dismayed at the fact that they had been so easily swayed. We have been shown that “Bad company corrupts good morals” is true many times.

I have delineated what our family believes, not implying that those who don’t do it our way are wrong. Nothing could be further from what we believe. It would also be ridiculous to imply I don’t think we are right in what we do. Why would we be doing what we do if we didn’t believe it to be right? The key is that it’s right for our family.

*If you are not familiar with our evangelism ministry and would like to know more about it, you can visit our ministry website.

Other Articles in this series:

The Perfect Family

About College

32 Comments »

  1. Cindy — November 1, 2007 @ 11:11 am

    Dear Lora,
    One of my greatest frustrations in blogging is how many times the things we say imply things to people that we don’t mean. I hate to have to always explain details. Can you believe that I am a 5 point, Presbyterian with a blog named Dominion Family but not a theonomist or Christian Reconstructionist. It has been frustrating for me to say the least and I am not sure how to change my name at this point either.

    I am dead set against this new kind of patriarchy but I also plan to keep my daughter at home until she marries and college is not something we are hoping for her.

    I love the way you are staying the course without jumping on the bandwagon. I think you are wonderful example to all of us.

  2. Lora — November 1, 2007 @ 11:52 am

    Cindy,
    Thank you so much for your sweet and encouraging words. I wish I had some great advice for your name change, and understand your desire to do so.

    In examining labels and boxes, I see so how many times they are used to confine us and misrepresent what we believe.

  3. DeputyHeadmistress — November 3, 2007 @ 3:31 pm

    Lora, thank you for sharing this and for your gracious attitude! I really enjoyed reading this post.

  4. Lisa of Longbourn — November 7, 2007 @ 11:21 pm

    I love this post. For one thing I agreed with so much of what you said, and am relieved to hear of another family pondering these things, from the not fitting in categories, to studying what church is and should be to daughters at home and not at college or on their own in missions… I’m a 22-year-old daughter who lives at home, and would love to correspond with Lindsay, if she’s interested.

    This has just been a great, encouraging post for me to read. Thank you.
    To God be all glory,
    Lisa of Longbourn

  5. lora — November 7, 2007 @ 11:56 pm

    DH,
    Thank you so much for stopping by and I’m thankful that you enjoyed the article.

    Lisa,
    I showed Lindsay your post, and I’m sure she will be contacting you shortly. You can get to her blog at http://blog.wovenandspun.net

  6. Laura A — November 8, 2007 @ 6:05 am

    Lora, this is a lovely and winsome description of your convictions. It says so many things to encourage people who are trying to figure out what to do, without jumping onto any bandwagons. While our family may find different applications in some areas, I agree in my heart with the principles you’ve used. Your post helps me to follow the convictions that my husband and I have developed, in a way that shows compassion for others but doesn’t feel obliged to waffle, either. This has got to be one of the hardest things a Christian family does, so your example is a big help!

    Ironically, I was reading an article recently about children who stay at home after college, and whose parents even go to interviews with them and negotiate their salaries. I was startled to realize that there are many kinds of sheltering out there, some of which have completely different motivations! To me, that just confirms how very important the heart is.

    Thanks!

  7. Gem — November 8, 2007 @ 10:18 am

    I found this post via Amy’s Humble Musings. I really enjoyed your balanced view on the topics. While we don’t teach nor do all the same things you do, it is very enlightening to see your reasoning behind your beliefs. And we can always uses the reminder not to judge a book by its homespun, dresses-only cover, lol.

  8. Lisa — November 8, 2007 @ 11:53 am

    Excellent post! I especially am with you on friends. It’s so heartbreaking to watch the wrong choices. My children talk of wanting to live at home when they are “grown up” [they are 11 and 13] and I say that’s fine.

    As a single parent [I adopted my kids] and cousin of a new widow with 3 kids (who had stayed home all along), I do not happen to agree with your no careers for your daughters, but I thoroughly respect your right to chose that for your children. They are blessed to have parents who have thought about and prayed about their future for them!

    I think too, that while the unChristian boss is a real threat, the Servant employee who ministers [but does not preach] is a true blessing to any workplace. They have been known to change hearts–even in bosses! :) I can think of one young homeschooled woman and all that she did to improve the language and climate in one office I was in.

    In my college days [I did not grow up in a Christian home] I remember a girl, very, very firm in her faith. She went to parties—did not drink, talked with her girl friends and helped those who over did it. She put many a sick teen to bed. Got girls away from guys who weren’t good and just gave silent witness to the ways teens in college SHOULD go. I often wonder how many, like myself, were drawn to God in part by her example. No matter how late she stayed up, at 7:30am Sunday she stepped over bodies in the hall and made her way to Church–often with other girls in tow.

    I look forward to reading more of your writing. I like it when other women take time to really think, pray and write. It helps us all grow. Please do not misunderstand–no criticism intended. Very respectful disagreement only.

  9. Beth — November 8, 2007 @ 1:01 pm

    I agree with many of the things you have said here, but I must object to your plans to not secure any further training or education for your daughters. I pray that everything works out as planned for them and they are able to live with you or be happily married, but all too often, life doesn’t work out that way. You and your husband won’t live forever and you probably won’t be leaving huge trust funds behind. Husbands can die, become ill, disabled, or sadly, even divorce, leaving women alone to raise their children, and perhaps even responsible for their disabled sister as well. Having some skills can make the difference between succeeding through life’s challenges and living on welfare. Please don’t limit your daughters so much that they cannot provide a living for themselves and their children if it ever comes to that. My husband has many health problems and knowing that I have a college degree and the ability to earn a full-time salary if needed gives me more comfort than you can imagine.

  10. Lisa W. — November 8, 2007 @ 3:37 pm

    Hi Lora,

    I came by way of Amy’s link, and thoroughly enjoyed your thought-provoking post. I remember reading about your family’s ministry when Cindy interviewed you on her blog a while back. Our family ministry is to share the gospel also, and we are blessed to be using music as an inroad. It is nice to hear other family’s journeys and how they are searching the scriptures for answers and following the convictions they have developed despite the criticism and misunderstanding of others.

    Blessings to You,
    Lisa Winton

  11. Grafted Branch@Restoring the Years — November 8, 2007 @ 11:11 pm

    Right off the bat, let me assure you that we are kindred spirits; I concur with most all of your opinions about raising daughters. But, WOW! I would be terrified to presume to state so definitely what my girls will or won’t do when they are old enough to choose.

    I can only prayerfully do my part in raising them with accountability to Christ as my motivation.

    And you know, they *will* choose someday. Unless you plan to perpetually kidnap them, they will either choose to submit themselves to your authority Biblically and be blessed, or they will choose not to.

    The Lord bless you and yours…

  12. Lora — November 9, 2007 @ 12:50 am

    Ladies,
    I thank you all for dropping by and commenting, even those who strongly disagree with our decisions.

    Lisa,
    I understand your point of view and didn’t feel you criticized me at all. The Lord has brought us down very different roads and I really appreciated your perspective.

    Beth,
    While you may object, I never said there would be no further training for our daughters, I just said it wouldn’t happen away from home and in the context of the university system. One of the biggest goals of my homeschooling years has been to teach my daughters to love learning, and how to teach themselves whatever they need to know. As an example Lindsay has taught herself:
    Computer programming and web design (she does all of our work for us and is going to be starting her own blog design business)
    To play the guitar, tin whistle, and recorder
    To knit, crochet, and sew
    To make jewelery, just to name a few things.

    Since she has graduated she has in no way stopped learning, and I teach my girls to continue learning all of their lives. I will cover some of your other points in a further post, but just wanted to hit on this now.

    Grafted Branch,
    I can say with certainty what I have said because I know my daughters and their hearts. They have all been soundly saved and have the same goals and desires that we do. None of them have any desire to do any differently. Not because they don’t have a choice, but because this is also the desire of their hearts. And no, I would never kidnap my children to control them ;-) ; in our home it isn’t a matter of control. I wish you could hear it from their hearts, because they are in tune with us. I will have more on that in a future post also.

    Once again thank you all for your comments!

  13. Brea from Texas — November 9, 2007 @ 6:02 am

    Hi Lora, I found you through Amy, and wanted to say thank you for posting this article! I know many people who feel as you do, yet these people always come off as raving lunatics because they cannot comprehend why others wouldn’t feel the same as they do, and feel the need to beat these other people about the head with their beliefs. I love the way you’ve presented your convictions.

    I think I agree with you on all of your points. I’m trying to think of something I didn’t agree with, but it’s not coming to me right now. :) You have inspired a post I’m in the process of writing, so thank you.

    I opened this link yesterday evening, with the intention of sitting down and reading it when the kids went to bed. I came up at one point, and my husband was sitting at the computer, reading. I quietly crept away, and he was awfully quiet last night after he finished. There are some things in your post that we’ve never talked about, or talked about many years ago before we had a girl (like college) with different opinions, so I’m hoping that this will bring about some good conversations.

    I look forward to going back through some of your archives in the next few weeks.

    In Christ, ~Brea, the tinymama

  14. terry — November 9, 2007 @ 1:22 pm

    Hi. I found you via the link at Amy’s Humble Musings. I so admire the thought and care you have put into expressing what you believe and why. I love the point you made about people thinking they know what you’re thinking when in fact they don’t. I, like you, are raising my daughters to embrace lives as wives and mothers rather than conforming to societal trends. And while I may not adopt all of the methods you espouse in getting them there, I respect and admire your courage of conviction. It is so needed in the church today. As we attend a church with few SAHM and were raised in a community (the African-American community) where SAHM are virtually nonexistent, it is always encouraging for me to read the thoughts of other women whose hearts mirror my own. God bless you.

  15. Lora — November 9, 2007 @ 1:49 pm

    Brea & Terry,

    Thank you for your kind and encouraging words!

    For those of you linking to me from another site, I have posted part two of my series. It’s titled, The Perfect Family.

  16. Cathy — November 11, 2007 @ 2:28 pm

    Hi Lora,

    I read your posts through a link on “Amy’s Humble Musings.” I have commented on her site before, but am only familiar with your blog as a result of reading hers.

    I applaud your efforts to raise your daughters in the ways of God. While I we probably haven’t raised our kids with the same philosophies, our goal has been/is the same, i.e., to raise the two (of ten) that I have left at home, to walk in the faith. My husband and I have done that with all ten and we trust that God will give us the desired results.

    You are free to raise your daughters in the way that you believe God intends. That is laudable, but I guess I would urge you to be careful when you reply as you did to Grafted Branch: “I can say with certainty what I have said because I know my daughters and their hearts.” How can you possibly know their hearts? You may see indications of what’s in their hearts, but there is no guarantee in this business of raising children. How do you know that they won’t stray from the faith? How do you know that God won’t allow that to happen so that you depend on Him more? The answer is that you don’t. We are to be obedient to God, but the results are His–alone.

    We live in a fallen world and ANYTHING can happen. The following line from “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing” is representative of every Christian I’ve ever known, including me: “Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it, Prone to leave the God I love.”

    I hope, Lora, that your plans for your daughters come to fruition. But, if they don’t, then God can bring them through that, as well. After all, He is the One who has the Master plan.

    In His Grace,

    Cathy

  17. Jennifer Dages — November 11, 2007 @ 7:50 pm

    Great Post. I came here by way of Rick Saenz’s blog. We have 3 dd, the oldest of whom is 9 now. We also homeschool and have been thinking through raising these 3 lovely young ladies. We would concur with much of what you wrote and continue to pray for God’s leading. God bless you and your family.

  18. Lora — November 11, 2007 @ 10:32 pm

    Cathy,
    I see your point, I guess it would be more appropriate to say that they have shared their hearts with me. If you could be a fly on the wall here, you’d understand. (some of the comments have caused a great deal of conversation) They are all very firm in their convictions.

    Doctrinally, I don’t believe that you can fall away from the faith, so that would also give me a different perspective. If I didn’t already have two in their 20’s, I might feel differently, and I used to worry more about such things when they were younger. I do have one daughter that I really worried about as a small child; she was the most rebellious one of the bunch. But, since being saved, she is the most tender hearted toward the leading of the Lord. As I watch them growing and maturing in the Lord I am more confident daily that they are firmly placed in His hand and following His leading.

  19. thatmom — November 13, 2007 @ 8:50 am

    Lora,

    While there are so many things that you have shared that I agree with, I am so concerned over one point….you are presuming upon God’s direction for your daughters. Do you know what He might be calling them to? What if He wants to raise up another Gladys Alyward or Amy Carmichael through your precious girls?

    While I do not believe in labels either nor do I believe that college is for everyone, I have been where you are, dear sister. My husband and I heard all of these teachings on daughters over 20 years ago when we were part of Bill Gothard’s ATIA program. We set out to do the things you are recommending. But then, we examined the word of God, simply and plainly and without presuppositions placed over passages like Numbers 30.
    To God’s glory, our eyes were opened.

    I hope you will consider that you are teaching things that are preferences rather than commands from Scripture and as such, being dogmatic is dangerous. I hope you receive this in the spirit in which I have shared it, friend.

  20. Carmon Friedrich — November 13, 2007 @ 10:53 am

    Lora, You did a great job articulating your position on raising your daughters. I *am* what some call a “Christian reconstructionist,” and what you said about putting people in a box or making assumptions about what they didn’t say is very true.

    I am not at all a fan of Bill Gothard, and for Karen (”thatmom”) to put you in that box is unfair. To say you should dump your “presuppositions” is the dangerous idea. My daughter Anna is continuing her studies at home by using some materials from George Grant’s Gileskirk school. One of the terms they use is *Arx Axiom* which refers to first principles, the ideas that underlie what we believe and which influence (have consequences) that which we do. That is what a “presupposition” is. Some of those ideas would be things we would all agree on which are articulated so well in the Apostle’s Creed, for example. Other presuppositions which influence how you and I have come to our conclusions about how to raise our daughters would be the biblical teachings of the distinct purposes for men and women. While there will be overlapping ways men and women serve God (such as the witnessing your family does) there should also be very different outworkings of this idea of the differences between men and women in everyday life. Some of the ways we apply this might look different from the ways our brothers and sisters in Christ apply it, but the differences are real and we can see them being blurred so much in our culture that Christians need to deliberately think through whether they are embracing a worldly idea of gender or a Christian idea.

    To ignore this foundational belief is the dangerous idea. Thank you for articulating your purposes so well and for setting a good example for the rest of us about how to evaluate and apply the truth that God created women to serve Him in unique and important ways. You did so in a very gracious way.

  21. thatmom — November 13, 2007 @ 2:27 pm

    Carmon, where did I put Lora in that box? I was only pointing out that I have heard these teachings for more than 20 years, first sharing them from Bill Gothard. You have mischaracterized what I said.

    And, Carmon, you are correct. I have different presuppositions, ones that are based on the Gospel message of Jesus that transcended the patriocentric roles for women. What do you do with those women who followed Christ and worked to financially support Him and the disciples? What do you do with the missionaries I mentioned? These are questions I have yet to have answered by those who are saying that women ought not have callings outside of their fathers’ homes. I completely agree that God has created women to serve Him in unique and important ways. I just happen to believe that Christ allowed for more options than you are doing and am trying to understand what you do with all these “non normative people.”

  22. Corriejo — November 13, 2007 @ 3:09 pm

    Lora,

    I really liked the emphasis in your article concerning not putting people in a box. I think discussion and love for the brethren is very important in trying to understand where someone is coming from.

    I have 6 daughters and 4 sons. I don’t know what the *Lord* has for any of my children but I am training them to love Him and to serve Him. I am not encouraging my children to do follow along with my preferences. I encourage my children to follow the Lord and I train them up in the way THEY should go. It is not about me and what I want or what my preferences for their life are, it is about God and what He wants.

    I don’t know if all or any of my daughters will want to go to college or go on the mission field. I do trust that the Lord will continue to direct them as I stand back and allow Him to work in their lives.

    I agree with Grafted Branch’s and Cathy’s cautions to you about preferences. Our children belong to God. What if He has other plans for your child that don’t line up with your preference to keep them at home until they marry or keep them at home if they never marry?

    Carmon,

    A careful reading of Karen’s post will clearly show you that she was doing nothing of the sort. She simply was relaying where she had first heard about the teachings and a bit of her background on the issue, that is all. I didn’t get at all that she was putting Lora in the “Gothard” box.

  23. Carmon Friedrich — November 13, 2007 @ 3:45 pm

    Karen, I think that comparing “these teachings” (what Lora wrote in her post) with what you heard from Bill Gothard is basically equating the two, and anyone skimming through the comments (not sure many people “carefully” read comments, Corrie) would get the impression that you think she is promoting similar ideas, what you call “patriocentricity” or “hyperpatriarchy.” Thus, I think she was the one who was mischaracterized.

    As for presuppositions, a careful reading of what I wrote would show that my “arx axiom” would be found in the Apostle’s Creed, and I assume you would agree with me there. Beyond that, I do believe there are many other basic ideas in God’s Word which include, but are not limited to, the activities of men and women in this life, which sometimes overlap but often are very different and uniquely important. I would say that my views (about which good Christians definitely have differing opinions about application) are based on the presupposition that God created women to submit to the headship of their husbands *before* the Fall. Do you agree with that, or do you believe wifely submission was a temporary curse from God that was due to the Fall and Eve’s role in tempting Adam to eat the forbidden fruit?

  24. thatmom — November 13, 2007 @ 4:10 pm

    Carmon, I do not know why you are insisting that you know what I meant when I am the one who wrote it and clarified it.

    I will happily answer your question….I believe that prior to the fall, there was no need to “submission” as there was after the fall, hence women are now under the headship of their own husbands, though not under the authority of all men.

    Now, are you going to answer my questions about all the “non normative” women such as those who financially supported Jesus’ ministry and the missionaries I mentioned as well. Were these women sinning? If they were not, why must all women today do these same things?

  25. thatmom — November 13, 2007 @ 4:11 pm

    oops, that should have read, “for” submission” rather than “to.”

  26. lora — November 13, 2007 @ 5:38 pm

    I have answered the criticisms that have been raised in this post.

    Karen,
    I do have a couple of questions about the “non normative” women you mention. First, what are the names of the women to whom you are referring? Second, do we really know enough about them to make decisions regarding our faith and practice? Do we know for sure that they weren’t under their father’s protection? Maybe they were traveling along with relatives. The only woman I can think of(this is off the top of my head) that is named, and clearly was not under the protection of a father/husband is Mary Magdalene . I don’t think that we should base our decisions on the exception or extreme circumstance. I can think of a few women who were mentioned that are in some type of familial circumstance. Mary and Martha, Priscilla come to mind immediately. These were women who served but were with family… not alone.

  27. Sherry — November 13, 2007 @ 9:00 pm

    I really liked your post. I think it’s human nature to want to put people into convenient little boxes even though none of us fit so neatly in them–and equally human nature to resent someone trying to stuff us into one of those boxes!

    My dd, who just turned 16, will be going to college, but we will try to get as much credit by examination as possible before she attends classes on campus. She wishes to study art, and I believe God will use her in this area. That said, we want to be very careful about where she attends. Art is definitely not an area where we want her under secular instruction. Our son attends Dallas Baptist, & we’ve been very pleased with it. DBU also has a great art program and is local for us.

    I do feel it is important for young women to continue their studies as they will most likely be the ones staying home and raising the next generation. This continuing education does not have to take place on a university campus, though, and we teach all our children that learning is a lifelong pursuit.

    Thanks for sharing. I’m sure many homeschoolers have had the same thoughts.

  28. Carmon Friedrich — November 13, 2007 @ 10:50 pm

    I just returned home from some grocery shopping. Lora has asked the same question I would have asked: who are these women who you say traveled (alone) with Christ and whom you say worked and financially supported Him and His disciples? I’m afraid I can’t give an answer until I understand the question better, though Lora is absolutely right that to use exceptions or extreme circumstances as the standard by which we train *all* our daughters is not wise.

    Lora said,
    I have delineated what our family believes, not implying that those who don’t do it our way are wrong. Nothing could be further from what we believe. It would also be ridiculous to imply I don’t think we are right in what we do. Why would we be doing what we do if we didn’t believe it to be right? The key is that it’s right for our family.

    How is that being dangerous, dogmatic, and teaching preferences as commands? Your comment to her was very condescending. How did you find her post in the first place? You call her “friend” but I have not seen you comment here before, nor have I noticed her comment any place you frequent. I may be wrong, and I will accept the rebuke if I am, but this appears to be trolling on your part, looking to pick a fight. Your attempt to associate Lora’s personal convictions regarding raising her daughters with your portrayal of “patrocentricity,” visiting her personal blog to chastise her, is being a busybody.

    I very rarely comment on other people’s blogs and I never go to someone’s website to set them straight. I seldom allow such arguments on my own site as I do not have time for it and it is almost always fruitless. I am only commenting here after getting permission from Lora and because she has been an online friend for a few years. You have seriously mischaracterized her in your quest to stamp out “hyperpatriarchy.” I wrote the Prairie Muffin Manifesto to set the record straight about such unfair caricatures.

    Your position about the headship of husbands being instituted *after* the fall (I and every “patriarchal” person I know believes that women are only required to submit to their own husbands) is quite unorthodox and a belief of evangelical feminists such as John Stackhouse, the author of _Finally Feminist_. Do you believe, as he does, that Paul was wrong, then (or misguided as he was a product of rabbinic training which was impeding his ability to portray gender roles properly), in appealing to the order of creation as the basis for which he instructed women to not exercise authority over a man? Do you agree with Carolyn Custis James that “helper” when referring to Eve’s creation means “warrior,” even though such a term would have little use in a pre-Fall context?

    I ask these questions because I question your purpose in coming here to set Lora straight. I contend that your ideas about the roles of women (after reading many of your comments and articles, some of which have been written to set me straight, as well as comments by others on your site) are feminist ideas which have the potential to harm the families you purport to defend from the patriarchal cabal. You have every right to say what you want in your own space, as does Lora. I do not have the time to read the hundreds of comments on some of the recent posts at True Womanhood, but from what I have seen the vitriol is over the top…if you are concerned about dangerous practices among Christians, perhaps you could set the standard for graciousness among those who *are* your friends on your site.

  29. Corriejo — November 14, 2007 @ 8:15 am

    “Karen, I think that comparing “these teachings” (what Lora wrote in her post) with what you heard from Bill Gothard is basically equating the two, and anyone skimming through the comments (not sure many people “carefully” read comments, Corrie) would get the impression that you think she is promoting similar ideas,”

    Hi Carmon,

    I always try and carefully read someone’s comments before I make assertions about someone and their motives.

  30. lora — November 14, 2007 @ 2:51 pm

    Corrie,
    Carmon wasn’t implying that you didn’t read the comments, she was referring to others. The fact is that it did come across that Karen was equating my beliefs with Bill Gothard’s. I read that post carefully and the implication was quite clear.

  31. thatmom — November 14, 2007 @ 10:45 pm

    Lora,

    I would like to apologize to you. Though I am not sure what trolling is, I came to your blog at the recommendation of someone else and am not trying to cause a problem. Honestly. So I will go now. Also, I did not intend to begin a conversation with Carmon and will not continue to dialog with her at this time.

    I have already told you that I was not in any way equating your beliefs with Bill Gothard, only using that as a frame of reference for my own story. I am sorry that you do not believe me. I don’t know what else I can say. If my statement about that cannot be taken at face value, I don’t see how we can talk other things either.

  32. lora — November 15, 2007 @ 12:10 am

    Karen,
    Your apology is accepted. I did not say I did not believe your statements at any time; what I was trying to do (apparently not too well) was to clarify what Carmon was stating, which was referring to your first comment, not subsequent ones.

    Your conversation with Carmon was fine with me. If I had a problem with it, I would have stopped it. I am not asking you to leave, but I do think your comments were more inflammatory than you may realize.

    When I asked you to clarify your question, I wasn’t being rhetorical; I truly wanted to know to which women you were referring. To come out so strongly with such a statement and not to substantiate it is confusing to me. Why will you not clarify what you have stated? You had no problem repeating the question to Carmon, pushing for an answer, but you yourself will not answer my question.

    To be quite honest, I have been to many people’s blogs where things have been said that I don’t agree with, yours included. If my thoughts differ from that of the author, I keep them to myself, unless specifically asked. When dealing with a controversial topic (even if I’m writing it for my own blog) I have learned over time that it is usually prudent to hold my thoughts for at least 24 hours, and then re-examine them to see if it is a good idea to share my thoughts. The words I usually regret most are those spoken in haste.

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URL

Leave a comment