OK, my last post was far too caught up in detail. I'm going to try and respond to general thoughts and principles in the chapters, instead of responding piece by piece to the entire chapter.
This chapter took several great leaps in interpretation of Scripture, as the authors described a daughter’s role towards her father. The chapter focused on a daughter’s duty to give her father her heart and how she could serve him, build him up, care for him, etc. At the core of their philosophy, I continue to see two concerns.
First, the authors see every woman’s ultimate purpose as serving a man. “Is every girl called to be her father’s helper? As we stated before, every woman is, by nature, a man’s helper. You are a helper, no matter what your age or marital status. The choice before you and every other young woman isn’t, ‘to help or not to help?’ It’s who to help. Can you imagine a man more deserving of your devotion and assistance, someone whom you love and trust more than your own father?” (page 42)* This words directly contradict 1 Corinthians 7: 33, which states, “An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.” This verse does not negate the command for children to honor their parents, but it does clearly reveal a distinction between the unmarried and married woman’s role and purpose. It makes no mention of the unmarried woman’s duty to care for her father; that is the mother’s (wife’s) place. The unmarried woman's focus is clearly to be devoted to the Lord.
Secondly, this chapter begins to talk about the daughter's duty to give her father her heart. Honestly, this part made me laugh. It concerns me, but the Scripture reference was so twisted that I couldn't help but raise my eyebrows. The book states: "Proverbs 23:26 suggests, in paraphrased form, that daughters must give fathers their hearts, 'and let your eyes observe my ways'." (page 39) I went and looked up the Scripture reference. You know what it says? "My son, give me your heart and let your eyes keep to my ways." And this right after the chapter emphasized how woman have a specific duty to men! You could argue that the command to "my son" is generally referring to children, not just sons, but the next verse (vs 27) continues, "For a prostitute is a deep pit and a wayward wife is a narrow well." This verse is obviously addressed to male children. And even if we did understand it as applying to children in general, it would negate their point that daughters have specific duties toward their father that sons do not.
My major practical concern is that their principle of giving your father your heart can border on emotional incest and/or encourages an almost god-like worship of the father. Consider these excerpts:
"If he [her father], for instance, has a preference in the colors that I wear, I seek to honor him by finding that out and dressing in a way that would please him." (page 35)
"If a girl has a deep, abiding inner reverence for her father, she will value every good thing about him. She will want to understand him, what he does, and why." (page 38)
"She [an honoring daughter] will train into herself a great appreciation for the good, admirable things about her father and think the most exalted thoughts of them." (page 39)
"It is my duty as a girl and as a daughter, to seek out what pleases him, and what makes him strong in his vision, so that I too can embrace his vision and make his passions my passions." (page 41)
"We have a friend who used to ask us, very kingly, but pointedly, 'Do you get your father's slippers for him?'...His point was, Are you helping your father even in small things which he might never ask help with? These things that will simply make his life more comfortable and pleasurable. Things that will simply bring joy to his heart and make him more free to accomplish the work that God has given him." (page 48)
I thought about and realized, if you took many of the principles these girl shared and applied them to wives instead of daughters, I would agree and support them (minus the idea that a woman is created solely for helping a man; she does have room to be her own person). It's because they take the wife's role and begin to apply it to daughters that I am so concerned!
The other major issue I had with this chapter is one that a friend has brought up before. He told me that his concern with Vision Forum is that they promote a family religion rather than a individual one - i.e., the emphasis is on the family's duties toward each other and the father's spiritual leadership to the point where individual family members are not given room to develop their own walk with God and their own convictions (particularly where they differ with the parents), even as they grow into adulthood. I saw this illustrated throughout this chapter, but this post is long enough, so I will save that for later.
Any thoughts/criticism is welcome!
*This and all references taken from: Botkin, Anna Sofia & Elizabeth. So Much More: the Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God. 1st. San Antonio, TX: Vision Forum, Inc., 2005.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Chapter 3 - Fathers, Daughter, and Protection
The central point of this chapter seems to be setting the foundation for further specific topics by discussing some of the basic principles that apply to male/female relationships and how our society has lost these principles. Some important points were made and I appreciate the emphasis on male servant leadership. However, the chapter did little to provide Scriptural support for the father/daughter relationship they focus on and it also seemed a bit hyped-up in regard to issues in society.
The chapter began by stating that, “Because the Bible doesn’t give a huge amount of instruction exclusively to fathers and daughters, most of what we have to work from are passages setting the patterns for men and women in general…” (page 23)* Perhaps it would be helpful to consider that maybe there isn’t a huge amount of instruction exclusively for fathers and daughters because Scripture does not place emphasis on the father/daughter relationship, but rather husbands/wives and parents/children, or at times fathers/children.
The authors noted three responsibilities Scripture lays out in regards to men and women’s relationships. One, man is to lead woman. Two, man is to provide for his family. Three, husbands and fathers are to protect their wives and daughters. The first two responsibilities do not refer to fathers and daughters specifically and the verses provided reference Adam and Eve (his wife) and a father providing for his family. The third responsibility is supported by an excerpt from Numbers 30, which describes how a father may nullify an oath/vow that his daughter makes to the Lord. I noticed that these verses note twice (verses 3 and 16) that the daughter is “being in her father's house in her youth” and also “being yet in her youth in her father's house”. I think this is important because I believe that the principle refers to the father’s protection of children, not his daughter in particular, and also because as a young woman grows older, her responsibilities to her parents change. I doubt the authors would say that a father does not owe his young sons protection as well. The Mosaic law, in this instance, does describe how to deal with this specific circumstance, but it does not support the father/daughter relationship this book describes.
The second part of the chapter emphasized how our culture has lost the Scriptural values we held in the past, particularly in relationship to men and women. This is true, to an extent. Men are often faced with wondering whether an act of courtesy will offend a woman and some woman do take these acts of courtesy as suggesting that they are weak or inferior, rather than of value. However, I think there is an overemphasis on the past as something ideal. For one, every society is sinful and where one society errs on one extreme, another errs on the other. Whereas our culture today does not teach the value of saving sexual intimacy for marriage, certain societies of years past would likely cast out an unwed mother, forcing her to face shame and giving her no support or care.
Further, the beautiful Victorian ideals of a century (or more) ago often were a façade, behind which existed the same sins we have in our world today: prostitution, adultery, premarital sex, etc. And aside from the issue of sin, the dark side of this era included families struggling to survive with young children working in factories for long hours, low salaries, no protection from injuries at work, and so on. Women weren’t all staying at home with their children. Some of them simply couldn’t afford it.
The sisters then contrast the past with the present. They describe moving to New Zealand, where they were “confronted with fashionable European socialism, Fabian feminism, and trendy androgyny. It was anti-patriarchal, anti-male, anti-marriage and anti-family…we saw that women for the most part are not respected; they are viewed as prey, as objects to exploit and discard.” (page 30)** This image sounds quite horrendous! :) I haven’t lived in New Zealand, but I did spend over a week there on my honeymoon this past summer and while it was more secular than the US, I did meet gentleman who treated me respectfully, couples who had been married for years, and actually, what I noticed more than secularism was the high immigrant population, both Asian and Indian. Point being, while the culture does exhibit the emptiness of secularism, I find their description slightly hyped (like the description of the past) – just in the negative direction instead of positive.
Rather than looking to the past, I believe we should turn to Scripture to find inspiration for how we should live our lives and what principles should guide our relationships. It can be helpful to examine the past and present, but we must keep Scripture as the forefront. The past may have positive aspects, but only Scripture can truly give us a vision for these principles.
At the close of the chapter, I found my greatest point of concern. The last statements of the chapter came out of nowhere and surprised me. After laying out the responsibilities of men as given in scripture and after describing men’s lack of chivalry and tendency to “exploit and discard” women, I would have expected a challenge to men. But instead, the chapter closes by saying, “After years of studying the decline of our world, God’s requirements for righteous conduct, and how He is pressing His lawsuit against our disobedient nation, we believe that the way daughters are treating their fathers is one of today’s biggest issues. One of the reasons our society is in moral shambles is because dishonoring sons and daughters are invoking God’s curses on the land…” (pg 31-32)***
I was dumbfounded. Suddenly, the ways daughters treat their fathers is the issue? This issue will be addressed in more detail in a further chapter, but I believe it illustrates an underlying problem with these young women’s perspective. Although the daughter has a responsibility to honor her father, within the family, the greater responsibility is placed on the parents’ shoulders, to love and care for their children and to raise them with principles that will lead them to honor their parents. Yes, children have choice and are called to honor, but parents have greater responsibility to protect and provide a safe, Christian home.
If these girls could step outside their happy home and see the pain of other families, I think (hope!) their perspective would change. There is the father who is not true to his marital vows and abandons his family for a younger woman, rarely coming to see his children – the father who places all his time and energy in his work, leaving little time for his family and no time for relationships – the selfish father does not serve his family, but who seeks to serve himself, even to the point of disrespecting his wife and turning to pornography to meet his desires – and at the extreme, an abusive father who doesn’t even protect his family from himself. These aren’t rare situations. I’ve seen each of them, some in my own family, some in my friends’ families. I cannot blame these daughters for not having a relationship with their fathers. I cannot even blame them for anger toward to fathers or not wanting to have a relationship with him. After experiencing this kind of pain, you protect yourself. While daughters should not let bitterness build in their hearts, they should not be pressured to make themselves vulnerable to further pain and they should draw proper boundaries. It may not be possible for them to have a healthy relationship with their father and that isn’t their fault.
Conclusion: While I appreciated some of the Biblical principles of how men and women ought to relate, this chapter provided no foundation from Scripture for this father/daughter relationship emphasis. Its denunciation of secular society while idealizing the past isn’t very realistic. And I was very bothered by the heavy responsibility placed on daughters when it comes to their relationship with their father.
*Botkin, Anna Sofia & Elizabeth. So Much More: the Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God. 1st. San Antonio, TX: Vision Forum, Inc., 2005.
**ibid.
***ibid.
The chapter began by stating that, “Because the Bible doesn’t give a huge amount of instruction exclusively to fathers and daughters, most of what we have to work from are passages setting the patterns for men and women in general…” (page 23)* Perhaps it would be helpful to consider that maybe there isn’t a huge amount of instruction exclusively for fathers and daughters because Scripture does not place emphasis on the father/daughter relationship, but rather husbands/wives and parents/children, or at times fathers/children.
The authors noted three responsibilities Scripture lays out in regards to men and women’s relationships. One, man is to lead woman. Two, man is to provide for his family. Three, husbands and fathers are to protect their wives and daughters. The first two responsibilities do not refer to fathers and daughters specifically and the verses provided reference Adam and Eve (his wife) and a father providing for his family. The third responsibility is supported by an excerpt from Numbers 30, which describes how a father may nullify an oath/vow that his daughter makes to the Lord. I noticed that these verses note twice (verses 3 and 16) that the daughter is “being in her father's house in her youth” and also “being yet in her youth in her father's house”. I think this is important because I believe that the principle refers to the father’s protection of children, not his daughter in particular, and also because as a young woman grows older, her responsibilities to her parents change. I doubt the authors would say that a father does not owe his young sons protection as well. The Mosaic law, in this instance, does describe how to deal with this specific circumstance, but it does not support the father/daughter relationship this book describes.
The second part of the chapter emphasized how our culture has lost the Scriptural values we held in the past, particularly in relationship to men and women. This is true, to an extent. Men are often faced with wondering whether an act of courtesy will offend a woman and some woman do take these acts of courtesy as suggesting that they are weak or inferior, rather than of value. However, I think there is an overemphasis on the past as something ideal. For one, every society is sinful and where one society errs on one extreme, another errs on the other. Whereas our culture today does not teach the value of saving sexual intimacy for marriage, certain societies of years past would likely cast out an unwed mother, forcing her to face shame and giving her no support or care.
Further, the beautiful Victorian ideals of a century (or more) ago often were a façade, behind which existed the same sins we have in our world today: prostitution, adultery, premarital sex, etc. And aside from the issue of sin, the dark side of this era included families struggling to survive with young children working in factories for long hours, low salaries, no protection from injuries at work, and so on. Women weren’t all staying at home with their children. Some of them simply couldn’t afford it.
The sisters then contrast the past with the present. They describe moving to New Zealand, where they were “confronted with fashionable European socialism, Fabian feminism, and trendy androgyny. It was anti-patriarchal, anti-male, anti-marriage and anti-family…we saw that women for the most part are not respected; they are viewed as prey, as objects to exploit and discard.” (page 30)** This image sounds quite horrendous! :) I haven’t lived in New Zealand, but I did spend over a week there on my honeymoon this past summer and while it was more secular than the US, I did meet gentleman who treated me respectfully, couples who had been married for years, and actually, what I noticed more than secularism was the high immigrant population, both Asian and Indian. Point being, while the culture does exhibit the emptiness of secularism, I find their description slightly hyped (like the description of the past) – just in the negative direction instead of positive.
Rather than looking to the past, I believe we should turn to Scripture to find inspiration for how we should live our lives and what principles should guide our relationships. It can be helpful to examine the past and present, but we must keep Scripture as the forefront. The past may have positive aspects, but only Scripture can truly give us a vision for these principles.
At the close of the chapter, I found my greatest point of concern. The last statements of the chapter came out of nowhere and surprised me. After laying out the responsibilities of men as given in scripture and after describing men’s lack of chivalry and tendency to “exploit and discard” women, I would have expected a challenge to men. But instead, the chapter closes by saying, “After years of studying the decline of our world, God’s requirements for righteous conduct, and how He is pressing His lawsuit against our disobedient nation, we believe that the way daughters are treating their fathers is one of today’s biggest issues. One of the reasons our society is in moral shambles is because dishonoring sons and daughters are invoking God’s curses on the land…” (pg 31-32)***
I was dumbfounded. Suddenly, the ways daughters treat their fathers is the issue? This issue will be addressed in more detail in a further chapter, but I believe it illustrates an underlying problem with these young women’s perspective. Although the daughter has a responsibility to honor her father, within the family, the greater responsibility is placed on the parents’ shoulders, to love and care for their children and to raise them with principles that will lead them to honor their parents. Yes, children have choice and are called to honor, but parents have greater responsibility to protect and provide a safe, Christian home.
If these girls could step outside their happy home and see the pain of other families, I think (hope!) their perspective would change. There is the father who is not true to his marital vows and abandons his family for a younger woman, rarely coming to see his children – the father who places all his time and energy in his work, leaving little time for his family and no time for relationships – the selfish father does not serve his family, but who seeks to serve himself, even to the point of disrespecting his wife and turning to pornography to meet his desires – and at the extreme, an abusive father who doesn’t even protect his family from himself. These aren’t rare situations. I’ve seen each of them, some in my own family, some in my friends’ families. I cannot blame these daughters for not having a relationship with their fathers. I cannot even blame them for anger toward to fathers or not wanting to have a relationship with him. After experiencing this kind of pain, you protect yourself. While daughters should not let bitterness build in their hearts, they should not be pressured to make themselves vulnerable to further pain and they should draw proper boundaries. It may not be possible for them to have a healthy relationship with their father and that isn’t their fault.
Conclusion: While I appreciated some of the Biblical principles of how men and women ought to relate, this chapter provided no foundation from Scripture for this father/daughter relationship emphasis. Its denunciation of secular society while idealizing the past isn’t very realistic. And I was very bothered by the heavy responsibility placed on daughters when it comes to their relationship with their father.
*Botkin, Anna Sofia & Elizabeth. So Much More: the Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God. 1st. San Antonio, TX: Vision Forum, Inc., 2005.
**ibid.
***ibid.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Chapter 1
In the future, I'm sure it will take several entries to respond to a chapter, but chapter one is rather succinct and so is my response. Rather than addressing these points in detail (since they will be discussed in the chapters ahead), here are facets of these chapter that I appreciated and those I take issue with:
I appreciated...
*The emphasis on not looking to the world for answers on who we are and what we should be. It can be easy to let pressure from those around us guide the way we view our life and how we choose to live it and they recognized this issue.
*Practical examples. It's interesting and helpful to see hear from a number of girls (see pages 8-12).
*The encouragement (page 6) to read the book like a Berean, comparing what they share to scripture.
I take issue with...
*The emphasis on males (particularly fathers) as the answer for problems. On page 3/4, the authors discuss various issues facing college young women - dysfunctional families, a politically correct attitude from their classes, lack of spiritual guidance, confusion, need for security. Their response to these girls is, "What they all seemed to want more than anything else was truth, safety, purpose, and faithful male companionship and protection."* (emphasis theirs)
*Focus on the father-daughter relationship rather than the parent-daughter relationship. This immediately put me on guard. To begin, every single chapter title involves "father and daughter" in some way. Further, from the brief section on pages 5-6, I was uncomfortable with statements such as, "Many girls enjoy having a "space" away from their fathers. That space is dangerous."** or "If you are not willing to give your heart to your father, this book will put you at odds with the Scriptural mandate you find here."***
*Idealizing the past. On page 7, the girls mention that the views they shared in this book "used to be held by practically all Americans...it was lived before, when women were much happier."**** There's plenty that I would like to say about this idea, but for it can wait.
If anyone should care to comment: is there any other particular issue that stood out to you?
*Botkin, Anna Sofia & Elizabeth. So Much More: the Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God. 1st. San Antonio, TX: Vision Forum, Inc., 2005.
**Ibid.
***Ibid.
****Idbid.
I appreciated...
*The emphasis on not looking to the world for answers on who we are and what we should be. It can be easy to let pressure from those around us guide the way we view our life and how we choose to live it and they recognized this issue.
*Practical examples. It's interesting and helpful to see hear from a number of girls (see pages 8-12).
*The encouragement (page 6) to read the book like a Berean, comparing what they share to scripture.
I take issue with...
*The emphasis on males (particularly fathers) as the answer for problems. On page 3/4, the authors discuss various issues facing college young women - dysfunctional families, a politically correct attitude from their classes, lack of spiritual guidance, confusion, need for security. Their response to these girls is, "What they all seemed to want more than anything else was truth, safety, purpose, and faithful male companionship and protection."* (emphasis theirs)
*Focus on the father-daughter relationship rather than the parent-daughter relationship. This immediately put me on guard. To begin, every single chapter title involves "father and daughter" in some way. Further, from the brief section on pages 5-6, I was uncomfortable with statements such as, "Many girls enjoy having a "space" away from their fathers. That space is dangerous."** or "If you are not willing to give your heart to your father, this book will put you at odds with the Scriptural mandate you find here."***
*Idealizing the past. On page 7, the girls mention that the views they shared in this book "used to be held by practically all Americans...it was lived before, when women were much happier."**** There's plenty that I would like to say about this idea, but for it can wait.
If anyone should care to comment: is there any other particular issue that stood out to you?
*Botkin, Anna Sofia & Elizabeth. So Much More: the Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God. 1st. San Antonio, TX: Vision Forum, Inc., 2005.
**Ibid.
***Ibid.
****Idbid.
An Introduction
It was at the suggestion of a friend that I first peeked into the book So Much More, by Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin. Her concern sparked my interest and after perusing the book, I wanted to learn more. Thanks to a friend who has loaned me her copy, I am currently reading it through. This blog is my journal (or outlet), whether to express indignation, nod in agreement, criticize conclusions, or empathize with certain sentiments. Please feel free to read and comment!
As my profile notes, I am a Christian young woman, wife, and college student. I was homeschooled through high school and plan to homeschool my own children someday. I aspire to be a homemaker, but currently God is leading me to explore the field of social work until then. I love classical literature, rainy days, cooking/baking in my little apartment kitchen, and spending time with my best friend, my husband. I am passionate about justice and human rights, homeschooling, men and women's roles, learning about other cultures, and most of all, my Savior.
As my profile notes, I am a Christian young woman, wife, and college student. I was homeschooled through high school and plan to homeschool my own children someday. I aspire to be a homemaker, but currently God is leading me to explore the field of social work until then. I love classical literature, rainy days, cooking/baking in my little apartment kitchen, and spending time with my best friend, my husband. I am passionate about justice and human rights, homeschooling, men and women's roles, learning about other cultures, and most of all, my Savior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)