by Vyckie Bennett (Garrison)
This is a letter to those godly, dedicated Christians who know me (or know of me) from my articles and testimonies which have appeared in popular homeschool publications such as Above Rubies, An Encouraging Word, SALT, Unless the Lord, etc. ~ or who have followed news of our ever-growing family in my monthly column or in updates and prayer requests which I have posted on email groups such as MOMYS Digest, The Lord’s Heritage, FARBITM, and others. I have been an advocate of godly womanhood ~ I’ve encouraged fellow Christian moms in their Quiverfull convictions and have done my best to lead by example in my own family.
This is a difficult letter for me to write ~ mainly because I was so convinced of, and committed to, the Biblical family ideals espoused by what has been termed the “Quiverfull” or “Biblical Patriarchy” movement. I was entirely sincere ~ and I never hesitated to do whatever I believed the Lord was asking of me, no matter the cost to my own personal comfort or convenience.
There is a great deal of heartache and drama in the story of how I came to disavow that whole lifestyle along with the Christian religion and the Bible upon which those family principles are based ~ which could make for some interesting reading if I ever actually get around to writing a book ~ but I guess what it really comes down to is this:
My children were not thriving in the isolated and controlling environment which had developed in our home as a result of following the patriarchal family structure.
I have never been much of a pragmatist ~ preferring to ground my thoughts, beliefs and actions on revealed Truth rather than following the inherently subjective standard of “whatever works.” But when my oldest daughter, Angel tried to kill herself ~ I could not help but think, “I could have kids in the psych ward for a lot less effort.”
I had knocked myself out for my Lord ~ following His will for my life and my family though it nearly killed me on several occasions. I had done everything according to the “Old Paths” and the “narrow way” ~ welcoming children from the Lord even though my pregnancies were horrendous and deliveries life-threatening, I homeschooled, home birthed (risky business for one who’d already had 4 c-sections), home churched, “dared to shelter” my children from worldly influences ~ I was a helpmeet to my husband in every way possible, upholding his authority to the children, supporting him even when he was clearly in the wrong, trusting that in submitting to him, I was actually submitting to the Lord and that being so, I was confident that He would work everything out for good according to His perfect will.
What I finally was forced to acknowledge is that there are limits to what is possible ~ and a lifestyle of martyrdom and self-abnegation is unsustainable. The stress took such a toll on my health that I was practically bed-ridden and in danger of suffering organ failure from lack of blood pressure since my stress-response system had been taxed to the limit and no longer produced sufficient amounts of adrenaline to keep me functioning. I felt like a zombie ~ the living dead ~ but I kept going because I could do all things through Christ and I had the Holy Spirit to strengthen me. My sincere and deeply held convictions provided the motivation I needed to live such a demanding and difficult lifestyle.
But then I met my uncle, Ron ~ and we undertook an email correspondence which changed everything for me. I’m sure many of you will remember Ron from the frequent prayer requests and updates which I posted in which I explained that my uncle is not a Christian, but I really liked him and we’d been writing to each other. I was so thoroughly convinced of the truth of Christianity ~ I had a good comprehension of the best arguments for the defense of the Biblical worldview and was an articulate apologist for the faith ~ so I was not at all concerned that my uncle’s influence might in any way jeopardize my well-considered, logically consistent, readily defensible belief system.
We wrote to each other for nearly a year ~ and over time, my way of thinking began to change. For now, I won’t go into all the details of how I came to doubt the Bible’s authority and even the existence of a personal, all-powerful, all-knowing God ~ but by the time Ron and I discontinued our writing, the unthinkable had happened, and I was filled with doubts.
For a while, I tried to figure how much of my Christian beliefs I could salvage ~ what of the Bible message could I still claim as valid and acceptable? ~ was there a “core truth” that I could hold onto despite my rejection of the strict, literalistic interpretation which included such narrowly defined family roles? ~ but despite my almost frantic searching, I came up empty. None of it makes sense to me anymore ~ and the things which used to be beautiful and inspiring to me now seem hideous ~ petty, warped, and sick.
Anyone who’s read my previous writings knows where I have been, what I’ve believed, practiced and taught. Here’s how I see it now:
The Bible is an ancient text written in a time and culture radically different from our own. It was written by men who were privileged enough to know how to read and write ~ and it establishes a self-serving, male-dominated religion which uses the promise of Heaven and the threat of Hell to keep the disenfranchised content in their servitude. (OMG ~ I sound just like Karl Marx.)
It seems crazy that thousands of years later, we should be trying to emulate the family structure and gender roles of an ancient society which viewed women and children as property. Truthfully, I’m kind of pissed that I so willingly co-operated in my own oppression for so many years ~ I allowed myself and my children to be used to fulfill an egotistical fantasy of a man who desired to be king of his castle.
Patriarchy is a pretty sweet deal ~ for the man who gets a Proverbs 31 wife and a quiverfull of children like olive branches around his table. In that family set-up, Daddy reigns supreme. I know, I know ~ the teaching is that it’s actually the Lord Jesus whom the wife and children serve when they submit to and obey the father. And when I think about it ~ that’s so twisted! How convenient for the man that all this is clearly spelled out in the Word of God.
I realize that I sound like an angry feminist bitch ~ and I think to myself, “If only I could convince them that I tried my best ~ I did everything right!” Could it be that the failure is with the system, not with the burned-out and worn down women who are struggling to make it work?
The truth is, not all men are cut out for leadership in the home or church. And for those with controlling, punitive, and demanding tendencies, the practice of patriarchy in the home will only exacerbate their insatiable egos and lend an air of spiritual credence to their tyranny and abuse in the name of “protection” and spiritual covering.
The truth is, the woman who aspires to be a Proverbs 31 wife is setting herself up for failure. Often I have agonized over the overwhelming burden expressed by wives and mothers who feel they are not meeting the standard ~ they try so hard, and yet ~ there’s not enough of one woman to go around. Even with the help of the older daughters, the workload is ceaseless and the demands on her time and energy are bound to leave her feeling inadequate. Must be her lack of faith. Perhaps what she needs is to read another Vision Forum book or attend an Above Rubies conference wherein she’ll discover the KEY to making it all work, getting it all done.
Seriously ~ what Mothers of Many need is RELIEF ~ not another “revelation” about what truly constitutes the godly wife and mother. Not another pep-talk from Nancy to inspire her to “present her body a living sacrifice.” No more visions and bible verses to load her with guilt when she somehow doesn’t manage to reproduce the Garden of Eden within her godly home.
In the patriarchal world which I will no longer take part of, the Commanding Officers (the men) are forever waging war against the world and the devil. Wives and children are useful as foot soldiers and arrows in this daily battle for the Kingdom of God. Should a mother die in childbirth, she is hailed as a faithful, dedicated woman ~ hers is a martyr’s death. But if she should struggle ~ if she fails to reverence her husband despite his imperfections and failures to love her as Christ loves the church ~ if she should dare complain that she’s tired and overwhelmed ~ if she has a healthy self-preservation factor ~ or should she be a thinking woman who just can’t manage to adorn herself with that highly prized “meek and quiet spirit” ~ then she is a rebellious Jezebel ~ a reproach on the testimony of Christ. Likewise, the children are valued only in as much as they conform to the lifestyle chosen for them by their parents. If they should express their own opinions (but where would they form dissenting opinions when all influences are controlled by their protector and provider, i.e., Daddy?) they are made to fear for their soul’s salvation. It’s a world in which the only way to win (to be declared a faithful servant approved by the Lord), is to lose yourself ~ lay aside all your dreams, desires, wants, needs ~ your very life ~ and do it without complaint. That’s the way to win if you are a godly woman or a visionary daughter ~ for the man, it’s a whole different story.
Okay ~ I have to stop. Not that I don’t have plenty more to say ~ just that I know this letter sounds bitter and angry and I haven’t figured a way to convey my true feelings ~ that of betrayal and of having been used and of the frustration of having adopted a worldview which systematically denied my children their very selfhood.
To my kids, I apologize. To those who have been influenced by my articles and inspired by my family’s testimony ~ all I can say is … well, I actually don’t know what to say. I just don’t buy it anymore ~ it didn’t work for our family and my children paid the price. It’s one thing for me to lay my own life down in the service of God ~ but I’m no longer willing to sacrifice my children on the altar of “family values.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NLQ Recommends ...
'Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment' by Janet Heimlich
‘Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland
‘Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce
Michelle says, Never enough babies!
anon, I think I’m not making myself very clear. I have absolutely no problem with your own choices of homeschooling etc. because, as individuals, you’re doing it ina very positive way. what i’m complaining about is the partiarchy movement/mindset per se, because it too easily traps women and children in abusive homes. the abuse is of course the sole fault of the abuser, but the community that gives the abuser power, while not giving the victims any means of defending themselves is bad.
let me make a (somewhat crass) comparison:
back when slavery was still legal, some slave-owners were good people. they treated their slaves very well, sort of as part of their family. they didn’t beat them, didn’t abuse them, fed them well and didn’t work them to death. but those few good individuals can’t make slavery a less abusive thing per-se. the same way, families who live within patriarchal societies and are lucky to have a good father/leader can’t make the system good per-se.
this is not to say that you can’t have a family that looks and functions in an old-fashioned way; I’m saying that neither your husband nor your community, nor anyone else for that matter should be able to tell you that you HAVE to live that way (even if you want to), and the Patriarchy movement does exactly that. and just read the posts here to see how hard it is to get out or get help when you’re in a bad, abusive relationship. the system is clearly broken, your happy, well-run family notwithstanding.
First; Yes, my “caps lock” is a bad habit. Very sorry. I was honestly not trying to be impolite, though.
Secondly, there is absolutely no way I can speak about my faith and Christ and NOT mention history. The two go hand in hand, there’s not a thing I can do about that. There’s nothing I’m doing that is “twisting history” to my beliefs at all. Third, there are many, many, many sources outside of the Bible that clearly support the Historical Jesus. And fourth of all, I am writing to the author of this blog. I’m in no way trying to start up an argument with anyone. Thanks for understanding.
Jessica, thanks for switching out of capslock! don’t worry about having a discussion in the comments. if Vyckie or Laura feel we’ve gone too far, they can simply not publish our posts.
I must say once more though, there’s no good non-biblical evidence for Jesus. the one supposedly contemporary text (by Josephus) was a fake from the 3rd century, and all other examples are of Romans talking about what the Christians believe, about 60-70 years AFTER the crucifixion. that’s a lot of time for things to get confused. just look at the modern world, where some people think the Holocaust never happened, that Elvis faked his own death and retired somewhere instead, etc. and this is DESPITE all the photographic and written evidence. back then, 60 years were long enough to make people completely forget what things were really like.
like i said. you’re welcome to believe that all the things written about in the bible really happened, but you shouldn’t claim that you believe them because of historical evidence, because that’s just not true, Christian Apologetic claims notwithstanding. it’s ok to say you have faith that the bible tells the truth, since there can’t be evidence that there WASN’T a Jesus. there just isn’t enough to say that there WAS a Jesus, either.
Ummmm, our whole system of time is based on BC Before Christ and AD (can’t remember what the words actually are but it refers to His death. That just may be a little “clue” as to whether or not those outside of Christianity believes in Jesus. Even the Muslims believe in Jesus. They just believe that there were other prophets that followed Him.
What are some of the Roman empires details that they got wrong in the story of the crucifixtion?
Do you really not know that a different calendar is used by different cultures? Ours is not the only one used in the world.
That’s a dumb as thinking everyone speaks English.
Jadehawk, I do believe in the Historical and Living Jesus. I guess, when it comes to faith, the burden of proof is on the person. Like I said, it’s a dark and hopeless life if this is all there is to it. If I look around me, at all the death and suffering…..if I don’t believe in Jesus, who He is…then as N.T. Wright puts it, “the tyrant has won”. I just posted elsewhere about my walk, and how I had to re-learn most of what I had been taught. Textual criticism has helped me abundantly. Life is full enough of hardships, I have seen many of them, and am still living through one major one. Without the hope of Easter, then death ultimately wins.
-Jesnicole-
Annonymous, you’re still equating the “idea” of Jesus or the “myth” of Jesus with evidence of the actual person. OF COURSE people thought he existed, and by what we now call year 524 (then was known as 247), someone who believed in him made up a new calendar. Not the first or daresay, the last time that will happen in human history. Plus, it was far from universally accepted and even today there are alternative dating schemes so also I’m not sure about your statement “our” unless it excludes some people from consideration… Islam began at around the era the calendar did, again, that people thought there was a Jesus is not to be confused with whether one actually existed. Secondly, whether one actually existed is not to be confused with whether he was actually god. Plus I’ll take issue with your “system of time” idea, the most you can mean is the yearly calendar, seconds and minutes are based on Babylonian ideas, and scientific time scales are measured in million(s) of years before the present, or billion(s) as the case may be. Anyway.
Actually, there is enough external textual evidence that most scholars do not dispute that there was such a person as Jesus. I am not sure why disputing that he even existed is so important. Still, this is not an apologetics discussion board, so I’m not sure it’s appropriate to go into details of historical textual support.
KR Wordgazer
You need to actually provide links to make that point. Saying its there is meaningless without documentation.
no, AD stands for Anno Domini (“year of the lord”). It was instituted in the 6th century and is used exclusively in the Georgian and Julian calendars. it is also inaccurate, since Jesus would have been born either in 6/7 AD (according to Luke), or before 4 BC (according to Matthew)
Due to the imperial/colonizing history of Europe, the Georgian calendar is used as an international standard, however it is not how the whole world counts time:
The official calendar in Israel is the Hebrew calendar (counted from “the beginning of the world”, it’s now the year 5769)
The Islamic calendar is used in Muslim countries, is counted from the first year of the Hijira, and it’s now the year 1431 AH)
Japan has officially adopted the Georgian calendar in 1973, but before that it used a calendar that started in 660 BC (when Japan was supposedly founded), and even today they use what is called the Japanese Era calendar, which counts the years of the currently ruling Emperor
and so on…
as for the historical mistakes in the bible: crucifixion was a punishment reserved for slaves, soldiers, traitors and those who incite rebellion. Jesus was none of the above (“render unto caesar”, and all that). neither were the thieves, for that matter. even the bible says so.
but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Jesus’actions were considered rebellious/treasonous enough to get him crucified. In that case, Pilate had NO authority whatsoever to release him (or Barabbas, for that matter, who was also accused of rioting). it would be political suicide (at best) to release men who were convicted of treason. this is a situation of “having your cake, and eating it, too”. Jesus can’t both be executed for treason AND have the option of release. at least one of these parts of the story must be incorrect.
lastly, it is interesting that the gospels, written after the horrific war in the 60′s, describe crucifixion, of all forms of execution, as the way Jesus died; it is interesting, because in that war, many Jews died on the cross for rebellion and treason. it’s an anachronism, adapted from post-war experience into a pre-war narrative.
also, since you’ve mentioned what Muslim’s believe about Jesus… did you know that the Koran denies the historicity of the crucifixion? And that’s despite the fact that by the time the Koran was written, the NT traditions have been well established for a couple hundred years. This isn’t nearly as clear-cut as you’re making it sound.
like I said: believe in the bible if you will, but don’t claim Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection are historical facts. they’re not.
Wordgazer, “most scholars” do no such thing, that’s simply not true Most CHRISTIAN scholars do, but that’s a different animal.
I’ve already explained this: all texual references to Jesus are either based on the Christian post-war tradition (directly or indirectly), or are downright fakes. The reason it’s “important” is because claiming that Jesus is historically proven is at best special pleading, at worst a lie. and in any case, it’s intellectually dishonest.
Jadehawk, all I am going to say in response to that is to invite the readers of this blog to do their own research and determine for themselves if the non-historicity of Jesus is really so firmly established as you claim. I think they will at least determine that it is certainly not “intellectually dishonest” to read the internal and external sources and give them the same weight we would give to the same types of evidences of the historicity of any other figure of the time.
KR Wordgazer
this is exaclty the special pleading i’m talking about.
In court, the rules are “innocent until proven guilty”. this means that guilt must be proven, innocence is otherwise the default.
In historical cycles, the rules are “mythical until proven true”. skepticism is the default position on all claims, including Jesus’ historicity until and unless sufficient evidence can be had to firmly establish his historicity. but Christians want us to argue backwards, i.e. to assume his existence as the default, and then try to disprove it. historical research doesn’t work that way. when you look at King Arthur, Robin Hood, Lao Tzu and other characters, none of them have their “non-historicity” proven to be regarded as mythical. to the contrary, unless undeniable evidence is found that identifies a real, historical person (established by multiple contemporary eyewitness accounts and historical documents), on which the stories are based, they’re considered mythical characters. and for one or two of those, there’s more evidence than for Jesus.
what you personally believe is your own matter. you’re welcome to believe that Jesus was real, or that Robin Hood really roamed the English countryside once, you can say that what we know about them convinced you, personally, but you may not claim that the existence of either one is historical fact. that’s dishonest
Uh, no, KR Wordgazer, that isn’t correct. I think Jadehawk’s point, with which I concur, is that if you *do* read the external sources (what ordinary archaeologists, scientists, and regular people would call “the sources”) and “give them the same weight we would give to the same types of evidences of the historicity of any other figure of the time” an honest person, not involved in a religious passion play of their own, would admit that there is almost *no* real historical evidence for Jesus qua messiah. As for the “internal” sources, by which I take it you mean religious documents, again I think there are no conteporaneous accounts *at all* of the historical figure Jesus. All the accounts, including the gospels, were written substantially after the fact. Again, I’d refer you to Bart Ehrmann’s work on exactly how scribal transmission differs from modern notions of historicity and authenticity. In particular it was in reading his work that I discovered that my own personal favorite Jesus story, the “woman taken in adultery” was a well known late addition to the canon. It simply was interpolated as an “for example” late mythic addition–and they *know* this by studying the documents.
aimai
I should also add that there’s a difference between “the available evidence convinced me that x is true” and “the available evidence establishes x as a fact”.
Everybody has a right to look at the evidence and be convinced by it (or not). However, it’s a long way from personal conviction to established fact, and conflating those two is very fuzzy thinking at best
I’m not arguing for “Jesus qua Messiah.” I’m arguing for the existence of a person. There is sufficient internal and external sources for the historical existence of the person Jesus of Nazareth; we accept the existence of other historical figures based on similar evidence. I know the woman-in-adultery story was a later addition to the biblical text; this is not breaking news. I find myself asking what relevance that has.
And I disagree that “skepticism is the default position” on historical research– that is one school of thought that is disputed by many historians, who believe historical documents should be viewed each on its own merits. In short, there are several schools of thought about what presuppositions we should be making with regards to historical texts, and the presupposition that “if it’s not indisputably provable, we assume it’s false” is only one possible viewpoint; one which many historians find too restrictive to be useful.
As for the internal documents, many of the letters of Paul are datable very close to the time of Christ, and there is no dispute (as far as I know) that Paul was a historical figure, who was a contemporary of, and in contact with, the original disciples. Also, the synoptic gospels overlap in ways that make it clear there was an earlier source of the Jesus narratives, usually called “Q.”
But look, this thread is supposed to be about whether God is patriarchal or not. I do not want to get into some big debate about the historicity of Jesus; I have said that several times. I merely want to point out that it is certainly not an established historical statement, that there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth!
That said, I’m done talking about this. People can do the research for themselves. I don’t know why you are so set on what seems to me to be shouting me down, on a position which is hardly a threat to non-religious viewpoints.
KR Wordgazer
However, it’s a long way from personal conviction to established fact, and conflating those two is very fuzzy thinking at best
What on earth did I say to make you think I was conflating the two? It seems to me like you are arguing the non-existence of a person named Jesus of Nazareth as if that were established fact, which it certainly is not.
I don’t understand why you two are jumping all over me just for saying most historians think there probably was such a person.
KR Wordgazer
KR Wordgazer,
Don’t be angry. Threads take on a life of their own. I think you are taking as directed at *you* something that was really said in response to Jsnicole upthread. She asserted that Jesus was both an historical fact and that that fact was “proved” by her (erroneous) conviction that western methods of dating the annual calendar reflected some kind of true historical knowledge of Jesus’s existence as well as a generally accepted conviction of his divinity. Jadehawk explained very clearly and patiently that this kind of thinking is historically inaccurate. You joined in to explain that the historicity of Jesus was, at least, established and then got caught up in a larger discussion which really looks like this: if Jesus was an historical figure (a rabbi within a very particular jewish tradition, for example) what does that have to do with modern christian interpretations of texts about what he might have said to a completely different audience (an all jewish audience, for example) 2000 years ago?
I, personally, don’t care one way or another whether there was or was not a historical Jesus. But I do care that people who are still believers in a Jesus the Messiah insist that Vyckie and Laura were mistaken for 25 years because *their* Jesus wasn’t the same one that has made lots of other people happy for 2000 years, or some people happy in the last five years. I think that is where the whole question came up. Vyckie and Laura and the Quiverful people are following an absolutely canonical Jesus and Church based on absolutely standard readings of the texts. It isn’t always nice, but its the case. If that wasn’t making them happy its not merely because they “chose the wrong jesus” and “someone else chose the right one.” It might be because they chose a jesus when no jesus would have been better. And that is where Vyckie, certainly, seems to be coming out on the thread up above called “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”
aimai
I’ve been feeling like maybe I should post a comment here to say that it seems the current debate going on here about the historical Jesus is really detracting from the purpose of this blog ~ and especially from this post in particular.
I hate to cut if off because I don’t like pushing the “reject” button on the comment moderation page ~ so I’m just going to ask that we try to get back on topic please.
Again, I do appreciate the respectful tone of the commenters here ~ even when you disagree, I don’t get the sense that anyone here is resorting to personal attack.
Thanks so much.
once more: non-existence is the default until proven otherwise. this is the basis on which scientific inquiry is founded, not a “school of thought”. any scholar who takes all ancient documents at face value would be laughed at.
also, keep in mind this conversation started with the following sentence: “YOU’LL ALWAYS END UP WITH THE HISTORICAL FACT THAT JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED AND RESURRECTED.”, which is incorrect
lastly, what we have evidence for amounts to the following: after the war in the 60′s the basic Jesus narrative was established; after the turn of the century, this narrative was also known to non-christians.
WE HAVE NO CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR THIS MAN TO HAVE EVER EXISTED! Jesus the historical figure is a possibility, not a fact.
*sigh* of course I hit “post” before reading vyckie’s comment. feel free to not post it, and I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
No problem, Jadehawk. Actually, the discussion is interesting to me also ~ especially because I was pretty convinced of the soundness of Christian apologetics. When I began writing to my uncle I figured that whatever I needed to defend my faith, I either already knew or else could look it up fairly easily. It wasn’t long before the topic of the Resurrection of Christ came up ~ and my uncle told me that if he had any evidence that it actually happened, he’d become a Christian. I thought he was just setting me up ~ it couldn’t be so simple as that. Well, it turned out that I didn’t know as much as I thought I did ~ but that’s for later on in my story ~ which I really must get to writing, huh? LOL
If we have a comment about that, where do we post it?
I don’t mind if you move this, but do you have proof that George Washington was the president of the US?
I am sure you can figure out where I am going…
I appreciate your stopping this debate in this thread, Vyckie. I hope you don’t mind if I add just one rebuttal statement: history is not science, and “scientific inquiry” is different from historical inquiry– the kind of proofs used in science are different from those used in history, and history as a discipline simply cannot establish facts to the same level of certainty that the physical sciences can. Also, Jadehawk, to simply repeat your position about what the historical “default” position is, with more emphasis, is not the way to convince me of its truth– I’d rather go with what historians actually say about their own field of expertise, which I have studied.
Sorry, Vyckie. To get back on topic, I can see that you are a very intelligent, inquiring person (you write very well, too!) and I’m certain that, like me, you will continue to explore the larger questions in life. I admit I don’t “like” the idea of you deciding to leave Christianity– but what I like or don’t like isn’t important, heh, heh. You must and should come to your own conclusions about these things.
I’m hoping that as you go further into your story about your uncle’s statement about “evidence” that the Resurrection happened, you’ll let us know what he meant by “evidence” — because as I said above, there are different kinds of evidence for different disciplines, and history is one of those disciplines where facts can never actually be established beyond “rational warrant.” I myself would not have taken your uncle up on his challenge if he wanted more than that.
KR Wordgazer
I’m currently bored at university and lurking here. I just discovered this really interesting discussion and hope nobody minds if I jump in.
I don’t mind if you move this, but do you have proof that George Washington was the president of the US?
We have a narrative of his life that aligns with official documents (birth certificates, contracts signed by him, newspapers mentioning him…), whole books, speeches and correspondence written by him, by his contemporary aquaintances and his enemies. We have pictures and statues, and nothing in his life narrative contradicts what we know of his contemporaries.
As Jadehawk has said multiple times – we have no written works of Jesus himself, nor his contemporaries. Everything is written after the fact, most importantly, BY HIS FOLLOWERS. None of his political enemies offer an account, which is a huge indicator that everything written is biased and skewered. Not only that, the accounts contradict what we know of Jesus’ contemporaries (Crucified people did not get their personal tomb, they were thrown into mass graves. Herodes’ order for a census was 6 years before Jesus’ supposed birth. Not to mention that fricking violates the laws of physics! Sorry people, established miracles need to have more substance than hearsay of rumor of supposed witnesses. And so on) and the accounts even contradict each other. And of those contradicting, biased accounts a few were chosen and the rest discarded – 300 years later after his life. Yeah. Not quite the same as the historicity of George Washington.
Now I’ll go so far as to say that a person named Jesus probably existed. That many followers and churches that worship him don’t coincidentally all pop up at the same time at the same place. But – and this is a huge but – we can not ascertain what he preached nor what his life was like.
Should we be comparing the availability of historical data available on someone who lived 200 years ago, with the availability of data available on someone who lived 2000 years ago?
KR Wordgazer
Wordgazer
*shrugs*
I didn’t bring up the comparison. In fact, the ridiculousness of comparison between those two to is what I wanted to make clear to anon ;D
Anyway, you’re right of course, it’s hard to establish the historicity of someone who lived so long ago. There is a school of thought that says we can’t really know that Socrates existed.
BUT – I think in many ways that is another problem for Christianity. You see, Socrates doesn’t need to have really existed, what matters are the thoughts and philosophies attributed to him. They are valid and deserving of evaluation and in no way dependent on his person.
Jesus’ – or, more accurately, the Bible’s – teachings depend on wether or not Jesus really existed, wether his sacrifice was real, wether he was really the son of God.
And, you know, I think the incarnation of an all-powerfull and all-knowing deity should be capable of producing some lasting evidence. Or perform the kinds of miracles that can be tested later.
Besides, isn’t this whole thing so very skewered in favor of Jesus’ contemporaries? Why do they deserve evidence – witnessing the living God – and we don’t? Thomas saw Jesus die on the cross and when he saw the risen Jesus he did not believe it until he touched the stigmate in his hands. That’s demanding more evidence than I do. Yet it was given to Thomas. For unfathomable reasons, not to us.
I can value the ideas attributed to Jesus. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is something that I try my best to implement in my life. It doesn’t matter if he really said it. But I cannot believe or implement his doctrine of forgiveness for original sin and call myself intellectually honest at the same time.
Vyckie,
I respect your desire to end the thread but its really, really, interesting to some of us. Can’t you put up an open thread on the side “Historical Jesus/Science of History/Archaeological evidence etc…” and let us duke it out?
aimai
Good idea, aimai ~ I’ll do it. Just not right now ~ hopefully this evening when I’m back at the computer.
Aimai,
Please check the thread again, that was not my comment about the “date” thing. Thanks.
-Jesnicole-
sorry jesnicole! with all the anonymouses and the people who put their names only at the top or only at the bottom I must have made an error!
aimai
Just a note to say that discussion on the topics in this comment section is being continued here: OOTP: “Angry, feminist bitch,” Christian egalitarianism, The uniqueness of our perspective, Not afraid to be an atheist, QF/P creates tyrants, etc.
Vyckie,
I’ve read through other parts of your blog, and I want to offer my sympathies, now that I know your story better. I admire your courage and determination, it must have been hell to break free of your former life.
Also, I respect your decision to toss out your old religion, but I don’t think the entirety of the Bible needs to be thrown away. At the very least, the commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” could be the foundation to a better world (Then again, this concept arose in Confucianism several centuries before Christ). But, I for one am not shocked or disappointed in you, even though I do not know you. Given your circumstances, the best choice seems to be what others would call “apostasy” (It has another name, freedom). I myself have rejected a lot of modern Christianity, it is mostly man-made religious trappings anymore, there is very little Jesus in it. So, I can empathize in some ways, though I cannot begin to imagine what life under dominion is like.
In short, keep walking the path you’re on, I am one man who is inspired by your strength.
-Erasmus
Vyckie,
I’ve read through other parts of your blog, and I want to offer my sympathies, now that I know your story better. I admire your courage and determination, it must have been hell to break free of your former life.
Also, I respect your decision to toss out your old religion, but I don’t think the entirety of the Bible needs to be thrown away. At the very least, the commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” could be the foundation to a better world (Then again, this concept arose in Confucianism several centuries before Christ). But, I for one am not shocked or disappointed in you, even though I do not know you. Given your circumstances, the best choice seems to be what others would call “apostasy” (It has another name, freedom). I myself have rejected a lot of modern Christianity, it is mostly man-made religious trappings anymore, there is very little Jesus in it. So, I can empathize in some ways, though I cannot begin to imagine what life under dominion is like.
In short, keep walking the path you’re on, I am one man who is inspired by your strength.
-Erasmus
Your story could have been my story–except that the ancient patriarchal religion I was following was the American branch of the Indian Gaudiya Vaishnava faith, known here as the Hare Krishna Movement. Our husbands were our masters, surrender to him was surrender to God, and everything else pretty much echoed what you have written.
I also realized that the scriptures we were to take so literally were written by men from a particular time and culture and also designed to preserve their power structure. I gravitated to feminism and Goddess worship after doing a lot of reading and studying an anthropology of religion course. I still feel a connection with Someone when I meditate or pray–I just see no need to set up rules and a religion around what is a private communion.
Good for you in breaking away and taking charge of your own life and enabling your kids to learn and think for themselves. I see that as our biggest job as parents.
Your story could have been my story–except that the ancient patriarchal religion I was following was the American branch of the Indian Gaudiya Vaishnava faith, known here as the Hare Krishna Movement. Our husbands were our masters, surrender to him was surrender to God, and everything else pretty much echoed what you have written.
I also realized that the scriptures we were to take so literally were written by men from a particular time and culture and also designed to preserve their power structure. I gravitated to feminism and Goddess worship after doing a lot of reading and studying an anthropology of religion course. I still feel a connection with Someone when I meditate or pray–I just see no need to set up rules and a religion around what is a private communion.
Good for you in breaking away and taking charge of your own life and enabling your kids to learn and think for themselves. I see that as our biggest job as parents.
I have been writing about my own experience with an abusive husband in the patriarchal Hare Krishna Movement. His initiated name was Mahasraya. Here is a post that contains links to various parts of my story, which I think you both will find has some similarities with yours. The main difference I will note is that while we weren’t allowed to use birth control (though some secretly did), we weren’t encouraged to have lots of children because we were strongly discouraged from having sex, even in marriage. Celibacy was considered the best standard–no distraction from God by engaging in carnal pleasure. We were allowed sex once a month to have children. Not everyone followed this, but that was the standard. Too many children was a visual example of your uncontrolled lust, LOL.
On the bright side, when I left I only had 2 kids to support. I don’t think I could have handled more pregnancies, as sick as I got with each one.
http://tapati.livejournal.com/393607.html
I have been writing about my own experience with an abusive husband in the patriarchal Hare Krishna Movement. His initiated name was Mahasraya. Here is a post that contains links to various parts of my story, which I think you both will find has some similarities with yours. The main difference I will note is that while we weren’t allowed to use birth control (though some secretly did), we weren’t encouraged to have lots of children because we were strongly discouraged from having sex, even in marriage. Celibacy was considered the best standard–no distraction from God by engaging in carnal pleasure. We were allowed sex once a month to have children. Not everyone followed this, but that was the standard. Too many children was a visual example of your uncontrolled lust, LOL.
On the bright side, when I left I only had 2 kids to support. I don’t think I could have handled more pregnancies, as sick as I got with each one.
http://tapati.livejournal.com/393607.html
The discussion for this post has been moved over to our new NLQ forums: http://nolongerquivering.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=apostasyNo further comments on this post will be accepted here ~ please go to the forums. Thank you
Hi There
Thanks for your article. I admire your honesty. I agree with a lot of what you say.
I too have been a victim of the quiverful moveent. I only have one living child, and have had multiple miscarriages.
I have been told frequently by QF people keep trying. I have had two nervous breakdowns as a result of keep trying for another child.
I found my refuge in a good egalatarian Church.
Hi –
your story moved me. However I’m saddened at the fact that in throwing out the bathwater you chucked out the baby too.
Yes, the Bible was written in a time of patriarchy and naturally reflects this. And no, we should not use the cultural guidelines of an ancient middle eastern culture for our modern western culture. However, the Bible also undermines patriarchy, in my opinion. It’s both. It’s gray, not black and white.
I know you’ve probably heard this spiel a dozen times already. I’m horrible at explaining my ideas about this stuff. However, one book that really helped me as a Christian Feminist is Finally Feminist by John Stackhouse. Check it out.
It’s stories like yours that make me incredibly grateful to have found paganism and specifically Wicca as a teenager. (No offense intended.) Although, honestly, by then I’d already had my fill of men who claimed to be the head of the household or God in the house but abused the position and every one who lived there. Wicca only allows for people to stay in any position of power if they continue to exhibit appropriate behavior, especially in reference to their underlings in the coven, and family. But then again, we’re not really expected to be horrendously visible with our religious behaviors to begin with, and have no actual book to point out to show us how to behave, which does make things a bit more flexible.
Not that we’re above reproach, but it’s much less likely that another Wiccan or pagan will try to influence me to behave in a particular way (and definitely not using shame or the like) unless it is a reason that truly requires it. (Abuse, etc.)
I’m very sorry to hear about your daughter, and I realize that I found this several years after the fact. I hope that things have improved for both you and your children.
Vyckie,
All I can say is that you are so amazing and brave! It takes strength and courage to break out the brainwashing cult that is Christianity, especially such a conservative sect as Quiverfull. I hope you continue down your path towards enlightenment and freedom for you and your children.
Sincerely,
A Born Again Atheist
That is some statement. Can’t imagine what you have gone through and I am really awed by your courage to break free. It can be easier to hang on to chains. Really, I feel quite humbled. What can I say, good for you sounds so inadequate.