By Incongruous Circumspection
In Part 1a, we witnessed Bill Gothard call a woman who does not obey her husband in everything, never questioning any decision he makes, a “fool”. He based this epithet on a woman while referencing Ephesians 5:22 – 24. Of course, I uncovered the fact that Bill was flat out lying. That passage says nothing of the sort.
Let’s continue discussing Gothard’s first Basic Need of a Husband ([A man needs a wife that is loyal and supportive]).
Gothard continues to expound on the above basic need by stating the following:
[Realize that your husband’s perspective is different than yours.]
Wow. Bill is really smart. Put two or more people together and you have differences. But let’s not give him any credit. That’s not what he means. Patriarchy (the religious philosophy that Bill Gothard bases all his materials on) and the Authority Doctrine (P/AD) requires distinct differences in men and women in order to prove that women need a man to rule them.
[A man’s goals often involve long-range achievement. Therefore, a man is willing to sacrifice short-term convenience in order to meet an important long-term goal. However, a wife’s perspective usually centers on short-term goals associated with her responsibilities in the family and home. During times of pressure, a wife should keep the “big picture” in mind. Accept difficult situations from God without giving Him a deadline to remove them]
While reading the above, did anyone think about sex? I would posit that most men have short term goals in mind when it comes to rolling around between the sheets. Well, of course, he probably wants to last a while, but that can still hardly be called “long term”. But Bill protects himself from this argument because he cleverly uses the words “often” and “usually” when referring to a man’s “goals” and a woman’s “perspective”.
Michelle says, Never enough babies!
Millipede: Part Two
Eventually, the church building materialized. At first, we had a larger group. Soon however, there was a falling out with a group which had comprised most of those from the Patriot group. Part of it was personality and some of it was viewpoint. Some wanted to the place to be a patriot type meeting house while some wanted it to be a church. This belied a rift that plays itself over again and again in this end of the spectrum.
On one hand there are what I would call the “political types”. This is simply for lack of a better term and is not indicative of a lack of Faith. People within this group were most often led into church via ideological means. Their religious views are part of a larger concert of views. I heard a pastor bemoan such people, saying that they simply added Christ onto a long chain of train cars of belief. One car might be their position on gun control, another states’ rights and so on. With the “religious question” answered they move on to continue to build the train. He stated that they needed to make Christ the locomotive, not merely regulate Him along a set of beliefs.
On the other hand you have those for whom Faith is the primary motivation. They often come from a strong Fundamentalist background. Not from in a distant childhood past either, but often having recently come from various conservative churches. for these folks, ideological issues are important, but they are subordinate to questions of faith.
Full Post