Showing posts with label Purity Teachings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Purity Teachings. Show all posts

Saturday, December 8, 2012

The Homeschool Movement: Its Reconstructionist Roots and Rushdoony's Influence



"We are authorized by God to challenge all that is not godly!" Rushdoony thundered. "God is angry with the wicked every day, and the sins of the wicked deserve the infliction of God's wrath in this life as well as the life hereafter!"  Rushdoony

I know the title of this post seems dry and boring.  If spiritual abuse is a concern of yours, I encourage you to take the time to read this post carefully.  Check out the links and do some research on your own.  The information I have found has compelled me to keep blogging, to keep telling my story, and to keep sharing the stories of others.  I am just a little worked up on this topic.  

There is much more to homeschooling than just educating children.  There is much more to patriarchy and courtship than fathers being heads of home and parents involved in the process of finding mates for their adult children.  You must know that there is an agenda going on.  This agenda ties these practices together.  I thought I was homeschooling my children because I could do a better job than the local public school system.  I thought I was homeschooling my children so I could include Bible in their education and also protect them from negative worldly influences. That was pretty much my agenda.  But that was not the agenda of the people I looked up to - the leaders in the homeschooling community.  We looked to the leaders because they knew what they were doing and could help guide us on our foreign path.  But there was an underlying agenda that I didn't know about, that they did not disclose.  It was there all along, but it's not so obvious.  I want to expose that NOW! 

Many of you know that this blog started with the intent to share about my family's experience at a spiritually abusive church.  There has been much heartache in that experience and then 3-1/2 years later, it continued as my former pastor filed a defamation lawsuit against me and 4 others (and lost) this past summer.  I have seen the impact on my family and have done a lot of soul searching:  what led us to that church?  who influenced my life as a Christian?  who influenced my life as a mother?  who influenced my life as I ventured into homeschooling my children?  As I researched my primary influencers, I found a common thread of destructive ideologies within the homeschooling movement.  

My first article on the homeschooling movement opened up a whole can of worms on a culture that I have been a part of for the last 20 years or so.  Some of these teachings (courtship, modesty/purity, full-quiver) have infiltrated churches and families who do not teach their children at home.  It is a powerful movement and I caught on to the movement without realizing I was part of it.  I embraced certain aspects of it, brought those aspects that I agreed with to my churches.   As we moved around the country (my husband was in the Navy), I shared these aspects with my friends and friends shared the aspects they learned with me, etc.  That is how this movement spreads.  It can be one particular teaching or many, but they all intertwine, feeding the agenda.

It is important to have knowledge of this movement because even if you have no desire to homeschool your children or maybe you are single or empty-nesters, this movement spreads to churches in some way or other and as we have seen with courtship, patriarchy, and other teachings, some of the teachings leave a devastating path with emotional and spiritual turmoil.  


The other night I read an article about Michael Farris that got me worked up. Mike Farris is known as one of the key pillars of the homeschool movement.  I wanted to share my thoughts on a situation regarding Michael Farris, but realized without sharing more background information, you wouldn't get the full picture.  So, please allow me to do that now.  

Before Michael Farris was a pillar in the homeschool community, there was another very prominent figure, Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001).  I believe Rushdoony set the trajectory for the homeschooling movement.  Although Rushdoony died in 2001, he established the basis of the movement long before.  These roots are in Christian Reconstructionism.   


I found this article which described Christian Reconstructionism very well.  As you read the variety of quoted materials included in the post, I encourage you to keep in mind how the ideas of patriarchy, courtship, full-quiver tie in with this belief system.


What is Reconstructionism?
Reconstructionism is a theology that arose out of conservative Presbyterianism (Reformed and Orthodox), which proposes that contemporary application of the laws of Old Testament Israel, or "Biblical Law," is the basis for reconstructing society toward the Kingdom of God on earth.
Reconstructionism argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life--such as government, education, law, and the arts, not merely "social" or "moral" issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. Reconstructionists have formulated a "Biblical world view" and "Biblical principles" by which to examine contemporary matters. Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton succinctly describes this view: "The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God's law."

More broadly, Reconstructionists believe that there are three main areas of governance: family government, church government, and civil government. Under God's covenant, the nuclear family is the basic unit. The husband is the head of the family, and wife and children are "in submission" to him. In turn, the husband "submits" to Jesus and to God's laws as detailed in the Old Testament. The church has its own ecclesiastical structure and governance. Civil government exists to implement God's laws. All three institutions are under Biblical Law, the implementation of which is called "theonomy."



Source




Let's learn a little about Rushdoony.  This is from Wikipedia:


Rousas John Rushdoony (April 25, 1916 – February 8, 2001) was a Calvinist philosopherhistorian, andtheologian and is widely credited as the father of Christian Reconstructionism and an inspiration for the modern Christian homeschool movement.[1][2] His followers and critics have argued that his thought exerts considerable influence on the Christian right.[3] (Source)


I was glad to find this video on Rushdoony and his Reconstructionist beliefs. It is an interview with Bill Moyers of PBS and is very good.  It's still difficult for me to wrap the idea around my head that part of this belief system is to bring the Old Testament laws into modern times; ie, death penalty for those who commit adultery, death penalty for homosexuals, etc.  






Christian Reconstructionism in a Nutshell from Bruce Prescott on Vimeo.



This quote describes how Rushdoony took his Reconstructionist views and made a case for educating children at home and thus became known as the "father of the homeschool movement" by many:



Key to this strategy was the homeschooling movement.  Education, Rushdoony realized early on, was the best way to distribute his message. To that end, he wrote multiple books on the history of American education, charting its transformation from one-room schoolhouses and parochial schools to urban institutions. These books became guideposts for Christians who believed that public schools were indoctrinating their kids in the false faith of secular humanism. McVicar, the Ohio State scholar, says, “Rushdoony understood that if he changed the way Christians educated their children, he could change the way they thought.” (Source - ja note:  this article goes on to discuss current people in politics influenced by Rushdoony's ideologies  - very interesting article)


The homeschool movement is comprised of specific teachings/beliefs.  These teachings come from various groups or individuals who share the common thread of homeschooling.  These groups work independently and may have different focuses, are in different locations, but again, the foundational agenda can be found in Reconstructionist roots.

Interestingly, I had the above paragraph typed up a couple days ago and a few minutes ago I read an article by Frederick Clarkson originally published in June 1994 about this Reconstructionist "movement" and how it has spread over the years:


A Movement of Ideas
As a movement primarily of ideas, Reconstructionism has no single denominational or institutional home. Nor is it totally defined by a single charismatic leader, nor even a single text. Rather, it is defined by a small group of scholars who are identified with Reformed or Orthodox Presbyterianism. The movement networks primarily through magazines, conferences, publishing houses, think tanks, and bookstores. As a matter of strategy, it is a self-consciously decentralized and publicity-shy movement.

This is exactly what I have seen happening in the homeschool movement and why it is so hard to pin down because it is not localized in one church, one denomination, or organization.  Both the Reconstructionist and homeschool movements are so invasive and have spread the same way.  You or people you know may be part of either the Reconstructionist movement or the homeschool movement and have adopted ideologies without even realizing it.  I realized through my research that I furthered the homeschool movement by sharing books, CDs, talking to my friends about my new-found ideas.  I had been a part of it all along endorsing it and spreading it quite convincingly among my friends and church acquaintances.  


Here's a little more on Rushdoony.  In 1965 he founded the non-profit organization called Chalcedon Foundation to promote the Reconstructionism.  Read Chalcedon's vision statement here.  

Here's a brief summary from Wikipedia:

The Chalcedon Foundation is an American Christian Reconstructionist organization founded by Rousas John Rushdoony in 1965. Named for the Council of Chalcedon,[2] it has also included theologians such as Gary North, who later founded his own organization, the Institute for Christian Economics.
The Chalcedon Foundation provides educational material in the form of books, newsletter reports and various electronic media, toward advancing the theological teachings of Rushdoony's Christian Reconstructionism movement. It is notable for its role in the influence of Christianity on politics in the U.S.[3] and has been described as "a think tank of the Religious Right.[4] Rushdoony's son, Mark now heads the foundation.
The Chalcedon Foundation has been listed as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centerfor, among other reasons, supporting the death penalty for homosexuals.[5]


We can see in the above summary that this Reconstructionist organization has infiltrated the education systems and politics in America with their Reconstructionist agenda.  

Here are more articles I found interesting in researching this topic:


Invitation to a Stoning

Chalcedon Foundation Leads Christian Reconstructionists in Campaign to Convert Conservative Fundamentalist Churches

His Truth is Marching On

When we think of spiritual abuse, we think of it in the confines of a church.  The homeschool movement is different because it has no confines - it is scattered all over the country, people can become as involved as they want in various groups, but what I've noticed is that there are behavioral characteristics used by those in the homeschool movement which are similar to behavior used by spiritually abusive church leaders.  There are different dynamics, but the end results can be the same.  This is why I keep sharing personal stories about these topics here.  








Wednesday, December 5, 2012

The UnMarried Movie: Singleness as a Result of Rigid and Controlled Parenting



I'm still getting comments on the UnMarried movie posts (More Background Info on the Movie: UnMarried and UnMarried Movie: Is Staying Single Sabotaging Chr... )  and today while looking through my Twitter feed, I noticed quite a few tweets on the topics of modesty and purity.  


In case you missed the brief movie trailer, here it is:





I've discussed this on my blog before.  Our former church had rigid rules on modesty and purity (Hyper-Modesty in the Church, Part 1,  Hyper-Modesty in the Church, Part 2Hyper Modesty in the Church, Part 3, and BGBC Survivors: Legalism: Do Not Expose Your Thighs!)  We had a dress code - nothing above the knees should be showing.  The bride in the picture above would not have been allowed to wear that strapless wedding gown at our church.  Other rules included no co-ed swimming.  The boys were encouraged to turn their heads if they saw a woman jogging.  Some moms were known to cover their boys' eyes when passing through the lingerie section of a clothing store or when passing Victoria Secret at the mall.  I remember my kids racing to the tv to turn off "inappropriate" commercials or shows when they saw someone dressed immodestly.  Some parents would mark up texts books with a black marker if there was a picture of an immodest sculpture or painting.  

And then there were the purity rules - no boy or girl should ever be alone together.  Relationships had to go through the father, girls were given purity rings by their fathers (and mothers) and they pledged to remain virgins until marriage, sometimes signing a covenant . . . . and so on.

As I was thinking about modesty and purity, it made me wonder about the movie, UnMarried.  Do you suppose all of these modesty and purity rules may have backfired and contributed to the growing number of singles?   The people behind the UnMarried movie come from the patriarchal background.  They believe in moms having lots and lots of babies to populate the earth with more Christians.  Singleness remains a threat to their way of doing things because no babies means fewer Christians in future generations (as if they are the ones who determines if their child was elect, right?).

One thing I've heard from moms who have raised young adults in the homeschool environment is that their adult children are somewhat afraid of the opposite sex. They don't quite know what to do with them.  For years these kids were told don't look at the opposite sex, don't lust, don't touch.  And now the producers of this movie are telling these same young adults:  hurry up and get married.  Perhaps they might even say these singles are in sin and preempting God's plans for His church by their "prolonged adolescence".  I've certainly read it before by folks within this movement.

This is more whacked out stuff, people!  Tell young adults, don't touch, don't look and then tell them to get married, touch, and procreate.   What a roller coaster ride for these young adults.  That absurdity might drive me to prolonged adolescence and therapy.   

Yup, I think it backfired.  It is my opinion that the movie, UnMarried is an attempt at damage control.  They are trying to recover from the mess they made by their ridiculous rules of making sure their children were completely modest and virginal.   Legalism backfires, people.  It just does not work the way people want.  It usually produces extremes.  In my former church, the result of this kind of legalism was a lot of young adults acting out sexually.  It can go the other direction, too - prolonged singleness.  They've raised a bunch of adult children who have difficulty functioning normally in a mixed-sex society.  They may be afraid to look at the opposite sex for fear of lust and sin.  They may be afraid to talk to someone of the opposite sex because they aren't married yet and fear, What would people think?  In most circles I am familiar with, a young couple would not be allowed to go to even Starbucks alone unless a little sibling tagged along.  
 
To the producers of this movie, throw away your legalistic courtship rules and purity contracts.  Let young adult men and women decide for themselves who they want to share the rest of their lives with.  Did your parents decide for you who you were to marry?  Did your parents sign purity contracts with you?  Let these young adults listen to God for the plans He has for them.  Your job as parent was to train them to hear the voice of God, to read His word, to accept the counsel of wise people.  If you did your job right, you have nothing to fear.  God is sovereign, right?   Do you trust God with your adult children and their future?







photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/seanmolin/8042578241/">Sean Molin Photography</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/">cc</a>

Friday, November 23, 2012

Hannah's Purity Ring Story










After posting the article, Fathers and Daughters: Who Owns a Daughter's Heart?, it opened up a can of worms for Hannah, my 25-year old daughter.   For new readers, she's my daughter who was also named in the defamation lawsuit by our former pastor (you can read her story from her perspective:  Hannah's Personal Story in Her Own Words and from my perspective:   In Honor of Hannah).  She abruptly left our home at the age of 21 because she couldn't deal with the spiritual abuse at our former church any longer and knew we would make her go to church if she remained at home - it’s a long and sad story, my relationship with Hannah is great now.   She mentioned that the video clip from the movie, Courageous made her get teary-eyed.  I asked if she had anything she might like to share about her purity ring experience.


Before we get to Hannah's thoughts, she refers to the "umbrella" philosophy in her story.   This is a teaching that came from Bill Gothard - a man whose teachings have strongly influenced the homeschooling movement (and our family): 


Protection Under Authority

The use of an umbrella to symbolize protection is commonly understood and accepted. In the insurance industry, an overall coverage of protection is referred to as an “umbrella policy.” In the Bible, similar symbols teach the concepts of provision, protection, headship, and leadership.
The use of this symbol in relation to the family is to give special encouragement to fathers to protect, instruct, lead, and provide for their wives, sons, and daughters. It is also to remind the family that no father is perfect, but as they pray for him and encourage him, they can increase his ability and motivation to fulfill his God-given responsibilities.
In addition to the father, Scripture has other umbrella analogies: The cloud of protection that God gave to Israel during their forty years in the wilderness (Exodus 13:21–22), the shadow of God’s hand over His people (Isaiah 51:15–16)“the shadow of the Almighty” (Psalm 91:1), and the wings of a mother hen (Matthew 23:37).
Understanding the umbrella concept increases our love for God and assures us of His love, protection, and provision for us as His children.



Ok, I just yanked Research in Principles of Life Basic Seminar Textbook off the bookshelf.  I have been tempted to throw this book away many times, but decided to keep it for blogging material - HA!   









This is the workbook from Gothard's Basic Seminar which was very popular over the years, not only in homeschooling circles, but among Christians in general.   It was dusty and I haven't opened it since I heard the teaching around 18 years ago.  This should give some ideas about the teachings of authorities and young adults.  The expectation is for daughters to remain at home until dad can pass her off to her new authority - her new husband.  


"When does the parental "chain of responsibility" end?
The parental "chain of responsibility" ends when they delegate that authority to someone else - as in marriage or the ministry.  However, even before this, a certain measure of independence should be earned by learning to discern and obey the wishes of parents.  When they are confident that we will do what they would do in a given situation, they will give more freedom to make decisions.

What if I'm an adult and still single?
By this time, we should have earned the position of being in a "chain of counsel."  If we haven't, there must be some serious deficiencies in our attitudes or understanding.
Whatever our age, however, we are instructed in Scripture to always be responsive to our parents' counsel:  "Hearken unto they father that begat thee, and despise not thy mother when she is old."  Proverbs 23:22

What if I'm single and living in an apartment?
First, be very sure that God has led you to move away from your parents, and that they were fully in harmony with the move.  When God designed the family structure, He purposed that each one in the family meet basic needs for others - especially social needs.  When a single person leaves his family apart from God's direction, he exposes himself to many unnecessary temptations to wrongly fulfill these social needs.  If your parents are in full harmony with your move to another location, it is important to maintain good lines of communication with them in order to receive counsel from them.

What if I don't respect the authority over me?
It is important that we learn how to distinguish between an authority's position under God and his human personality.  We are to reverence his position, although at the same time we may be very aware of personality deficiencies.
To say that we reject an authority because we don't respect him would be as much in error as tearing up a speeding ticket because we didn't like the attitude of the arresting officer.   
If you'd like to read more stories from people who have gone through years of Gothard's teachings, be sure to check out Recovering Grace website, "a Gothard generation shines light on the teachings of IBLP and ATI."  By the way, ATI is the same program that the Duggard family uses for teaching their children - the Duggards are the famous quiver-full family on TLC television with 19 kids.   

Here is Hannah's purity ring story.  There are no real bells and whistles, but it's interesting to read her perspective now - nearly a decade later.


For my sixteenth birthday, my parent's gave me a purity ring. I was taken to an up-scale restaurant and given a little box with the gold and gem ring. I vaguely remember the little speech that went with the ring. "This symbolizes a covenant..." They discussed the "umbrella" philosophy they'd taught me - that I was under my father's protection until he was able to hand the "umbrella" of protection and love to my husband. 
I remember having mixed feelings about the entire concept. My mother recently reminded me that I loved reading courtship books - I did, but whether it was for the love story, the romance, or because I believed in the courtship model, I couldn't tell you. I've had reservations about the concept. 
I've always loved working on my career, and had plans to go to school and graduate. I didn't know when I'd want to marry a man, because school and work were very important to me. I know I was not quite comfortable with thinking about living with my parents, under my father's "umbrella" until at least my mid-twenties and had finished school because I thought that if I married before I finished school, I would never finish because my husband and having babies would take precedence. 
Sadly, I was never able to bring myself to discuss my concerns about the purity ring, the covenant it symbolized, and my ideas for my life with my parents. I took the ring that day because I couldn't not take it, I was in a public place, I was trained not to disagree with my parents, I didn't want to spoil the mood, etc.  Once I moved out, I realized I had major issues with the whole concept, and since have not worn the ring on my ring finger. I still like it as a piece of jewelry, but that's all it is to me.



From my perspective looking back, we were trying something different than how we were raised to hopefully avoid some of the pitfalls we had experienced as teens/young adults.  I don't think modern day "recreational dating" where couples go out spontaneously with "sexperimentation" is an ideal situation.   I think we were hoping courtship would be a healthier way to find one's life partner.  The courtship model we appreciated involved getting to know potential suiters, having them over, working on projects together, spending time with the family to see how he interacted with younger siblings, etc.  I still think a lot of this is important, but I am not convinced that courting is the ideal way anymore.  I think it made Hannah feel confined and I especially do not agree with the father having ownership of his daughter's heart.  I think I could type up a post or two on just that topic alone.  

Another thing that the purity ring/courtship emphasis did was created real boundaries between guys and girls.  The ring represented that she was taken (by her father) and so any guy who saw a ring on her finger kept his distance.  I noticed some uneasiness of teens when they were in a group setting that I never experienced in high school.  I can only think that comes from the rigid boundaries.  

Interestingly, our other daughter who is now 18 years old does not have a purity ring and we have not discussed courtship with her.  She is equally comfortable hanging out and talking with guys or girls.  









photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/atillavibes/3944865367/">Atilla1000</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/">cc</a>