The far right, purity, Quiverfull world, patriarchal dominionism, and Christian Reconstruction likes to belittle women. It all started with R. J. Rushdoony, who apparently had a very real problem with women. According to Rushdoony’s Old Testament based pseudo-Christian cult, women should be treated the way they were in the Old Testament. That’s fine, but he’s basing his work on the early books of the OT, where the Hebrew people were learning who they were, and their faith was being established.
It evolved. People like Rushdoony, and his followers don’t comprehend that the ancient Hebrews were more than just plastic, cut-out paper dolls for kids to play Bible with. They were living, breathing men and women who had a very real sociology and history. People did not live their lives the way we see in the OT. Oh, they did, but there is more too it than that. There are reasons why things happened the way they did. The most obvious examples are the laws for sanitation and for food consumption. In the primitive world, which the world of the OT very much was, people looked at things via religion. You tell them it is taboo not to eat pork, and you save them from disease.
There is a creep factor here.
“...Furthermore, the stay-at-home-daughter movement holds that girls are only ready to marry when they’ve completely tamed individualistic traits—when, as the Botkins put it, they’ve learned to “submit to an imperfect man’s ‘whims’ as well as his heavy requirements. To order our lives around another person. To esteem and reverence [sic] and adore a man whose faults we can see clearly every day.” Fathers are never to be criticized or even teased: “When you speak of him to others, you shouldn’t talk about his mistakes, but of the good things he’s done. When you speak of him, instead of criticizing and nagging him for his faults, you should tell him how much you admire his strengths,” say the Botkins. Stay-at-home daughter Ruth says she honors her father by finding out his favorite colors and wearing them; Kelly says she finds that her father’s convictions “are becoming my convictions, his passions my passions.” Although it’s likely that many women would find such an existence frustrating and unhappy, if not completely infantilizing, within the context of the Christian Patriarchy Movement it’s not difficult to see the appeal. After all, women raised in the CPM are brought up to believe that the world outside their community is sin-filled, godless, and dangerous; opting for stay-at-home daughterhood represents a lifetime of safety….”
This is truly disgusting. The girl was thirteen at the time, being groomed to marry a 28 year old man.
“…A True Romantic Betrothal Example
January 1, 2005
Written by Jonathan Lindvall
This article is tentatively planned as the concluding chapter of a book on the topic of God’s design for Youthful Romance. Thus it is assumed that the reader is already acquainted with the foundational scriptural arguments against current dating and courtship practices and for the Betrothal Model being described and proposed. It is recommended that you read, in this order, Youthful Romance: Scriptural Patterns, The Dangers of Dating: Scriptural Romance–Part 1, and Dating? Courtship? Betrothal? Scriptural Romance–Part 2, articles available on-line, before reading this one.
Matthew & Maranatha Chapman were married in 1988. They consciously purposed to offer their lives and wedding as a demonstration of their understanding of the relationship of the Lord Jesus and His bride. For them, being made ready themselves for the Lord as members of His bride, and helping other Christians in doing the same, is what they believe their calling in life and ministry to the body of Christ to be, and they wanted this expressed and demonstrated in the way they approached their marriage.
Although their unique story illustrates many of the betrothal principles discussed in this book, until more recently neither of them had ever heard of such a thing as “courtship” and certainly while they were still single they were largely unaware of the dangers and fallacies of dating. By the grace of God, however, and with Maranatha’s father’s help, they purposed to pattern their marriage as a testimony and symbol of God’s design. Thus they were blessed to lay a scriptural foundation for their relationship from the very beginning.
According to his own confession, Matthew was anything but a model youth a father would want to marry his daughter. But the Lord gloriously saved Matthew when he was 19 years old. He soon determined to devote the rest of His life to the Lord’s work. He soon enrolled in a ministerial program at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. During those years, he preached at numerous churches and revival meetings, and was active in street evangelism. Upon graduating, he began a one-year staff position as a ministerial intern at Highland Baptist Church, a large congregation in Waco.
The Lord used Matthew’s time at Highland to reveal and deal with various of his most significant weaknesses. The Lord had already regenerated him, but his selfish motivations still needed to be dealt with. Matthew grew disturbed, lacking understanding of God’s design for pruning and chastening those He loves. As his confusion and discouragement with the Holy Spirit’s purging and breaking process became increasingly apparent, others began to be worried about him as well. His fellow intern and roommate suggested that he ought to seek counsel from Stan Owen, a godly man at Highland known for his unusual wisdom. After initial resistance, Matthew conceded his need for guidance and went to see Stan.
What began as an initial appointment turned into a long-term discipleship relationship that was extremely fruitful for Matthew. Stan gradually became a spiritual father to Matthew. With his help Matthew was able to recognize and cooperate with the painful refining process the Lord was using to correct many flaws that would have undermined later fruitfulness for the Lord. During this time Matthew also began to pursue and develop his trade as a finish carpenter.
Over the next few years the Lord steadily continued to work deeply in Matthew’s life as he was living in this discipleship father-son relationship with Stan. Meantime the Lord was opening doors for his speaking ministry, and often the two of them would minister together. Matthew was intent on pursuing God without allowing any distraction. He had particularly struggled with the distraction of Romance and had purposed to give this whole matter to the Lord.
At one point as Stan was spending time with the Lord in prayer he felt impressed that his daughter Maranatha was to one day become Matthew’s wife. Because there was a significant age difference between them, he doubted this idea was from the Lord, but as he prayed about this, he became increasingly certain that God was making His will known. Eventually, as he prayed over this matter, in his own heart Stan gave Maranatha to the Lord and to Matthew. He wisely said nothing to either of them, though, waiting to see how the Lord would bring this about.
One evening, not long after this, as Matthew and Stan were traveling to a speaking engagement, Matthew confided a distraction that was troubling him. “I have a confession to make,” he told Stan. “Something is wrong with me. No matter how hard I try to avoid thinking about it, I find your daughter, Maranatha, very attractive. I don’t know what to do about it.”
Matthew was certain this attraction could not be right since Maranatha was so much younger than he. Thus he was shocked when Stan responded, “Have you ever considered that this may be a good thing? How do you know this isn’t from the Lord?” As he pondered this Matthew’s hopes began to rise. But Mr. Owen quickly began putting on the brakes. While he acknowledged the possibility of the Lord’s direction in this, he sternly warned Matthew not to touch Maranatha, nor speak with her about the matter without his consent. He specifically cautioned Matthew to be careful to avoid doing anything to draw Maranatha’s heart to himself. She wasn’t ready for marriage and romance, and her father had purposed to specially guide and protect her.
At the time of Maranatha’s birth, Stan Owen felt the Lord revealed to him that her life would be a particularly significant demonstration of Christ’s love for His church. He gave her the name “Maranatha,” meaning O Lord, Come. He was certain she had a special purpose to fulfill in demonstrating God’s heart and ways.
Matthew purposed to be very careful in how he related to Maranatha. Following her father’s instructions, as well as his own growing fear of the Lord and the innate recognition that she must be protected, he guarded his mouth and even his eyes from displaying any particular interest in her.
Meanwhile, unbeknown to Matthew, Maranatha had also begun confiding to her father an interest in Matthew. She was completely unaware of his attraction toward her at the time. Mr. Owen purposed to avoid encouraging her interest, but wondered if it might be of the Lord. He challenged Maranatha to keep her heart pure and focused on the Lord. As time went on, however, Maranatha found her attraction for Matthew increasingly distracting. She even began having trouble sleeping at night. She regularly confided her struggles with her father.
Mr. Owen knew Maranatha was not ready for marriage and as he observed her struggle he eventually realized he must step in and relieve her. Knowing that if this relationship was of the Lord, He would resurrect it at the proper time (and such time was not soon), he instructed her that she needed to give this whole matter up to the Lord and truly die to it. He gently directed her to completely give up any hope of ever having Matthew. She was to wholly give herself to the Lord without any lingering desire for Matthew. After a struggle with her own emotions she chose to trust and submit to her father and came to the place of surrender. God gave her the grace to completely give up all interest in Matthew. She entered into rest and, for the first time in quite a while, was able to sleep peacefully….”
Going back to my opening paragraphs, there were reasons for things in the Old Testament, things that people like R. J. Rushdoony, in their pseudo-Christian cult don’t even comprehend or choose to admit. The most logical example of this is the taboo against eating pork.
“…The cultural materialistic anthropologist Marvin Harris thinks that the main reason for prohibiting consumption of pork was ecological-economical. Pigs require water and shady woods with seeds, but those conditions are scarce in Israel and the Middle East. Unlike many other forms of livestock, pigs are omnivorous scavengers, eating virtually anything they come across, including carrion and refuse. This was deemed unclean, hence a Middle Eastern society keeping large stocks of pigs would destroy their ecosystem. Harris points out how, while the Hebrews are also forbidden to eat camels and fish without scales, Arab nomads couldn’t afford to starve in the desert whilst having camels around. The taboo on eating pigs may also have been reinforced by similarities between pork and human flesh (which would have been evident in their shared physical nature and manner of decomposition, rather than requiring previous contact with cannibalism). Thus Juvenal finds the Jews reviling the eating of pig flesh as if it were cannibalism (Satire XIV)…”
If Rushdoony and the others were so determined to enforce the patriarchal laws of the ancient Hebrews, why not enforce the taboo on pork? They manipulate the laws against women, but pick and choose. Evidently, men like this enjoy a nice ham. They enjoy having women to cook the ham, serve the ham, clean up after they eat the ham, then fool around with them after a good meal, have their kids, and bake more ham. They don’t want their women to suggest that they might want to help clean the kitchen, that they are capable of baking the ham, and they don’t want seventy-five kids.
I guess it’s all a matter of perspective. My humble perspective is that there is something akin to pedophilia when it comes to grooming children this age. We discuss the Kate Hunt case, about how she groomed her 14-year-old victim. How is this any different, other than the fact that the sexual activity is accompanied by a wedding ring and permission from the parents. In some locations the marriage is not even recorded, legally, nor by a civil contract. The daughters being given to
pedophilia marriage are not quite legal, yet.
So, we have young women who have had their lives literally stolen by parents advocating the destruction of their birth certificates. They are barely educated, functionally illiterate. They can’t vote. If they have no legal status they can’t even drive. In some situations, like the daughters of Michael and Debi Pearl, they are being married by the church, without bothering with the legal ramifications.
Kate Hunt will be getting out of jail in a few days. She will spend the remainder of her life as a registered sex offender. Please, explain to me why this is any different?