What happens when a woman feels like the Lord has called her to be a minister and she is a member of a godly patriarchal denomination? Do the godly men in that denomination, in her church tell her that she can’t honor the Lord because she does not have specific anatomical features they do? Do the godly men who don’t think that godly women should be allowed to be godly ministers in their ungodly world think that, because she is a woman God can’t speak to her, to inspire her?
I remember a passage from one of my all-time favorite books, These Happy Golden Years. In it, Laura and Almanzo were discussing their pending marriage ceremony. She told him that she refused to say the words ‘obey’, in their vows. Contrary to the strange Vision Forum version of life on the prairie, Laura and her sisters were part of that first vanguard of feminism. Their mother did not obey their father, and Laura wasn’t going to obey her husband.
The same thing held true for the Perkins women of Minneapolis. They were some of the first women to vote in the state of Minnesota. Like Laura, they believed in the rights of women, to be equal to men. That was well over a century ago. What on earth has happened to this country, to want to push women back to a world where we have no rights? After all, according to Bryan Fischer, God created women to be secretaries. Fisher has a lot of company. David Barton, ‘historian’ recently said that allowing women to vote was destroying the very fabric of our country.
“...So family government precedes civil government and you watch that as colonists came to America, they voted by families. And you have to remember back then, husband and wife, I mean the two were considered one. That is the biblical precept… That is a family, that is voting. And so the head of the family is traditionally considered to be the husband and even biblically still continues to be so…the bigotry we’re told they held back then, they didn’t hold. And what they did was they put the family unit higher than the government unit and they tried to work hard to keep the family together. And, as we can show in two or three hundred studies since then, the more you weaken the family, the more it hurts the entire culture and society…”
A godly woman, Jennie Chancey, writing about godly families, feels that women don’t need the right to vote. She mangling her Biblical history, and spewing godly historical facts the way Barton does, she wrote, in 2008: (She’s also into modesty with her fake version of what what Regency style was like. Her retro patterns are excellent, BTW. I just dislike fake history.)
“…Single or widowed women who owned property were allowed to vote in most of the colonies (they did this under the so-called “Dame” laws). During colonial times (1600-1776), the right to vote was linked directly to land ownership (as mentioned above). This practice did not end until the 1820s, as Enlightenment philosophy began to creep into the notions of franchise. (The unfortunate results of the Enlightenment are discussed in The Woman’s Place by R.J. Rushdoony.) The founders and lawmakers who didn’t give the vote to married women were not woman-haters out to suppress the opinions of half of the population. They had an entirely different view than we do today–a view built around landowning households rather than individuals. According to English Common Law, man and wife become one not only in the spiritual or romantic sense, but in the legal sense. They are one force to be reckoned with legally rather than two individuals. The family (not the individual) has always been considered the foundation of society and the bedrock of government. Therefore the vote was given to the head of the household and not to each member residing within the household. The head represented his household when he went to the polls, much as our senators and congressmen represent us when they vote in the Senate or the House. This is one of the foundation stones of a Republic. Certain people are elected to represent others within their district. In this sense, the husband (or head of the landowning household) was “elected” to represent his household at the ballot box. If a husband was incapacitated or otherwise unable to exercise his right to vote, there were laws allowing the wife to vote for the household. In this way, each household was fairly represented at the ballot box….”
Unfortunately, like David Barton, Mrs. Chancey’s history is just as flawed. In Massachusetts, in a town meeting, in Oxbridge, ONE SINGLE WOMAN, Lydia Taft is allowed to vote. Not a colony, not many individuals, bit one single person. She was allowed to vote a grand total of 3 times. From 1776 (or 1797)-1807, propertied widows were allowed to vote in New Jersey. That’s it. I’d hate to take this woman’s annual Regency tour of England if this is an example of her history. According to one expose of this godly woman, she’s been ripping off widows in the third world to make her products. One source says she pays her workers about a buck an hour. Her husband, Matt, was connected to Vision Forum. It puts things in perspective. Like everyone else in this little world, she’s in it for a buck.
I found something rather fascinating about Mrs. Chancey that is most revealing. She has a BA from King’s College but advocates that young women not be educated.
“...I was bold enough to ask the obvious: “What do unwed young ladies do all day?” Jennie’s answer, and the answer of every young lady in that congregation was, “Serve her father.”…”
Today’s He-Man-Woman-Hating but godly ‘Christian’ male is being told that Paul said women were to be submissive to women. Unfortunately, the term submissive also has some rather tawdry sexual connotations, which, I swear are part of this movement. I bring this up because there is an entire ‘godly’ sub-culture based on spanking of wives, of physical punishment, and testimonials that are truly bazaar. In fact, there is one very important ‘godly’ leader who was known to administer such spankings to his late wife, on somewhat regular basis and in situations where they would be the most humiliating to her. They have literally created a war against women who disagree with them. They want to obliterate any progress women have made, including a National Women’s Museum.
“...Religious Right groups came out against the plan because, they said, it would place too much emphases on women who had fought for women’s rights. CWA complained that the museum would “indoctrinate” visitors into “a jaundiced view of women’s history” because the museum’s website mentioned pioneering abortion rights advocates but didn’t mention CWA’s founder Beverly LaHaye or fringe right-wing activist Star Parker.
Eagle Forum urged its members to oppose the creation of the museum, saying, “Long sought by feminists, this project would enshrine their warped view of American history on the National Mall” and added that the museum wasn’t needed anyway: “Women’s history is American history, and there is already a National Museum of American History on the Mall.”
The Family Research Council warned that the museum would become “a permanent monument to radical feminism and abortion.”…”
It should be noted, that even in today’s anti-woman climate of the GOP they could only get 33 members of the House to go along with their anti-woman vote. David Barton, who thinks he is the Christian Reconstruction version of William Gibbons, says that the reason women were not allowed to vote prior to 1920 (he got that one wrong) was to protect the family, keeping it together. The Founding Fathers, in their blessed, Biblical wisdom felt that if women were allowed to vote, they would destroy the family. Now, we’re living in an age of what he calls ‘family anarchy’ because women are allowed to vote.
“…“Men should not sit and listen to a woman… even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since it came from the mouth of a woman.” Origen
From Right Wing Watch:
“...The family was the first and fundamental unit of all government. Actually, you have individual self government first, then you have family government second, you have civil government third, and have church government fourth. Those are the four levels of government in the order they are given in the Bible.
So family government precedes civil government and you watch that as colonists came to America, they voted by families. You look at the Pilgrims, when they finally moved away from socialism and moved toward the free enterprise system, they called the families together and gave families plots of land. Private property given to the families. And so that’s the way things work.
And you have to remember back then, husband and wife, I mean the two were considered one. That is the biblical precept. That is the way they looked at them in the civil community. That is a family that is voting and so the head of the family is traditionally considered to be the husband and even biblically still continues to be so …
Now, as we’ve moved away from the family unit – you need to be independent from the family, don’t be chained down and be a mother and don’t be chained down and be a father and don’t be chained down to your parents, you know, we’ve moved into more of a family anarchy kind of thing, the ‘Modern Family’ kind of portrayal – that understanding has gone away.
Clearly, what [the listener] has asked is a brilliant question because it does reveal that the bigotry we’re told they held back then, they didn’t hold and what they did was they put the family unit higher than the government unit and they tried to work hard to keep the family together. And, as we can show in two or three hundred studies since then, the more you weaken the family, the more it hurts the entire culture and society….”
Ironically, the far right theory that woman should subservient to men doesn’t come from the ‘Founding Fathers’ or even the Bible, but from Ayn Rand. She felt that women could not be leaders because women were hero-worshippers.
“...Believe it or not, none of this is meant to make us judge these characters negatively, because in Rand’s world, violent jealousy is romantic and abuse is sexy. She believed that women were meant to be subservient to men — in fact, she says that “the most feminine of all aspects” is “the look of being chained” — and that a woman being the dominant partner in a relationship was “metaphysically inappropriate” and would warp and destroy her fragile lady-mind….”
“...In her offensively archaic view of gender psychology, Rand is ironically closer to the Christian fundamentalists she despised. They, too, think women leaders are unnatural and revolting, just as she did. It’s the first big hint that, despite her claimed devotion to reason, her attitudes are driven by unconscious prejudices far more than she’d ever have admitted.…”
Barton, the fake historian, once again ignores history. The submission of women began quiet early in the church.
“...The power of women in the church was eroded heavily by early Christian Fathers whose misogynistic rants are embarrassing to read – truly cringe worthy. When Constantine organized the early church he did so with Roman eyes and attitudes. Men ruled Roman society so he assumed that was the only proper way to rule the church, ignoring the fact that there is no male or female, Jew or Greek, slave or free in the new community of faith. He ignored the daughters of Philip, Dorcas/Tabitha, Junia, Julia, a slew of Marys, Priscilla, Phoebe, and more.
Getting back to the woman who has received a calling from the Lord to become a minister. If she’s not Episcopalian, God Help Her, because her fellow godly men sure won’t. If she cannot be a minister because the Lord doesn’t allow women to be ministers, yet the Lord has shown her that she should be one, is this indicative that what the Lord shows women is false? If so, how does the godly patriarch explain away the fact that God revealed to the Blessed Holy Virgin that she was to be the mother of the mother of the Messiah? Was that false? If that revelation was not false, then had God ceased to be the God He was 2000 years ago? If they think that God no longer works via women, then when they say that the Lord is the same as He was in the beginning, then they are lying, right?
Then came Giles and Pope Boniface who stripped nuns of their powers and authority in the church, shoving them into a cloistered, separate existence.
Martin Luther launched the Reformation but he was more anti-women than most priests of his day. He considered them nothing more than child-bearers, incubators for men’s seed….”
Which takes us back to the venerable Gothard.
“…“There are five functions we believe are important for a woman to know how to do in order to find her identity and find fulfillment,” Gothard says. “Our problem is that today, most of these five have been taken out of the home. So there is not the fulfillment that there could have been.”
The five functions, he explained, are for a woman to teach her children; to offer hospitality to guests; to possess a basic knowledge of medicine and healthcare, with special attention being given to natural childbirth (one of Gothard’s stranger quests is to gather a 1,000-voice choir of children born into the world after their parents underwent reversal surgery for vasectomies and tubal ligations); to operate a home business; and finally, to teach others–“going out into the community and helping people.”…”
Jen Fishburne of Jen’s Gems, wrote of the Boerne Christian Assembly, where Doug Phillips was/is a member.
“...Prayer requests are also a time for women to be silent in Boerne Christian Assembly. This was a major chunk of the service, sometimes lasting up to an hour. The men give all the prayer requests. If my husband wasn’t there, my son could give it, even though he wasn’t old enough to take communion. If you don’t have a husband or a son there, you can write it out and give it to another man to read to the whole congregation. After a few attempts at that, I finally just gave up and would tell my friends about my prayer request privately. It wasn’t worth the humiliation.
So, women being silent in the church at Boerne Christian Assembly includes not being able to introduce your own guests, not being able to ask for prayer yourself, not being able to have a discussion after the service, and not being able to make announcements – unless your name is Jennie Chancey…”
We also need to be prepared to ask the difficult questions of godly men who demand that women be submissive and cannot be called to be ministers. If the Lord shows a woman she is to be a minister, and they tell her she can’t, is she either to turn her back on what the Lord has asked of her, or do they think the Lord doesn’t speak through woman? How do they explain that little situation 2000 years ago with the woman who was chosen by the Lord? Was that fake? Or, has God changed in 2000 years, and now no longer reveals Himself to women? If they believe this way, and say that the Word is the same today as it was in the beginning, then are they lying to themselves, us or God?