October 20, 2014 | Author: Jennifer McBride
September 20, 2014 | Author: Jennifer McBride
(From the introduction to Queen of the Home)
It is one of Scripture’s beautiful mysteries that in dying, we live. It is not easy. It is hard work in fact and it involves sacrifice. This is what our Saviour modeled and what the Lord abundantly blesses. Through His great grace it is in the daily laying down of our lives in service to the Lord and our families—loving and helping our husbands, teaching and training our children, caring for our homes and reaching out the hand of hospitality that we are able to do a mighty work for Him. In dying to ourselves, we bear greater fruit.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. John 12:24
During World War II the bloodiest battle in the history of the United States Marines was fought on the island of Iwo Jima. Six thousand eight hundred men lost their lives in a battle that waged for thirty-six days. Inscribed outside of the military cemetery are these words:
When you go home
Tell them for us and say
For your tomorrow
We gave our today.
The soldiers of Iwo Jima laid down their lives in sacrifice to our country and we reap the blessings of their sacrifice today. We too are in a battle as we seek to raise up armies in Christ’s eternal Kingdom and we must be willing to lay down our lives for Him. We must we gladly give our todays in service to our King for the tomorrows of our children and future generations.
In the eyes of our self centered culture it would appear that in so doing we are wasting our lives, but what the world views as waste, God views as precious. The following account from Mark’s Gospel illustrates this:
And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head. And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. Mark 14:3-9
To some looking on, this seemed utter foolishness; spikenard was worth one year’s wages. In their reasoning it made much better sense to sell it and give the proceeds to the poor; but as we see so powerfully in this story “the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” (1 Corinthians 3:19)
There is another beautiful lesson here too: Though Mary was the one to make the offering, everyone around her was blessed:
Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. John 12:3
Just as the sweetsmelling savour of Mary’s sacrifice filled the whole house in Bethany, our homes—and the broken, hurting culture surrounding us—will also be permeated with a beautiful fragrance when we pour out every drop of ourselves at our Saviour’s Feet.
As “servant queens” we must never forget the example set before us—nor the great and awe-inspiring privilege we have. As we faithfully give our lives in self-sacrifice we are directly serving the Great King of Kings :
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Matthew 25:37- 40
Much is required of us. Our days are filled with many tasks that can sometimes seem mundane and of little worth, but if we can grasp the incredible truth of what sacrificial service really means then our entire outlook will be transformed. When done for the Lord the commonplace will become noble, the prosaic will become beautiful and the seemingly unimportant will be of great value.
September 14, 2014 | Author: Jennifer McBride
When we consider the great influence which family training has on the world at large, we cannot wonder that He who divided mankind into families, should so commend the woman who looked well to the ways of those who compose the circle which she superintends. The constant recognition of family duties, the emphatic injunctions that women should be keepers at home, and love their husbands and love their children, all lead us to the remembrance that God is not only the God of each individual, but that he is indeed the God of all families.
It was the praise given of the patriarch, by Jehovah, “I know Abraham, that he will command his household after him.” Moses reminded the ancient Hebrew, that the statutes of God were not for himself only, but that “they were for his son’s son, all the days of his life;” and added to his command, the assurance “that it may be well with thee, and with thy children after thee.”
The Great Founder of human families knew that it could be well only with the people in general, in proportion as household duty and religion were taught and practised. From the house-the quiet hearth-the peaceful vine‐arbour-were to go forth those who should form the future nation. And still the senator and the philosopher, the philanthropist and the missionary, go from the house of youth full of the sentiments which they have learned there, and with their habits formed on the model of home. ~ Anne Pratt
September 3, 2014 | Author: Jennifer McBride
In his article A Line in the Sand Michael Farris briefly quoted from two articles originally published on Vision Forum’s website. Two days ago I read through both articles and I am even more appalled than I was at first that Mr. Farris would take these few statements and use them as proof of the theology and dangers of those who hold to patriarchy as taught by Vision Forum.
The articles that Mr. Farris quoted actually provide a balanced view of patriarchy when read as a whole, in context. Both articles are full of statements that would lay the accusations that Mr. Farris made to rest and I would encourage anyone concerned with this issue to read them in their entirety.
>> Patriarchial teaching: Women should not vote.
Example of this teaching: “ … God does not allow women to vote (cf. 1 Tim 2:11ff). But by ignoring God’s law, American Christians both destroyed their own credibility … and the integrity of [their] own families … .
[W]hat practical benefit does allowing women to vote provide? If husband and wife agree on an issue, then one has simply doubled the number of votes; but the result is the same. Women’s voting only makes a difference when the husband and wife disagree; a wife, who does not trust the judgment of her husband, can nullify his vote.”
>> Patriarchial teaching: Higher education is not important for women.
Example: “[D]oes it really make economic sense to invest tens of thousands of dollars for a woman to get an advanced education (often having to go into debt to finance that education) that she will not use if she accepts that her highest calling is to be a wife and mother?”
I would also like to point out that these statements from the article above were made in passing about a broader application of patriarchy and were never an official stance of Vision Forum.
Why did Mr. Farris not also quote the following statements from the exact same article by Mr. Abshire ? (Emphasis added):
“Until the twentieth century, Americans almost universally held to this doctrine of representation in some form or the other. The reason why women were not allowed to vote had nothing to do with women being considered “inferior” or “too emotional” (these values arose during the Victorian era and were themselves theologically and socially deviant) but rather because the husband and father was ASSUMED to represent the family to the broader community.”…
…”The doctrine of representation provides a necessary theological presupposition that encourages genuine reformation in the family, and the establishment of a stable social order. The model for the Christian family is NOT the post-war “Father Knows Best” or “Leave it to Beaver” where an “all-wise” father governs a “ditzie” wife who vacuums in a cocktail dress. Instead, we must rediscover the father’s role in governing the family wisely and justly according to Divine Law as he represents the family to the outside world. We must also understand and accept that with authority comes responsibility; the family belongs to God, not the father. The father cannot govern any way he pleases but only as a wise steward of God’s people; and like unjust, tyrannical kings, God CAN and WILL depose us if we do not fulfill our responsibilities according to His law.
While people are entitled to personal opinions within a broad range, there are some views within the patriarchy movement that go too far. Women are not to be the de facto slaves of men. Women are created with dignity equal to that of men. Women have direct and unmediated access to God. Daughters should not be taught that their only and ultimate purpose in life is to be the “helpmeet” of a man. While being a godly wife is a worthy ideal, the only statement that is universally true forevery woman is that she should love and serve God as her highest priority. My wife and I raised our own daughters to believe that being a wife and mother was a very high calling but did so in a way that would not crush them if God’s leading had been different.
And Mr. Abshire says the following in his article (this is still the exact article that Mr. Farris pulled his quotes on voting from):
For example, biblical patriarchy never excuses, justifies or motivates godly men to devalue, denigrate or relegate godly women to “second-class” status in the home. Women are NOT inferior to men even if they are subordinate in their roles. Husband and wife are to be “one flesh;” which is more than a quaint euphemism for marital intimacy but rather a spiritual union of two individuals (1 Cor 6:16-17). Granted the wife is to respect her husband and submit to him (1 Ptr 3:1) but the husband is also required to treat her with grace, kindness and respect granting her honor as a joint-heir of the Kingdom, lest God refuse to hear his prayers (1 Ptr 3:7). In pagan patriarchy, the wife was often little more than a domestic servant and child-bearer (as in ancient Greece, the “cradle” of “democracy”) but in the biblical view, God praises the godly woman for her industriousness, creativity, aesthetics and business acumen (Pvbs 31:10ff). A wise man, understanding his duty as representative, will therefore lawfully utilize all the assets of the family, including his wife’s wisdom, gifts and concerns, for the common good of the family.”
“Some have criticized the “patriarchs” for having the view that “the mother’s role is to bear children, cook food and keep her mouth shut.” If this accusation were true, then it would be a serious blow against “patriarchy;” however, one searches in vain for those “patriarchs” who espouse such a view. The godly “patriarch” lives with his wife in an understanding manner (cf 1 Ptr 3:7ff) and represents HER views to the world as a part of his greater duty as her federal head. Yes, undoubtedly, many ungodly men tyrannize their wives; but the problem is their own personal sin- NOT the theology of “patriarchy.””
“Different men will of course work out these basic principles in different ways; for example, finding an alternative to post-industrial economics, some men might establish a family business that employs his wife and children in profitable enterprises; others may have to work outside the home to provide for their households. Some men may decide that certain activities are counter-productive to the spiritual welfare of his family while other men decide differently; e.g., whether a wife may work outside the home or not until God blesses them with children. The basic principle is that God’s law is sufficient and we must not make rules where God Himself has granted liberty.”
“Since we are now three generations into the modern humanist interpretation of the family, rediscovering biblical patriarchy is fraught with danger. Since so many modern Christian men are too lax in leading their families, failing to teach and protect them, they risk losing them to humanist culture. In response, other men will be too strict with their families and hence risk “vexing” their children. There is also the danger that some men will over-react against the common emasculated concept of the modern “father” and will overcompensate by denying any authority other than their own; including lawful authority in the church and State. The simple fact is that ALL Men will sin; they will sin against God and they will sin against their families. However, the divinely required methodology of dealing with that sin is by meditating and applying the unchanging standards of God’s law, being humble before Him, recognizing and confessing that sin, and then through repentance, taking the appropriate course of action.
Thus, we ought to expect that in the process of trying to rediscover biblical patriarchy, some men will struggle with finding the proper balance. Some will confuse their own personal values with Scriptural ones-attempting to bind other’s consciences without lawful warrant. Some men will no doubt err by being too protective of their children. Yet the solution is NOT to undermine the concept that the father is the federal representative of his family, both to God and to the world, but rather instruct him in his duties before God and encourage him in fulfilling his divine mandate.”
” Finally, some criticize the “patriarchs” for not wanting to invest in an expensive college education for their daughters because we “we need more young ladies in law, school, medicine, the arts and so on.” Again, this criticism assumes a modern cultural value and established it as the norm despite the fact that it has no biblical warrant and constitutes social suicide. Even the radical feminists today admit that women cannot adequately function as both a “career” woman and mother. A simple examination of the birth rates for professional women shows that the more highly educated a women becomes, the LESS likely she is to get married and the LESS likely to have children. Thus, this writer is actually encouraging brilliant Christian women to take a course of action that will mean cutting off their genetic inheritance for future generations! We do not need MORE female Christian lawyers, doctors or artists, but MORE godly women raising MORE godly children who will fill the earth and subdue it to the glory of God. And does it really make economic sense to invest tens of thousands of dollars for a woman to get an advanced education (often having to go into debt to finance that education) that she will NOT use if she accepts that her highest calling is to be a wife and mother? Thus, this “reformer” is actually encouraging a sociological system that impoverishes the family and reduces its ability to exercise godly dominion.”
Please note that Mr. Abshire is not saying that women should never be highly educated. There are many cost and time efficient ways other than an expensive college education for women and men to accomplish higher learning. The context here is of women who are planning to be wives and mothers pursuing a college education with a career in mind.
Example: “Until she is given in marriage, a daughter continues under her father’s authority and protection.”
This particular example is a good way to demonstrate a common error in both men’s theologies. Phillips has stated that daughters should remain in their fathers’ homes until married. His principal biblical citation for this argument is the story of Rachel and Leah in the home of their father, Laban.” [Emphasis added.]
It is a fundamental error of scriptural interpretation to assume that one narrative passage reveals a normative rule that we should all follow. In this same story, we see Laban embracing bigamy, selling his daughter in exchange for labor, and even resorting to sexual trickery. If we believe that one fact in this story reveals a universal rule from God, then all of the facts in this story should create such rules as well. Obviously, it is nonsense to use Laban’s treatment of his daughters to create universal norms. While the story may have lessons for us, the decisions of Laban are not universal commands from God.
Mr. Farris here states things that are not stated in the original article. As Mr. Kevin Subra points out in his excellent response (which I also highly recommend be read in full) to the statements made by Mr. Farris:
Wanting to be as informed as possible, and thinking I was slightly more informed about what Phillips taught than what Farris was presenting Phillips view to be, I followed the citation after “Laban” to actually look at the Vision Forum article that Farris cited. The Vision Forum article did not, as Farris suggest, present the account of Laban as the “principal citation.” It was listed as the first of five Bible references listed in Biblical order. The nature of the article was supportive, not explanatory. It listed all relevant references at the end of a summarizing statement, and didn’t explain how the references related to that statement. This is just plain shoddy research, or dishonest representation, both of which are wrong anytime, and especially when making such accusations.
To properly use the Vision Forum article, one would have to know what the verses were and how they would tie into the statement. It really was not a good document to try to convey the viewpoint of Vision Forum or Phillips. Farris grabs the first reference in the list, assumes it is the “principal biblical citation” and then proceeds to attack it “primary citation” with an argument all the while not knowing that the claim he makes about the reference is invalid.
As with the article by Mr. Abshire, Mr. Farris did not include quotes that would clarify the position Vision Forum held to. The following quotes are also from The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy and are in direct opposition to the accusations Mr. Farris made (Emphasis added).
2. Both man and woman are made in God’s image (their human characteristics enable them to reflect His character) and they are both called to exercise dominion over the earth. They share an equal worth as persons before God in creation and redemption. The man is also the image and glory of God in terms of authority, while the woman is the glory of man. (Gen. 1:27-28; 1 Cor. 11:3,7; Eph. 5:28; 1 Pet. 3:7)
5. A husband and father is the head of his household, a family leader, provider, and protector, with the authority and mandate to direct his household in paths of obedience to God. (Gen. 18:19; Eph. 6:4)
6. A man’s authority in the home should be exercised with gentleness, grace, and love as a servant-leader, following the example of Jesus Christ. Leadership is a stewardship from God. (Ps. 103:13; Mal. 3:17; Matt. 11:29-30; Col. 3:21; 1 Pet. 3:7)
7. The authority of fathers is limited by the law of God and the lawful authority of church and state. Christian fathers cannot escape the jurisdiction of church and state and must be subject to both. (Rom. 13:1ff.; Eph. 5:21; 6:4; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 2:13ff.)
13. Since the woman was created as a helper to her husband, as the bearer of children, and as a “keeper at home,” the God-ordained and proper sphere of dominion for a wife is the household and that which is connected with the home, although her domestic calling, as a representative of and helper to her husband, may well involve activity in the marketplace and larger community. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Prov. 31:10-31; Tit. 2:4-5)
Again, I would encourage any one concerned with this to read both articles in full. The fact that Mr. Farris ignored large portions of these articles and only pulled out a few snippets (one of which he applied his own commentary to as fact) from the same articles to prove his points on the dangers of patriarchy is extremely troubling.
August 30, 2014 | Author: Jennifer McBride
I am a second generation homeschooler. I was homeschooled beginning in the mid-80s when it was still a new frontier. We were the third family in the state of California to register as a private/home school. Shortly thereafter we moved to Alaska where I grew up in a strong homeschool community.
As the oldest child in the family I was very much on the journey with my parents. I listened to many of the messages they listened to, heard their discussions with other parents, went to homeschool conventions and helped run our family’s homeschool bookstore. After I graduated I helped teach my younger siblings. Now, I homeschool my own children.
I miss those early days. In spite of our differences we were all united as homeschoolers who were blazing new trails together.
I have always thought highly of HSLDA and until recently, we were members. Michael Farris is one of the homeschool pioneers I grew up appreciating.
Over the past ten years or so, as my husband and I have prayed and asked the Lord for wisdom and guidance in raising our own family for Him, Vision Forum has been a huge blessing to us. We are among the many that are shocked and heartsick over the moral failures of Doug Phillips. We do not defend him or his actions in any way shape or form. However, over the past year I have been deeply grieved over the many accusations I have seen made against Vision Forum, their teachings and the families who have appreciated both. The statements Mr. Farris and others have made about the things that they taught and promoted, especially in regards to women, are blatantly false.
I can say this for a fact based on the following reasons:
1. We listened to almost every message VF ever produced and read almost every book or article they published on this topic and are extremely familiar with their stance.
2. We agreed with VF’s stance personally. We are among the families that believe in Biblical patriarchy and we absolutely do not believe the things Mr. Farris has accused us of. We personally know many other families who also appreciated and agreed with Vision Forum’s teachings and they also in no way hold to, or practice patriarchy as defined by Mr. Farris. In fact, we would agree with this statement by Mr. Farris 100% :
Women are not to be the de facto slaves of men. Women are created with dignity equal to that of men. Women have direct and unmediated access to God. Daughters should not be taught that their only and ultimate purpose in life is to be the “helpmeet” of a man. While being a godly wife is a worthy ideal, the only statement that is universally true for every woman is that she should love and serve God as her highest priority. My wife and I raised our own daughters to believe that being a wife and mother was a very high calling but did so in a way that would not crush them if God’s leading had been different.
3. I compiled a book on Biblical womanhood that was published by Vision Forum ( because it fit the message of womanhood that they wanted to convey.) My own words therefore are included in the materials that Mr. Farris denounced as a whole. I would invite any naysayer to read that book – “Queen of the Home” – subtitled “The Honor, Power and Nobility of Biblical Womanhood” – and find a single statement that coincides with the accusations made by Mr. Farris. (Read this excerpt here for a sample) Read or listen to (in context!) any book, article or message that Vision Forum published on this topic. You will not find the view of women that Mr. Farris claims is taught.
4. I vote. I expect that my daughters will vote when they are old enough. I have business endeavors. I believe in higher education for women. I fully expect that my daughters will be well educated. I am not a poor, downtrodden doormat or victim. I am not forced to have babies. I have wanted every one of my 8 living children and the 4 that are with the Lord and I pray for more. I have a brain and I use it. I think. I have opinions. I study. I love theology. I love logic. And yes, I believe in Biblical patriarchy.
Mr. Farris says
Some young people who were raised in patriarchal and/or legalistic homes are now telling their stories. It is from their stories that I have learned that these men’s teachings are being applied in ways that are clearly unwise and damaging from any reasonable vantage point—Christian or secular. People are being hurt.
I think Mr. Farris would agree that just because a few extremely disturbed and evil people who seriously abuse their kids and also homeschool, does not equate to the fact that all homeschoolers are extremely disturbed and evil people who abuse their kids. Yes. People misapply and abuse the idea of patriarchy, just like there are those who misapply and abuse homeschooling. But there are no victims of true, Biblical, godly patriarchy. It is vital that this distinction is made.
Legalism is wrong and people will misapply good and godly teaching. This is not the fault of the teaching. This is the fault of our sinful hearts. It is good to pause and reflect on what we believe and why we believe it. Sometimes we need to dive back into the Scriptures and reevaluate our convictions.
But we don’t need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We don’t need to turn on those who hold to different convictions than we do and condemn them as heretics. Perhaps those of us who believe in Biblical patriarchy are not just legalistic lemmings, blindly and thoughtlessly obeying the commands of our leaders as we all head off the nearest cliff. Perhaps we have carefully and prayerfully studied out the Word of God and are seeking, by His grace, to apply it. Perhaps our ideas aren’t all that extreme if people actually heard what we had to say about what we believe and not what others have decided we believe.
It is one thing to address wrong teaching. That is necessary, well and good. It is quite another thing, however, to define what someone believes, accuse them of error and then attack them based on something that is a total fabrication, that they repeatedly deny and that can be proven as false from multiple public and easily obtained sources.
This statement by Mr. Farris is one among many that is simply not true:
Look at the outcomes of these teachings. The personal failure of Doug Phillips in the area of marriage and his mistreatment of a young woman bears directly on the legitimacy of his teaching.
Mr. Phillips himself stated that he had betrayed everything he taught and held dear. The whole reason his sin sent shockwaves throughout the entire Christian homeschool community was because it was in direct opposition to everything he stood for.
This closing statement by Mr. Farris is disturbing on many levels – not the least of which is its ominous undertone:
I truly hope that our movement will continue to demonstrate considerable tolerance for differences of opinion. But I also hope that we will show the maturity to understand that some opinions deserve no promotion. Our movement will only be tainted by extremist views if we give our platforms over to such teachers.
Mr. Farris has not only “thrown us under the bus” as one excellent response stated , he has also fed us to the wolves. I am guessing that a good portion of the people he just slandered are (or were) faithful members of HSLDA and supporters of Mr. Farris and his fight for homeschooling freedom. What sort of defense lawyer publicly accuses, prosecutes and passes judgement on those he has stated he will defend?
“There will be more to say on this in the days ahead—by me and many others. I am not trying to give an encyclopedic answer; I am just trying to draw a line in the sand.”
Yes. This is a line in the sand. It is a line drawn with a sword that first stabbed in the back and then with one fell swoop severed off a large portion of the body of Christ.
“The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”..that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.” 1 Corinthians 12:21, 25
August 6, 2014 | Author: Jennifer McBride
And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. Galatians 6:9
Are you a mother who struggles with chronic illness or even just plain old exhaustion? Be Not Weary is a brand new website just for you!
Having struggled with severe adrenal fatigue myself for the past eight years my heart so goes out to other mothers who have health issues, who have grown weary or are going through a difficult season. Motherhood is a calling and a work like no other; and mothering through sickness and fatigue presents a special challenge. I have been there. I still am there. And it is such a comfort to know that our faithful God is there with us.
My hope is to share with you the beautiful Truths He has reminded me of on hard days, to point you to Him, to encourage you when the way seems dark, weary and lonely – and to remind myself of these things as well. I also hope to offer some simple ideas for homeschooling and running a full household on limited (or no) energy, as well as information on nutritional products that are helping me regain my health. I hope to learn from you as well.
Let’s encourage each other to take heart, to be strong, to be of good cheer and of good courage. Our God is the God of the impossible; the Giver of Strength in weakness, Light in darkness, Joy in sorrow, Beauty for ashes, Faithfulness in affliction and Hope for eternity.
July 29, 2014 | Author: Jennifer McBride
“Every one must have remarked how pleasant is that household in which a cheerful spirit of energy is cultivated by the mistress and mother. It is a pleasant thing to dwell with one who is not troubled by trifling annoyances, who is skilled in looking at the bright side of things, and hoping for the best; with one who believes that all the ways of the Lord are right, and who attaches a deep importance to duty. Such a one will work willingly, in the belief that God has appointed both her lot and her duties, and it is surprising how many obstacles are met and overcome by such a spirit.” ~ Anne Pratt
July 27, 2014 | Author: Jennifer McBride
From Suzannah Rowntree at LAF :
“Let’s face it: most of us girls wanted to be a princess at some point in our lives, and had the plastic tiara and tinsel-covered dress to prove it. We may never grow up to marry a real prince, like Kate Middleton, or take princess lessons, like Australia’s Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, but help is here! In 1405 the medieval poet and authoress Christine de Pisan wrote a book, “The Treasure of the City of Ladies”, containing hot tips for women from all walks of life, but especially princesses and noblewomen. Whether you want to make anonymous donations to a worthy cause, or convince your enemies that you love and trust them, Christine de Pisan has answers to all your princessing questions. Here are ten of my favourite lessons from her helpful little book, ten things every good princess should do:
1. Love God and keep His commandments.
First of all above all else you must love and fear Our Lord. Why love Him? For His infinite goodness and for the very great blessings that you receive from Him. Fear Him for His divine and holy justice, which leaves nothing unpunished. If you have this love and fear constantly in view, you will infallibly be on the way to the goal where our instruction will lead you, that is, to the virtues. […] This is the way that the princess who loves Him shows it, for whatever duties or occupations she has due to the magnificence of her position, she will always keep before her eyes the light of the straight and narrow path.
July 27, 2014 | Author: Jennifer McBride
There must be a balance before us of proclaiming the nobility and greatness of motherhood—because it is noble and great (this is the next generation, people!) —and the hard truth that sometimes life ain’t purty.
All of this to say, ask yourself if your expectations are realistic for what life with two littles should look like. You are in the planting phase of motherhood and that requires a lot of weeding.
Motherhood is wonderful, fun, exciting, fulfilling and a beautiful blessing. It’s also a self-denying, exhausting work that requires the Lord’s strength.
July 19, 2014 | Author: Jennifer McBride
From the Western Conservatory:
If you think God’s plan for young women is all about being modest, keeping pure, staying home, preparing for marriage, and waiting for Prince Charming… you will not like this message. But…
- If you’re tired of a small and fruitless vision for single womanhood, and are wondering if God might want more from you…
- If you’re frustrated with a lack of fruitfulness, real-world involvement, and opportunities to grow, be stretched, and exercise your gifts…
- If you’re sick of legalism, idolatry, formulas, movements, bandwagons, Christian-subculture trends and man-made rules, and just want to get back to God’s timeless principles for young womanhood…
- Or if you’re just trying to figure out what you believe and why…
…take a step back with Anna Sofia and Elizabeth, away from the narrow applications and movement trends, and reexamine the baseline biblical principles that should form the foundation of our vision of single womanhood. Discover a robust vision of spreading the gospel, serving the saints, reaching out to the poor and needy, being full of good works, exercising your gifts, strengthening your arms, working with your hands, making the most of your single years, seeking first the Kingdom of God, and more!
In this message, the Botkin sisters reexamine hot button issues like a father’s authority, marriage, singleness, college, jobs, ministry, giftedness, Phariseeism, pursuing fruitfulness rather than just safety, serving our families vs. serving other people, why feminism is not the big enemy, and of course, “staying at home.” Prepare to be more excited about being a single Christian young woman than you’ve ever been before!