Not So Much (Part 3: References)

References for the critique and review of So Much More.

Board of Regents, the University of Wisconsin System. (1999). Women, Feminism and Sex in Progressive America. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from History 102: http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture14.html

Botkin, A. S. (2005). So Much More. San Antonio, Texas: The Vision Forum.

Head, T. (n.d.). Feminism in the United States. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from About.com: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/tp/History-of-Feminism.htm

Joyce, K. (2009). Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement. Beacon, MA: Beacon Press.

Maoist International Movement. (n.d.). Betty Friedan: The Feminine Mystique, the Second Stage. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/bookstore/books/gender/friedan.html

The Smithsonian Institute. (n.d.). The Seneca Falls Convention. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from The Smithsonian Institute National Portrait Gallery: http://www.npg.si.edu/col/seneca/senfalls1.htm

Wikipedia. (n.d.). History of Feminism. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism

Not So Much (Part 2)

Continuation of a review and critique of the book, So Much More.

It’s probably not a good idea to start a book about “Biblical daughterhood” by stating that the Bible “doesn’t give a huge amount of instruction exclusively to fathers and daughters…” (Botkin, p. 23).  This information begins Chapter Three.  The authors explain that because the Bible doesn’t really address the sort of father-daughter relationships they are attempting to defend as Biblical, “…most of what we have to work from are the passages setting the patterns for men and women in general”  (Botkin, p. 23).  In short, the sisters begin the third chapter of the book by admitting that they are resorting to eisegesis, the very bad theological practice of making up a doctrine, then cherry-picking pieces of Scripture in an attempt to support it.  The reliance on eisegesis is a major flaw in the book; when you find yourself explaining, at the beginning of a book about a Biblical doctrine, that it is in fact not a Biblical doctrine, you’ve pretty much just destroyed the reason for the book to be written in the first place.

In addition to the straw man argument, eisegesis, and lack of real data, a major problem appears in Chapter Six with the claims that feminism is the direct result of Marxism, and that Betty Friedan was a Marxist.  Both of these claims are just plain wrong.

The disinformation about Friedan is cited from one work by a masculinist; it appears in no original neutral source.  There is no record of Friedan having any meaningful ties to any communist group, and in fact the Maoist International Movement has referred to her as a petty member of the bourgeoisie.

The claim that American feminism grew out of Marxism is as ridiculous as it is erroneous.  The authors state that the first Women’s Conference in Seneca Falls was convened by a group of socialist women.  In reality, the Seneca Falls conference was held in a church, organized by Quakers, and presided over by a male (The Smithsonian Institute).  The American feminist movement grew out of the abolitionist and temperance movements (Head) (The Smithsonian Institute) (Wikipedia), and Mary Wollstonecraft wrote the first statement of the modern feminist movement in 1792, many years before the birth of Karl Marx (Head).  The reader is left wondering whether the misinformation given results from deliberate lies or sloppy research.

The authors use the technique of example to make their point; if something isn’t mentioned in the Bible, it’s off limits for Christians.  The problem here should be obvious, but the authors don’t seem to notice that this logical fallacy can fun both ways; there are no Visionary Daughters in the Bible, either.  Nor are there any tuba players or polar bears, but this does not mean that tuba playing is a sin or that polar bears don’t exist.

The Botkins use example to rule out things such as women being missionaries; because there are no explicit examples of women in the Bible being called as missionaries, it is wrong for a woman to be a missionary according to the authors’ logic.  This application of fallacy is an example of the authors’ faulty theology.  In a combined theological and logical blunder, the authors make the claim that their philosophy of gender roles is part and parcel with the sovereignty of God, yet at the same time their very rigid and narrow theology makes God dependent upon men.

 “Erica,” one of the 14 “heroines,” is described as feeling called by God to missionary work, and being turned aside from pursuit of this calling after becoming aware of the argument for patriarchy made in the book.  This is disturbing because it moves sovereignty from God to human men.  By stating that God has set down one plan for all women, the authors effectively have removed control from God and given it to men.  The bizarre position taken in “Erica’s” story is that “the world” wants young women in ministry, but God wants them out of it.  It appears that if God impresses a young woman to go into ministry, then God is wrong!  The authors appear to be unaware that Jesus instructed Christians to “go into all the world and preach the gospel,” (Mark 16:15).  On page 117, they throw the message of Jesus in the parable of the talents under the bus in favor of the Dominion Mandate, which was crafted by men.

Another stunning example not only of eisegesis, but lack of a proper dictionary, is this, found on page 173: 

Proverbs 7:11 describes one of the wiles of the harlot: “She is boisterous and rebellious, her feet do not remain at home.”  This description could match many of the Christian girls we know.  They would be outraged and insulted to be likened to harlots, but they are unwittingly acting like them. The godly woman loves to be in her home.

 This quote is used to support the idea that the only Biblical option for a girl is to live in her parents’ home until she is married.  The cited verse is not applicable, however, because everyone knows that there is much more to being a harlot than just living away from your father’s house; the verse itself talks about being boisterous and rebellious, in addition to location, as markers of the harlot.  Most places it is used in the Bible, harlot has a specifically sexual meaning; the sisters are correct in surmising that a Biblical harlot is a woman with a job; where they err is in ignoring the fact that the job requirements for harlotry are pretty specific.

The authors must be given kudos for tenacity; they push the book’s patriarchal agenda relentlessly.  Living under fatherly authority is a must even for girls whose fathers disagree with the idea and don’t want to do it.  In another amazing twist, girls whose fathers don’t want to be their authority figures are to turn to, among other people, their mothers.

Some of the book’s content is so ridiculous as to be laughable.  There is a long quote from Jenny Chancey discussing the ways in which dressing like a man is an abomination; even women’s pants are forbidden.  Looking across the room at my salwar kameez, an Indian women’s pantsuit so obviously feminine no man would be caught dead in it, it was obvious that this argument is completely culture-bound.  And, silly.  Equally silly is the sisters’ assertion that college degrees are not evidence of academic achievement, but something that people buy for their children because they have no direction in life and want to impress “bureaucratic hiring agencies,” (page 134), whatever those are.  Dating is bad because the sisters know two grooms who were not picked by fathers and who “turned out to be liars and outlaws.  One of them is going to jail, if he doesn’t die of AIDS first” (page 228). 

The authors’ explanation on page 268 why it’s appropriate for them to appear to be missionaries, through the writing and speaking they do (they only appear to be; they’re not, is the answer) is also amusing, as is the statement that they only write under their father’s direction.  This may be more true than the sisters imply.  Both their father, Geoffrey Botkin, and his business partner, Doug Phillips, have been caught referring to So Much More as Geoffrey Botkin’s book (Joyce, 2009).  If the book is not a good argument for girls skipping college, it’s even less of an argument for taking seriously patriarchal men who need to spread poor theology by pretending to be teenage girls.  

Not So Much (Part 1)

A critique and review of the book, So Much More.

So Much More (The Vision Forum, 2005), by Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin, presents an interesting premise: the only appropriate place for unmarried Christian women is their father’s home.  Written by two sisters, ages 19 and 17 at publication, the basic premise of the book is that all females are to be at all times under the governing and protective authority of a male; daughters are therefore to remain under their father’s authority, and in his home, until married to the man the father chooses.

The theological controversy between complementarian and egalitarian views of gender relationships is fiercely polarized; there are complementarians and egalitarians, and probably the closest thing to Christian unity that is likely to occur is an agreement to disagree. This review will not address that controversy, but will focus instead on the merits of the positions in which the authors extrapolate beyond basic complementarianism, and on other basic issues in the book.  The authors present a standard view of complementarian theology in Chapter Two.  While I don’t agree with complementarian theology, the view of it that is presented is consistent with complementarian exegesis of Genesis and Paul.  In fact, it is the most solid thing in the entire book.

It is when the authors branch out from basic complementarian theology that some of the book’s many problems begin to reveal themselves.  The first chapters begin with an introduction to the authors, an explanation of the format of the book, and the establishment of the premise for the book and the reasoning behind it.  It is here, with the establishment of the premise and reasoning, that the first problems appear. 

The set up for the sisters’ argument in the rest of the book rests on a straw man argument the size of which would embarrass the Colossus of Rhodes.  The sisters maintain that there is a worldwide crisis among women who are not living either under their fathers’ or their husbands’ authority.  At ages 19 and 17, they claim that they have years of experience as the confidants of vast numbers of female college students who have been visitors to their father’s home, all of whom have been completely unfulfilled and bitterly unhappy.  The sisters conclude that all young women feel this way, and attribute this to parental abandonment that begins with day care and ends with college.  They then apply this to all girls.  They further maintain that women who are not living under male authority will end up with two types of men: predators and cowards.  There is no data presented for any of these claims other than the sisters’ own anecdotal experience, and even that is not given any numerical value that would allow the reader to judge the extent of the problem, rather than taking the authors’ word for it.  Vast numbers of dissatisfied young women are hinted at, but without real numbers, we don’t know whether the sisters used 20 or 200 women as the basis of their argument, and when you’re claiming that a problem affects most of the young women on the planet, numbers are mandatory.  A more logically sound argument, supported by real numbers, would have made a better premise and appeared less naïve and unsophisticated.  The issues with logic and critical thinking displayed in the first chapters are hardly an argument for young women skipping college.

The problems with lack of data actually work against the book’s argument.  The sisters live, and advocate other young women living, “at home,” which means exactly what it says.  They are in their father’s home doing household chores, helping with the father’s business concerns, and learning to be homemakers.  They were able to gather data only from people who came to their father’s house or whom they meet as part of inclusion in their father’s activities.  I live in an urban setting.  If I were to decide to conduct an analysis of the numbers of polar bears in the world, but were limited to observing only the polar bears that pass my front window, it’s reasonable to assume that I might end up with a distorted view of the daily lives of polar bears—in fact, I’d have to conclude that they are extinct.  It’s reasonable to assume that perhaps happily independent young female visitors might be to the Botkin household what polar bears are to mine: extremely rare to nonexistent.  Leaving home to collect some data would have improved the book, so at least in this case, not being able to go independently into the outside world and observe and interview directly has handicapped these authors, not benefited them.

In true patriarchal fashion, the sisters’ initial straw man begets 14 more:  the authors present 14 “21^st Century Heroines of the Faith” (Botkin, p. 7) who have supposedly each waged a valiant battle against feminism.  Most of the book is in question-and-answer format, with these “heroines” used as examples.  Throughout the book, these 14 straw heroines are used at critical points to dissuade young women from any ambition other than submission to males.  Their stories are presented as examples of negative things that happen to young women who want to go to college, enter politics, or work outside the home.  The individual story is then expanded to vaguely threaten any girl who with similar dreams.  Apparently, “visionary” daughters are rather near-sighted.

The review continues in Part Two

Christmas is Pagan (Part 2)

Note:  This makes a lot more sense if you read Part 1 first, below.


We’ve already established that Christmas does have its roots in ancient solstice celebrations that were undoubtedly Pagan, mostly because most of the world outside of the nation of Israel was Pagan.    

Does it matter?

It’s often said about Christmas that Christians adopted Roman holidays, but I think it’s a little more complicated than that. 

From a theological and historical standpoint, Jesus, by calling himself the “Son of Man,” and talking about his kingdom and referring to God as his father, was making a statement about himself and about God.   The Romans worshiped their leader as a deity, the son of the gods.  In the Gospels, Jesus was opposing this, saying that there is only one God, the God of Israel, and his son is not on the throne of Rome, but with his people.  In the Gospels, Jesus is placing God’s framework over the Roman framework.  What Jesus is saying in the Gospels is:  “This—all that Caesar claims, all that the Romans have—rightly belongs to God.”  Jesus was setting up a different type of kingdom, the kingdom of God.  So, from the first, from Jesus himself, we have this idea of taking what the world has corrupted and bringing it into God’s framework.

When Constantine legalized Christianity in 313, Christianity quickly became the majority religion throughout the empire.  In 389, Theodosius I made Christianity the religion of the empire, and Paganism was outlawed in the ensuing years.  I don’t believe that Christianizing Roman holidays was so much a result of Christians giving in to and trying to placate Pagans as it was the same replacement with God’s framework that Jesus talked about—or so people thought.  As the empire Christianized, Pagan temples, sites, and holidays were turned into their Christian counterparts.  Roman Paganism didn’t taint Christianity; Christianity supplanted Paganism.

I think we need to consider that prior to the rise of monotheism throughout the world, most people were Pagans.  That’s why ancient Israel stood out, right?  They were different from the nations around them because they were not Pagan.  Because of that, a good many things in modern life have their origins in Paganism, Pagan practices, or Pagan people.

Having an indoor stove can be traced to primitive people's worship of fire and wanting to have the fire god in their houses (and as an added bonus, it's convenient and warm).  The first stoves were altars.  But, probably very few Christians are planning to part with their stoves for religious reasons. 

Cookies (small cakes) were used in ancient Nordic pagan worship.  Cookies as we know them originated in Persia and spread through Europe by Muslims.  That's right, that Chips Ahoy has its roots in Paganism, and/or Islam, another religion many Christians have issues with, yet there are cookies and pastries at the coffee hour after most church services in the US every Sunday.

Tacos and hot chocolate are foods invented by "Pagan" tribes in Mexico/Central-South America, and were consumed at "Pagan" feasts and rituals.  Many Christians consume these foods.  

Almost everything we do in modern life, most of our foods, most of our customs, even our languages, have their roots in antiquity, and in antiquity, people were what we would consider today to be "Pagan."  You can’t get away from our ancestry, and the reality is that many things, most things in fact, have Pagan roots.

Cultures blend when they come in contact with one another.  Christianity began under the Roman Empire.  The Roman Empire influenced most of western civilization.  It's been 2,000 years and Christians everywhere have settled into their own traditions, and have picked up traditions from areas where Christianity spread, as well.

The answer that Paul had, in his example about meat sacrificed to idols, was that because Christians belong to God, and everything is God’s, everything is permissible for Christians  (1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23), though we don’t want to cause another person to sin, lose faith, or get a bad impression of Christians (1 Corinthians 10:28), but everything should be done to the glory of God. 

With all its flaws, including commercialism and lack of spirituality (which, as I pointed out above in Part 1, the Romans also complained about with regard to Saturnalia, because getting carried away is human nature), there is no time when there is so much emphasis throughout the world on Christ than at Christmas.

Does Christmas have Pagan roots?  You bet it does, along with many things. 

Does it matter?  No.  We don’t know the exact date Jesus was born, but we have a day to celebrate it.  That we recognize it is the important thing.  It’s been superimposed over an ancient Roman feast day, but Christmas has been a Christian holiday for almost 2,000 years.  It’s no more Pagan than chocolate chip cookies are.

Christmas is Pagan (Part 1)

“Christmas is rooted in Pagan traditions and customs.”

You hear that a lot, this time of year.  I think, for Christians who are trying to do the right thing and honor Christ, there are two important issues that arise from the claim that Christmas has its roots in Paganism:

1.       Is it true?

2.       Does it matter?

Is it true?

I think most people recognize that Jesus probably wasn’t born on December 25.  The day was chosen because December 25 is around the time of the winter solstice, which many people in many cultures, since antiquity, have marked.  The winter solstice is the longest night of the year, and it follows a period of nights getting progressively longer and days getting progressively shorter.  In very old, agrarian civilizations, it also would have marked a long period of living off of stored foods in cold climates.  In short, it’s pretty much a universal human response to depressing darkness, cold, and possibly icky food to say, “Let’s cheer ourselves up with a party!”


The Romans did this with Saturnalia, a celebration of their god, Saturn, which lasted from around mid-December to around the time we now celebrate Christmas.  Saturnalia was a lot of fun.  People treated others more nicely, they held banquets and parties, they dressed in festive clothing, they took days off from normal daily activities, and they gave gifts to each other.  They decorated with evergreens at the winter solstice.  By the way, there are writings from ancient Rome in which people are complaining that the Saturnalia celebrations are too festive and not religious enough, and these sound very similar to what people say about Christmas now.

So, obviously, it’s true that some of our customs surrounding Christmas have their origins in the Roman celebration of Saturnalia.

What’s also interesting, though, is that the Babylonian Talmud also contains a story about Adam deciding to celebrate around the time of the solstice.  The story says Adam noticed the days growing shorter and thought he might have sinned and was being punished, but he then noticed the days growing longer and realized it was just the way things worked.  So, he decided to have eight days of festivity—four before the solstice and four after.

Another thing we have to remember is that the solstice is a celestial event.  It’s part of what happens as our planet moves around the sun.  The solstice, in and of itself, is not an evil thing; it is part of God’s good creation.  People all over the earth experience the winter solstice, and each culture on earth has some way of dealing with the solstice.

On to Christianity and the connection there.  Jesus was born a Jew, into Roman culture in Roman-occupied Judea, and his followers were from that culture, as well.  Paul, who was responsible for much of the spread of Christianity, was an urbanized Jew from Tarsis, and a Roman citizen who was well-immersed in Roman culture.  The early church was based largely in Rome.  So, it’s reasonable to say that Roman culture is the source of the Christian holiday, Christmas.

A note on the language here, and on authenticity and trust.

I have been a Christian since childhood.  I've been in lots of different Christian churches and socialized in lots of different Christian groups.  As a result, I'm very well aware that how people talk is usually full of cultural cues (well, that's true anywhere, but I'm talking about within Christian groups), and that these cues are often used to gauge whether or not another person is a "real Christian."

I respect the fact that the Bible says to "test the spirits."  I think many Christians have got to the point that they have passed from spirit-testing into out-and-out judgment.  I've observed people getting very suspicious of other people, blowing up minor doctrinal differences into condemnation of other Christians, and deciding people should be shunned or disregarded because they don't pass some test that has more to do with Christian popular culture, or even popular culture within a denomination or congregation, than it does with the Bible.

Here is the passage, from my favorite apostle, John:

¹Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
 ²By this you know the Spirit of God:  every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;
 ³and every spirit that  does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the  antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.  (1 John 4:1-3)

What this passage says is that if someone believes that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh from God, that comes from the Spirit of God.  Paul also tells us that no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.  Jesus himself says that the standard is belief.  So, I hope that Christians reading this blog who may come from different traditions than my own will look past the cultural stuff, and realize that I do profess Jesus as our Lord and Redeemer, and as God in the flesh.  I hope people give a serious look to the topics here, rather than dismissing them, and me, as "not Christian" because I don't attend the right church or use the right "Christian" catch phrases.  I hope anyone else will appreciate the lack of jargon.  If anyone ever reads here, at all--I'm not expecting a huge audience.

Why is this blog called, "The Rib Shack?"

If you don't see any barbecue around, don't worry.  You're still in the right place.  The Rib Shack is a place for the discussion of theology, religion, spirituality, and religious cultural issues.  I created it as a secondary blog to keep religious posts off my primary blog, which is mainly about more mundane things, like my daily non- and misadventures.  I didn't think everyone who might want to get to the theological, spiritual posts would want to wander through the mire of my daily musings on things like autoimmune disease, cats, and knitting, and I thought people who want to read about those things might not really care what I think about various Bible versions or Christian customs and practice.  I'm sure there will be people who don't care about either, but the cure for that is a simple one.

So.  Being a woman, I'm one of those rib-people, as the opening passages of Genesis tell us.  I hope on this blog a lot of ideas and issues get thoughtfully marinated, and a lot of things that have been cooking slowly for a long time get shared.  I may get basted and barbecued along the way over some of my opinions.  But, I'm a Rib, and this is my cyber shack.