They started this rebelution nonsense a few years ago, and it just gets crazier all the time. I'm still trying to figure out exactly how children/teenagers indoctrinated in religious addiction and legalism can actually rebel within the confines of religious addiction and legalism. It's mind-boggling. According to their site...
The official definition of the 'rebelution' is "a teenage rebellion against the low expectations of an ungodly culture."
So, let's break that down a little with help from the Patriarchal/Authoritarian Dictionary. We know that "godly" means "adhering to a list of self-punishing, arbitrary, and superficial rules designed to cosmetically defeat the sin-nature and produce a SuperChristian", and rebellion means "similar to witchcraft, or at least equally as bad", so what they're saying is that they're planning witchcraft against a society that isn't comprised of SuperChristians and self-punishing, superficial rule-followers like themselves? I don't really know what they're saying. I'm just trying to work through the Christianese.
For those who don't know who Alex and Brett Harris are, from their bio...
Sons of homeschool pioneers [read: racketeers] Gregg and Sono Harris and younger brothers of best-selling author Joshua Harris (I Kissed Dating Goodbye) [the book, written by an inexperienced kid, which has created more pain and confusion than Pauly Shore's entire film career]
Poor kids.
And then...there's the Modesty Survey. This little piece of misdirection is quite a gem. Its list of endorsers is the first red flag. DeMoss, Mohler, Mahaney? Not exactly forward thinkers, but generally considered very legalistic, hyper-Calvinist, uptight types. The Survey is silly enough, but it's the "petition" that follows that creeps me out. Reminds me of a male version of Contractual Bondage. "It's a matter of the heart - but we want you to sign this petition." If it's a matter of the heart, shouldn't your "yes" mean "yes" without having to bind yourself to some stupid pledge or sign some white-washed tomb of a petition? Where's the personal character, the heart character, in having to bind your own perceptions and corresponding behaviors to a contract? Does signing this petition mean "I'm a good Christian"? It's just silly, and self-defeating, and about a million other levels of ridiculousness and superficiality.
The petition states...
As a Christian guy with a deep appreciation for feminine modesty, I hereby affirm and commend the following biblical truths to my sisters in Christ:
- Please, approach the survey as a resource, not a list of rules. [*wink* these are NOT rules *wink*]
- Always honor your parents above the results of the survey. (Ephesians 6:1-3) [As long as you're clear this is talking about children, not adults...and I'm curious, who would "honor" the results of a survey?]
- Seek personal feedback on your attire from the godly men and women in your life. [Personally, I'd advise you to avoid the advice of the "godly" people]
- Remember, modesty is first and foremost a matter of the heart, not the wardrobe. [Yeah. That's the ticket. The heart, see? That's why we created this survey to cover issues from cleavage to calves, from ha-has and hoo-hoos to personal protrusions. It's a heart thing, see?]
- Faithfully pursue the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit. (1 Peter 3:4) [That verse starts with "Do not let your adorning be external", yet everything about this survey and petition is external and superficial, symbolism over substance]
- Let your good works outshine your outward appearance. (1 Timothy 2:10) [A chapter which adds fuel to my doubts about the infallibility and inerrant nature of the canon - I tend to think that some of it was Paul talking out of his rear-end...either that, or God owes Adam one whopper of an apology]
- Dress for the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:31) [No huge argument with this verse, although they may be stretching the context a tad]
I was tempted to sign the petition as the great Bulgarian patriarch, Ivan Amandikis, but self-control got the better of me.
I don't know the motives of the Harris kids. I know they've been indoctrinated (without choice) into some very legalistic ideas, yet part of me feels they're following their father's lead in living opportunistically, living on the coattails of a popular father and brother (within legalistic, neo-conservative Christian and Christian homeschooling circles) and making a lot of money off of it. Sorta like so many pastor's wives who just assume that since their husband is the "chief", this affords them first lady status over the congregation, and they presume to lead bible studies, lead worship, lead something, whether they're qualified, gifted, and equipped to do so or not. What I do know is this: If these two weren't Gregg Harris' boys and Joshua Harris' brothers, nobody would give a rip what they are saying - even in legalism land.
Some of my coming pieces might be looking a little deeper at how the sausage is made with all these types. It ain't pretty. Hopefully, it'll give you a little better look at why I'm so adamantly against "Christian" homeschooling. It's a racket, and the people in positions of power are as wacko and delusional as mafioso racketeers - and equally as dirty when you get right to the heart of it - and they thrive on the naivete of their consumers whose "good intentions" are the product of fear, fear which is mongered by the power brokers. These people absolutely want to bring back Eden, but their Eden would look a lot more like John Calvin's Geneva than anything God would have something to do with.
One minor technical detail (because I was around and in their circle sort of at the time this came about - modded on their forum a little bit too): A&B actually didn't have the idea or invent The Modesty Survey, it was actually another girl from New England who had the idea, working with one of their web-developers (who actually doesn't really agree with that anymore) to put it together, and since she was part of TheReb they showcased it.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, random bit of history, but yeah. I've wondered that about them too though. Conservative Homeschoolers/Homeschool families seem to have a thing for that - overachieving kids (who don't have much actual experience) and lots of indoctrination and you're never really sure how much of it they've just been fed and tout and how much of it they actually believe. But they seem so successful, and I guess they are...:P
Anyhow, continue. :)
Were you aware of the "survey's" contents?
ReplyDeleteIt's sickening. Flat-out.
Things like necklaces, hoop earrings, and shoes that revealed the toes were called into question.
I think my favorite is the posture/movement section of the modesty survey. If you are female you better not stretch, retrieve any fallen objects from the ground, hike up your skirt (I guess wading in a creek is out) or do any physical activity if you are busty.
ReplyDeleteThey have a problem with toes? I hadn't realised the patriarchy crowd were foot fetishists! Hmm .. so much for being bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen ..
ReplyDeleteI recently found your blog. Thank you for writing what needs to be said. Remarkably, I was unaware of these Harris folk. Probably because I was so bewildered by the insistence of my church that I stay in a marriage littered with abuse, infidelity, and alcoholism. I now know why I was always so disturbed by the youth group milieu at said church. I hoped we would be leaving before my daughters got to be that age. I never thought I would be able to say this, but I am so thankful for my broken marriage. It was the impetus for escape. My girls deserve a higher view of God. And a higher expectations of the men He created.
ReplyDeleteWell, human beings are going to think about sex- it's just a part of the human condition. And it seems like in this culture boys are taught that if he has a dirty thought about a girl, it's the girl's sin for causing him to sin. The boy then has to go on a mental search for the girl's sin so that sin can be stopped 'at the source'.
ReplyDeleteIf the girl's covered her calves, it must be her ankles. If she's covered her ankles, it must be her toes. If she's wearing a baggy jumper that hides her body, it must be her earrings or her neck. She's just a passive sin-generating machine!
It's a perfect example of the theme of this blog- the obsession with technical sin-free life eats everyone's happiness alive.
There are guys who are 28 & 43 signing the pledge? I grew up within minutes of their home... we were involved in music with them. My 18th birthday & following year were ruined by that book. And now I'm stuck between trying to honor my parents & always feeling guilty for even entertaining the idea of talking with a guy. The damage is done, and I only hope and pray the Lord guides me, and teaches me... because I sure got messed up allowing others to teach me.
ReplyDelete~college graduate from Oregon
A quiverful Dad of 12+ children tried to set me up with a 30 something pastor in California. The Dad was very concerned that I was an unmarried single woman in my 30s. In one of the first emails with this pastor, he revealed that he still lived at home with his parents and his other single brother (which was not really the problem). He continued to inform me that his dear mother would go through the newspaper and edit any of the newspaper ads that showed a woman in a bra/underwear or otherwise scantly clad. What the @!#&%? What kind of pastor in their 30s needs someone to edit the newspaper for them? I sent him a photo of me from one of my trips abroad. I happened to be wearing a sleeveless shirt....hehehehe. I wonder if his mother had to edit the photo.
ReplyDeleteWow.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that there are 225 men in this world lusting after my high heeled black boots makes me shudder.
Seriously, let me just say that the modesty thing drives me nuts. It was talked about constantly in our church, at the Gothard seminars and small group things, at women's groups, men's meetings, etc. It was CONSTANT. Boys and men were given surveys to take. Men had accountability partners so they could confess their "struggles with the eyes."
What on earth is going to happen when men and boys are constantly talking about this deal? They are going to THINK ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME. Really! They will! Put your sin in the forefront of your eyes all day long and you are going to be riddled with lustful thoughts.
My non-professional psycho-analysis is that there's a huge number of men in this movement that have a real problem with porn. Their wives and daughters and women friends at church wear sacks day and night. The poor guys are terrified to look any woman in the eyes, let alone notice that she's female. Eventually, they need an outlet. Hello, porn.
A hyper-spiritual woman in a jumper, wearing a sober expression all day, is much more of a stumbling block than a sweet Christian teen girl in a sleeveless top and jeans. Men want pretty. They need pretty! Wives have a responsibility to dress as a woman who appeals to her man, and to teach her daughters to do the same.
That's all. Thanks for letting me vent.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteI so appreciate all you have to say here. I have always maintained that my decision to home school and my faith were two separate things; i.e. home schooling is not a demand of my faith and I would naturally live my faith no matter where my children were educated. I chose to home school because of the nurture and freedom it offered my children, and honestly because in loving my children and lavishing my time on them I was healing the little girl within me who had been unwanted and neglected as a child. That's okay- we all have some selfish motivations in everything we do, it's just that most people won't admit them to themselves much less anyone else. :)
HOWEVER, the exhortations and examples of the early home education pioneers like the Colfax family (secular) and Jessica Hulcy (Christian)to creativity and real-world involvement were quickly supplanted by the fear-mongers and the packaged curriculum vendors at state home school conventions. At a state level, it was an actual conscience takeover by conservative Christians- the first dominionist success.
Secular vendors were marginalized, and featured speakers were not talking about education anymore, but "character"- code for "outwardly conforming to all our doctrine". As you wrote, the goal is to create "self-punishing, superficial rule-followers" not well-educated, emotionally healthy and robust adult children.
Well-educated, emotionally healthy and robust adult children was actually the original goal of home schooling. It still is among the secular home school crowd.
But the Christian home school politico/business machine? You are right on target. Inspire fear, then market (what a coinkydink!) just the right tool to defend against that danger. I actually believe that the whole fundamentalist/evangelical alternative culture- music,books, movies- is based on the same principle. The flock is getting fleeced by their leaders BIG TIME.
The worst part is that calling people outside the church heathen, worldly, liberal, ungodly, feminazi leads to so much fear and loathing that true believers are actually becoming dangerous to the rest of us- ask the Norwegians.
Um... when they bring back Eden, won't we all be naked?
ReplyDeleteThis survey helps to perpetuate the idea that men are such horn-dogs that women had better cover up rather than risk *gasp* making men think about sex.
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one who thinks its odd that these people say that men are ruled by their dicks, but that they nevertheless are the ones who should rule the world while the women submit? It seems to me like putting women in charge would be safer, if men are so unable to control themselves.
Well, in some circles, that is kind of how it works - the wife tells the husband what to believe and how to apply it and what to tell her to do so that she can submit to it. ;-) (And of course it's his responsibility to make sure the "kids" do what she wants, too.) But if you ever said that the woman was running the show she'd be mortally offended. :-P LOL! And if you ever suggested that women should be in charge, she would say she disagrees.
ReplyDeleteBut I guess it doesn't really matter. The same mindset provides perceived justification for controlling people of either sex, whether its about submission to an authoritarian man or a puppet controlled by a woman.
Ok, I don't agree with the Harris "kids" on a lot of things but I do love their book about going against the flow and basically doing SOMETHING with your life, being responsible and not wasting your youth years. (DO HARD THINGS)
ReplyDeleteThat is a message that everyone in their teens and twenties needs to hear.
As I've said before: this survey only confirmed my belief that no matter what you wear, someone is going to have issues with it. So I'll just wear whatever the heck I want, thank you very much. :P
ReplyDelete@Samantha...I haven't read their book, and don't plan to, but I can't help but suspect that the hardest thing the Harris boys have ever had to do is count their money.
ReplyDeleteI truly hope they aren't their father's sons, but given the path they're on, and the college they chose, I'm wary of any and everything they have to say.
Just read this -- results to "how do you feel about girls who purposely flaunt their bodies" under Open Questions (http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/browse) -- I see teenage boys taking their normal sexual responses and feeding it into a manufactured revulsion at both themselves and, more frighteningly, women who are at ease with their own sexuality. Like someone posted above, I can see how this can turn into an obsession with porn or other sexual dysfunction later, and it is mixed up with so much ugly judgmentalism.
ReplyDeleteI read the Modesty Survey. Its basic assumption is that women are responsible for causing men to lust by what they wear. By implication then it is a woman's fault when men do sin. This is the old Catholic guilt that I grew up with in the sixties, now recycled into a new package by people who probably despise Catholics.
ReplyDeleteThat modesty survey is really degrading; nothing like having our appearances and movements scrutinized by a panel of arrogant & misinformed male judges. This way, they get to dwell on what they apparently seek to avoid thinking about while we are completely objectified.
ReplyDeleteI have read the Harris boy's book "Do Hard Things" and I do not understand the love for that book. All it really is a political manifesto, calling teens to basically give up their summers for the right political candidate's campaign, or for the right causes.
ReplyDeleteNow, I tend to have a personality that is just activist in nature, but I still think it's wrong to pretend that your book is about a religious revolution when what you really want is for teens to become involved in the "right" politics.
Back in my "modest is hottest" days, I didn't like the modesty survey because it was "too liberal". UGH. Even now I'm trying to work out what I will and will not wear, and figuring out exactly what I *like* to wear, since all I wore until March of this year was skirts and culottes. It's been a long process. My heart started leaving fundamentalism about this time last year. My husband was far behind me on this, but by February this year both of our hearts had left and so we could now physically leave. It took longer than that to realize I no longer had to dress like a fundie. Now, the modesty survey just makes me sick. If a man truly is a Christian and has the holy spirit inside of him, then he will be able to control his lusts no matter what a girl is wearing. One of the fruits of the spirit is self-control, after all. So if a man is walking in the spirit, the Bible says he wont' fulfil the lusts of the flesh.
Makes me wonder if fundies even believe in the holy spirit. Seems like they just give him lip service but don't really believe.
Me too, Katy-Anne. I don't think my husband's missionary parents are filled with the Holy Spirit, because there is no fruit.
ReplyDeleteYour point about self-control cuts right to the heart of the matter.
Also, the Harris boys crappy book is the last money I spent on the Christian family political-business machine propaganda. Neither of my teens would read it, and good for them.
Still I wanted my son to go on a mission trip, but a practical mission trip that actually helps people. He is in a Caribbean nation teaching summer camp with a secular group, sharing life with under-privileged youth and teaching them useful skills like English, dreaming big dreams, teamwork, and pride in their own cultural heritage. He is actually making the world a better place, and he didn't need a fundamentalist lecture to fill him full of first guilt so he would go, and afterwards pride that he was one of the proud few doing the right thing (puke).
He is one of a great many people in this world doing good things, because he enjoys doing good and making others lives brighter. No guilt, no pride. Just do it. Sweet.
@Katy-Anne and shadowspring...That's the reason that the "Do Hard Things" book and idea has never appealed to me. With fundamentalists, there's always an angle, always an agenda. I fear there are only certain neo-conservative, fundie "hard things" that they genuinely want to see young people doing.
ReplyDeleteThe whole movement is rotten to the core.
And ss...To your son...Rock On.
I read parts of the survey, plus the disclaimers and so on. I read the petition. I could see what they were trying to accomplish with the "we're not telling you how to dress" or the "the majority of men disagree that this is a stumbling block, so don't worry about it" disclaimers. But the problem is that the whole mindset behind the survey is what's really wrong. Leah is quite right; it's degrading to women. The questions should not be, "Do the majority of men not have a problem with jeans or bare calves? And can women therefore wear them?" The questions are, "Whose bright idea was it to ask all these men whether they found jeans or bare calves a problem? Why is every separate part of a woman's anatomy and every possible physical movement she can make, subject to a vote?"
ReplyDeleteAnd the petition! Who are these men to think they can lecture to every Christian woman on the planet? Who appointed them preachers to preach to us through this petition? What gives them the right to assume authority over us and tell us what our heart attitudes should be?
Why are they signing this petition in the first place? If they feel that a particular Christian woman with whom they have already developed a trust relationship, might have a heart problem when it comes to enticing men, they should speak to her privately, as Jesus recommended in Matthew 18. They should not sign a petition addressed to all Christian women everywhere. My response to all the signers of the petition is: Excuse me. You're not my pastor, my father, or even my friend. What makes you think you can vote on each and every portion of my body and then tell me what my heart attitude should be about it? If you wanted to treat me like a piece of meat on a slab or a cell under a microscope, you have succeeded. If you wanted to respect me as a sister in Christ, it's a epic fail.
Hey, I've been reading your blog for a while, and you definitely been through a lot of crap! Now I totally agree with you on ATI and Gothardism and such, because nothing good has ever come out of it! And I have seen a lot of heartache. Now please don't run me down, I hate patriarchalism and and all that stuff and do not in any way support it. But being that I have personally met the Harris brothers. And personally knew all the behind the scenes stuff that went on when the site started and the modesty survey was built. Now most of the people that took/signed that survey now think it is hocus pocus. (My brother built the software, but never took the survey and doesn't think much of the results). The survey was never the idea of the Harris brothers! They didn't want to do it, but were begged by about 300 girls who sent all the questions in for the guys to answer them. The girls were obviously looking for a quick fix solution to a heart issue, girls who were used to sets of rules and wanted some to set their standards by instead of thinking through things themselves! I personally know the girl who started the whole rigmarole. Alex and Brett do not agree with Josh's book, and both of the brothers have dated. (One is now married). Even Josh doesn't agree with his book anymore! He realizes that it has done a lot of damage! They hardly have anything to do with the Rebelution anymore... and are moving on with life. If you would notice, they rarely ever post on their blog. I met the parents, and Sono was an amazing woman, (she has since passed away) Their dad is anything but patriarachal, and has given the boys the free reign of their lives. And those books were their own ideas and not an indoctrination of their parents. Their mom encouraged them to pursue their dreams. Only a couple of the youngest kids are at home still. Gregg has never been part of ATI or any of that nonsense. His kids are much too liberal for that and never would have gotten a long with those folks. Sheesh, his daughter would have been kicked across the continent by ATI. lol
ReplyDeleteThe sole reason why alot of the guys signed it is purely because the girls asked them too, and you get a bunch of guys between 12 and 19 and they'll do anything for a girl, so much as signing their life away. lol
I understand your anger and hurt against all things that smell of patriarchalism and fundiness, but please offer a little grace when you haven't met the folks!
The survey was never the idea of the Harris brothers! They didn't want to do it, but were begged by about 300 girls who sent all the questions in for the guys to answer them. The girls were obviously looking for a quick fix solution to a heart issue, girls who were used to sets of rules and wanted some to set their standards by instead of thinking through things themselves!
ReplyDeleteThen they should speak out against it...or at a minimum, take it down from their page.
Gregg has never been part of ATI or any of that nonsense.
From my understanding, it wasn't for his lack of trying. Gothard didn't want his involvement.
Darcy - "As I've said before: this survey only confirmed my belief that no matter what you wear, someone is going to have issues with it. So I'll just wear whatever the heck I want, thank you very much. :P" AMEN!
ReplyDeleteMy WTF moment along these lines came when I had a conversation about modesty about my then boyfriend. I pointed out a girl who had told me that she did her best to make sure that no one would "stumble" because of her and I told him that by dressing as she did she ensured that no guy would think lustful thoughts when looking at her. He took one look at her and told me that that was bullshit. It was then that I realized that guys will *always* have those lustful thoughts, and we girls need to stop acting like we have to somehow stop nature. It's. Not. Going. To. Happen.
I recently asked my husband what he thought my responsibility was toward other men in how I dress. He told me "nothing". I was shocked and made him get more specific. :P He basically said that he really believes that it is always a man's job to control his mind and his actions. A woman could walk naked in front of a man, and his thoughts are still his responsibility. And that any man who place any of that responsibility on a woman, is no better than a man who blames a woman for getting raped. One is just more extreme than the other. He says that even telling women "Yes, it's our responsibility, but it would be nice if you'd help us out" is wrong. A man shouldn't go there. Ever. A woman is never to blame for anything a man thinks about her because of her clothing. I'm still mulling that one over, but even just hearing him (and a few guys since then) say that has lifted a HUGE weight off my shoulders, one that I didn't know I was carrying. I'm pretty free when it come to my clothing, but was still carrying around this vague sense of guilt and worry and, yes, bondage. Yet I'm only responsible for ME. No one else, not the purity of the male race for sure. It's a freeing thought. :)
ReplyDelete"The girls were obviously looking for a quick fix solution to a heart issue, girls who were used to sets of rules and wanted some to set their standards by instead of thinking through things themselves!"
ReplyDeleteOK, so instead of feeding into this by putting up that asinine survey, why wouldn't the Harris guys just say what was so "obvious"? I don't expect anyone to answer for them, of course, but I just have trouble believing that they only did it because they were "begged" by legions of fundie girls. Especially when they make such a big deal about the penis-endowed being "leaders" -- these leaders are being bull-dozed against their will by teen-age girls?
My interest is purely academic here, I suppose. It's interesting to speculate what goes on in the minds of the rebelutionaries.....
@anon 1:09...Exactly.
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time believing the Harris brothers weren't totally on board with this deal. All of the movers and shakers in their world endorsed it whole-heartedly - DeMoss, Mahaney, Mohler, their own brother, et al.
This crowd is a bunch of opportunists. People would/will be surprised to learn of Gregg Harris' rise to prominence.
If Josh now realizes how much damage his book is doing and continues to do, then he is responsible to publically recant. His silence in this matter is wrong. He needs to say, as publicly as possible, "I was wrong. Please don't listen to what I said." He needs to arrange with the publishers to stop printing the book. If there is a contract he cannot get out of, then he needs to put all the royalties he has or will receive, from the moment he first became aware of his error, into a fund dedicated to combating the errors he wrote and helping those ensnared by them.
ReplyDeletePart of my job has to do with managing a commercial building. If a tenant makes us aware of a dangerous condition in the building, then we are liable for any damage that happens if we do not immediately remedy the condition. This is not just a legal responsibility-- it's a moral one. Josh Harris' responsibility is the same. His book is creating a dangerous condition for young, impressionable teens. Annonymous, if you are close enough to him to know he is now aware of the damage his book is causing, I believe you are also close enough to him to make him aware of his moral responsibility to mitigate the damage. Please write or talk to him. Thank you.
http://www.covlifeDOTorg/meeting_notes/
ReplyDeleteReplace DOT with an actual . and you'll be set. I don't know that it's a recant, but it's definitely public.
"From my understanding, it wasn't for his lack of trying. Gothard didn't want his involvement."
ReplyDeleteGothard definitely never would have wanted him because their beliefs are so vastly different. Gothard wants girls to sit at home and twiddle their thumbs til they get married off and Gregg encouraged girls to get out and do something great. Gothard teaches girls have to dress in sacks and Gregg's daughter dresses sweetly and stylishly and in a manner that as I mentioned before would have gotten ATI kicking her a long way away. No wonder they didn't want them, they support "kids" moving away from home and doing great things and going to college. *gasp* LOL
Josh has realized a lot things, but maybe doesn't fully yet realize the impact. It will come.
@anon 10:06...Gregg Harris didn't attempt to involve himself with Gothard for doctrinal reasons. He did it because he was whoring for power and a platform within the Homeschooling movement. You probably don't want to know how he became one of the "Pillars". From what I've gathered, he didn't accomplish it by being a truthful man or doing right by people.
ReplyDeletePower=Money=Control=More Power and Money
I'll probably be writing a bit about it in the near future.
"http://www.covlifeDOTorg/meeting_notes/
ReplyDeleteReplace DOT with an actual . and you'll be set. I don't know that it's a recant, but it's definitely public."
Clearly this doesn't go nearly far enough. First, it's not "public" -- it's on a website for members of that one organization. The book, on the other hand, is having widespread influence across all fundamentalist Christendom. Second, it doesn't say, "We were wrong about dating/courtship." It only says, "We were wrong in saying our dating/courtship teachings were the only correct way." Third, it does nothing to try to help anyone who was hurt, or to stop others from being hurt. There is nothing about revising the book, publishing TRULY public refutations, or any practical steps to reach out to those wounded.
In short, no one got the memo, and the memo was too weak anyway. I think they could easily do better than that.
Darcy, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your husband here.
ReplyDeleteIf you had a friend who you knew was an alcoholic, would you consider it justifiable to deliberately wave a bottle of beer right under his nose because, after all, "his [drinking] is still his responsibility"? Or might you actually have consideration for his struggle and choose to refrain from drinking in his presence? Might you even in fact have a _responsiblity_ to avoid drinking in his presence?
I don't think we always take seriously quite how big of an issue lust is. I recently spent some time browsing a book by a Christian neurologist who had discovered that sexual imagery causes significant, permanent changes in male brains. To assert that "a woman could walk naked in front of a man, and his thoughts are still his responsibility" fails to recognize the involuntary nature of much of this. Furthermore, to deny any responsibility to the woman who deliberately, to use his example, chooses to "walk naked" in front of a man _even knowing beforehand what responses her actions will likely provoke within his brain_ is, frankly, swinging the pendulum too far the other direction. No, this doesn't mean that women should dress in sackcloth, and that that will somehow prevent lust from ever happening; a man can still have lust if he forces it, just as the alcoholic friend could deliberately search out your wine cabinet no matter how well you hid it. But knowing that possibility doesn't give you moral carte blanche to meet him at the door with a six pack because eventually he might go looking for it anyway.
I know you talked that it's a freeing thought for you, but I'd think you'd want to make sure your freedom isn't coming at the expense of unknowingly damaging your brothers in Christ.
(Just to note here, none of this applies strictly to clothing or to women; men can also dress and act inappropriately. True modesty is both in appearance and in behavior, and is a mutual issue, done foremost for the glory of God, just like mutual submission to one another in service to God. Nor is there a simple rule or checklist of "just wear that and you're modest" - it's more about taking a moment, informed by whatever context you're in, to be aware of how your presentation of yourself is most likely to be interpreted.)
John writes: "Furthermore, to deny any responsibility to the woman who deliberately, to use his example, chooses to "walk naked" in front of a man _even knowing beforehand what responses her actions will likely provoke within his brain_ is, frankly, swinging the pendulum too far the other direction. No, this doesn't mean that women should dress in sackcloth, and that that will somehow prevent lust from ever happening; a man can still have lust if he forces it, just as the alcoholic friend could deliberately search out your wine cabinet no matter how well you hid it. But knowing that possibility doesn't give you moral carte blanche to meet him at the door with a six pack because eventually he might go looking for it anyway."
ReplyDeleteIf you, like me, believe that the sin of Lust is not the instinctive human response to sexual stimuli, but that point where you throw the door open to that response, invite it in to stay a while and formulate a plan of action, wholly independent from any love or care for the person who is the object of the desire--the lust is indeed the responsibility of the person having it.
I grant there are attempts to incite lust inappropriately--strippers and the like specialize in it, and this should obviously be avoided. But a person dressed in a manner that society in general finds decent(which varies with time and place and situation-- some tribes have no problem with naked female breasts, for example) cannot be considered and should not be viewed as an attempt to stir lust. (Anyway, we humans are a weird bunch and lust can be stirred by the most unlikely things, like feet.)
Harris boys need to shut up and stop making money off of this. The history of that family is definitely Fear+Control=Money from the stories I heard in the 90's. While I shouldn't be disappointed, I'm disappointed that supposedly "better-educated people" (homeschoolers) aren't smart enough to look at the lack of qualifications, knowledge, and experience of the Harris' family and toss their books out. Imagine if CARS and TRUCKS and AIRPLANES were made by people with similar training and knowledge and EXPERIENCE!!! THEY WOULD ALL CRASH AND BURN! You do NOT put someone into the pilot seat of an airplane that knows NOTHING about airplanes or thinks that the mountain in front of them will automatically cause the plane to go straight up and around it.
ReplyDeleteBtw, I think the #1 difference between John and Joy is intent. There are cases of knowledgeable intent for provocation and their are cases of knowledgeable intent for self harm despite knowing better. The latter needs to guard themselves and the former needs to smarten up. Sex addicts should not go to Africa or Long Beach California, and strippers should not go to men's-only Sex Anonymous. Problem solved.
John -- sexual response and desire is not necessarily lust. Unfortunately, people don't know the difference between the two and there are multiple generations of men and women who have not been taught how to use their sexual appetites properly regardless of their marital status. Polar extremes are basically: (1) anything resembling sexual response is bad or (2) anything goes just don't get an STD. Both extremes are wrong.
When I see something of a sexual or even seductive nature (the two are VERY different), I'm already thinking about how my wife and I kiss and I get turned on for her. I find some kisses in movies to be laughable because they just don't work (Spiderman, for example), yet others I see them and want to start kissing my wife. Shia Labeouf is a horrible kisser.
Well...
ReplyDeleteTo say a transcript of a sermon on the WORLD WIDE WEB is not public is too narrow of a mind.
To say they must RENOUNCE and withdraw any and all monies made on the book is too narrow minded.
If this were true, then good bye businesses and we would be looking for work elsewhere.
If Ford had renounced the diesel engine made from 03-07 because of all the warranty related issues, sure, we would be in a world of a better place. Sure, tarnished but we would feel good.
Now, they have done warranty work and fixed a lot of bugs but people still buy them. Why? Uneducated, pushy salesmen, or the "I-need-a-diesel-truck" mindset. The info is out there, it is your job to find it.
Ford, to fix the problem, ended up making their own engine instead of sourcing it out. They made it better and are gaining a huge following that is quickly making the other engine fade.
Lewis, while intentions made years ago may have been wrong, can they not recant? I believe he is starting small and working up.
Just being an advocate here.
Jon...I understand you're just playing an advocate for sake of discussion, so this isn't aimed at you personally, but toward the issues you raised.
ReplyDeleteThese aren't people trying to do things decently. These people are essentially a "Christian homeschooling" mafia...creating needs and then demanding to meet them, reinventing themselves in whatever shape keeps them in the money and power.
In the coming days, I'll be writing about the rise to power of the "4 Pillars" of Christian homeschooling - of which Gregg Harris was one. It resembles the rise to power of Lucky Luciano (the father of the modern mafia), Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel, and Frank Costello in the film "mobsters". Where necessary, they divided and conquered, and where necessary, they muscled - in some cases literally.
As long as things keep making money for these people, you'll see "recants" that take the shape and form of non-denial denials.
To say they must RENOUNCE and withdraw any and all monies made on the book is too narrow minded.
Not if he/they/whomever genuinely believes the book and message put out was wrong. I'd do it in a second just on principle. I wouldn't want to profit from promoting "wrong" things. I couldn't and still claim faith in Christ with a straight face.
They're spiritual grifters and racketeers.
I genuinely hope that they change, but I've seen no evidence that they have. With Josh Harris, for instance, rather than acknowledge the outright legalistic tone of IKDG, when questioned about it, he shifts the onus onto the questioner to prove the legalism (which means he either doesn't genuinely believe it's legalistic or is savvy enough to not admit it and dampen the cash flow in any way). Sadly, some of those who've been deeply hurt by his book have been among those who've questioned him - he throws the "burden of proof" over on them by slickly wording his responses. Teflon-esque.
Power=Money=Control=More Power and More Money
At it's bottom line, that's what EVERYTHING regarding Christian homeschooling, patriarchy, courtship, quiverfull, and all it's whacko offshoots boils down to. Money. Power. Control. Rinse and repeat.
Hi Anonymous who grew up minutes from the Harris' home!
ReplyDeleteI live 3 minutes away from the Harris' and my family was devastated when we left their church. We were continually hurt by the teachings that revolved around business ownership and putting down others who didn't live like they did. It got to be too much. We went to the Gresham church. Do I know you? I used to sing on the worship team!
Anyway, I'm just not done feeling like things weren't resolved when I left. My family has healed but I feel strongly that things still need to change in those teachings coming from Gregg's church, but sadly, I didn't get to have a voice when I attended, and they certainly won't listen to critique now.
By looking at this survey, I have to wonder if conservative young men (and old men, if males in their 40s are signing it) just don't know the difference between being attracted to something and lusting after it. Think about it.
ReplyDeleteBeautiful women in beautiful clothes are beautiful, and having an admiration for something beautiful is not sin.
Also, let me just be the one to say what everyone already knows, and that's that I don't think most woman could watch an attractive naked man walk in front of her and not have the same reaction as a man. Women are attracted to male bodies, too. They "check out" men even when they're covered with shirts and pants all the time.
ReplyDeleteIt just seems to much safer to conservatives to not bring that up and keep it a male issue. Women aren't supposed to like anything related to sexuality!
Heather, So THIS!!!
ReplyDeleteWe have a fire academy in town and the recruits run by my house every morning in the fall training season....how often do you think I am peeking out my window watching the young, buff, hot, sweaty firemen run by? The answer would be VERY! ;)
I imagine my response to that is similar to a man who catches glimpse of a woman's cleavage or whatever. They enjoy the view for a second, then go on about their lives.
Not a big deal at all!
http://daughterofyhvh-hannah.blogspot.com/2011/07/modest-bathing-suit-yes-please.html
ReplyDelete=|
"Ford, to fix the problem, ended up making their own engine instead of sourcing it out. They made it better and are gaining a huge following that is quickly making the other engine fade."
ReplyDeleteOh, really? They didn't put out a message that said, "Well, there were some people who pushed that this is the only engine to buy, and we might have been among them, but we were wrong-- however, as long as they agree it's only one of many viable products, people certainly can go on buying that engine"--? Because that's what Ford would have to say in order to be saying the equivalent of what that supposed "recanting" message says. Also, Ford would have to refuse to do warranty work, because after all, it's not their responsibility if some people end up stuck with one of those engines. As long as they post a sort of "we believe there are also other engines you could buy that might work better for you" message somewhere on the Internet, it's ok! Never mind how huge the Internet is and how only a small portion of the people affected are ever even going to have the knowledge that they should go look for a message about this.
If that's correct business practice, then let's just abolish product recalls. We don't need them. Let the buyer beware.
Sorry if I sound harsh. Please don't take it personally-- I'm not angry at you. But this kind of teaching is ruining people's lives. If one becomes aware that one's product is actively harming people, there is responsibility involved. If that's not good business, then maybe we should put doing what's right above business as usual.
The book is simple - in the past, young people were considered adults and treated as adults at a much younger age. We can do that too, instead of believing we can just live for ourselves during our teen/young adult lives like many teen/ya's do in the US today. You are making too big of a deal about the book. It has a good message - Do Hard Things and don't sit on your butt. Nothing wrong with that.
ReplyDeleteModesty - My husband has said that it does make a difference to him what a woman wears. If a shirt is really low cut, where do your eyes automatically go? It's really hard to have a professional conversation (at work)or friendly conversation with friend while trying to avert your eyes so you don't think about their boobs instead of the topic at hand. It's hard for my teen son to approach a girl if she's bending over and half her butt is showing. He knows he's a sexual creature and that it's okay to like the way girls look, but the facts are that guys are wired visually and they do think about it more depending on how much they see. Personally, I don't want guys eyes to automatically be drawn to my boobs or butt, so I don't accentuate those areas, but I don't hide them either. Lots of women try to accentuate those areas and I personnally think that makes it harder for a guy. And there's nothing wrong with not wanting to make something already hard (not lusting) easier for men.
I think that you are so mad and hurt you are thinking irrationally and not weighing everything but just nixing everything that comes out of homeschooling. My two cents.
You are making too big of a deal about the book.
ReplyDeleteI haven't made much of ANY deal about the book. The post centers on the Modesty Survey - which is pretty silly and narrow-minded.
I think that you are so mad and hurt you are thinking irrationally and not weighing everything but just nixing everything that comes out of homeschooling.
Yeah. That's it exactly.
@ Lewis
ReplyDeletePerhaps the Harris' boys lives are easier then most of ours because of their money. However, I admire them for the morals they do uphold and knowing how lost my generation is (when it comes to even knowing how to work hard!), I think the Harris boys offer a message to a lot of young guys (and gals) that could perhaps change their lives for the better.
Putting the whole modesty survey aside, they did encourage me to work hard, follow my dreams, study, keep learning and growing and follow God.
However, I admire them for the morals they do uphold and knowing how lost my generation is (when it comes to even knowing how to work hard!), I think the Harris boys offer a message to a lot of young guys (and gals) that could perhaps change their lives for the better.
ReplyDeleteThey're not "offering" a message - they're selling one. They aren't "upholding" any particular moral standard - they're grifting people with one.
When a father is a sociopath, grifter, and power whore within a movement, and all of his boys start cranking out books and money-making ideas of their own while still basically kids, a little bit of math goes a long way.
Scroll down about 3/4 of the way on this link to read a bit about their pedigree from the man who gave their father his first job within the homeschooling world...
http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/articles/ravage-of-home-education-p2.htm
@Lewis... You were able to resist the urge to sign the petition in a humorous way. I am no such man.
ReplyDeleteI went with Adolf Hitler, 56.
Come to think of it, maybe that was too subtle.