|
Post by rosa on Aug 28, 2010 0:29:55 GMT -5
That is so frustrating! It's like they don't really know what "friend" means. The problem is, they see those rules and think they don't apply to whatever the current thing is. They always claim it's not MLM. "Oh, this one is a really good product," "It's a real job, a sales position. No, there's no base pay. No, no taxes, they're independent contractors. But I said it's not multilevel! You just don't understand!" "But I'm not selling anything, I just want to educate you about the law! Oh, and you'll need to buy these forms..." And of course, sometimes it's not MLM, it's a straight up pyramid scam (like the "gifting clubs" (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt056.shtm) - another one of my former friend's invitations. Or just straight up fraud. This is an old one i remember off the scam list from when I was at the paper as going through Christian circles, men's church breakfasts and such. I got to it by googling "christian scam endless energy" - the articles don't mention church connections but if this isn't the same guy, it's the same scam. Basically he claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine that made energy out of nothing, and bilked people out of thousands and thousands of "investment" dollar. www.nashvillepost.com/news/2010/1/19/investors_win_26m_award_against_alleged_scam_artistI have finally trained a couple very credulous women in my life to check with Scopes before they forward me emails about miracles (tho one just stopped emailing me because I was "putting reason into what is supposed to be an affirmation of faith.") and my partner's dad just googles whatever + scam whenever one of her church friends wants her to invest in something.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Aug 28, 2010 4:52:37 GMT -5
Shelley C,
I read your post last night (it was night my side of the pond), and wanted to reply because I was nodding my head at some of what you said. I also wanted to reply to what you said about homeschooling and moms wanting regular time away from their kids. Your post didn't offend me.
I agree that wanting to live debt-free is a good thing. There's nothing wrong with living in the country either! There is also nothing wrong at all with children being part of the family business, but they shouldn't be relied upon to fulfill their parents' duty. I agree that parents can feel like they shouldn't expect their children to contribute at all, but it's much healthier to teach children that they are part of a family and that the home doesn't run itself and neither does the business. Now, having too many kids and dumping the responsibility of all the young children on the older ones is just not fair, and it is also not fair not to give your children freedom to choose if they want to stay in the family business or not. And yes, if children are helping out a lot, there should be some remuneration! But this balance is not going to be the same for every family.
It's also ok to pray or wait and save up for larger purchases. Sometimes, as you say, people will offer it to you. Whether you believe it's a coincidence or not, is down to you and your personal beliefs. I don't like to attribute it all to God answering prayer, because some people pray and pray and nobody offers it to them, and maybe they needed it more than the one whom God chose to hear... It can be very disheartening.
It's also ok to ask for things you need. Isn't that what Craigslist is all about? I wouldn't expect anyone to give me a car, but I'm sure there are sofas sitting around in people's garages that still have loads of use left in them and could be passed on to someone who needs them. We can become too proud to ask, and that is sad too. It's like trying to prove one can provide for one's family with no help. That sort of attitude keeps some people poor forever.
Onto what I disagree with.
You seem to think little of mothers who want regular time away from their children and who place their kids in school when they are perfectly capable of teachig them themselves. Well..... I was the one who was NEVER going to send her kids to public school. Some of my reasons still stand, but I have had to come to terms with the fact that it may not be the best thing for my children to be with me all of the time. Right now I have one in school, one in pre-school, and one at home, which means I rush around in the mornings trying to get a few things done, with many, many interruptions. I will be relieved when all three are gone for 3 hours 5 days a week! I will be able to do my housework, shopping, and meal cooking while they are away, leaving me more free to spend time with them when they come home.
School also provides a schedule, which I sorely need.
When the kids are older, and if our dream of living on a house boat ever materializes, I could imagine trying out homeschooling. When the kids can do more on their own and I'm not having to meet every basic need, chase them to do stuff like go to the toilet, and clean up mess after mess, maybe. Right now, I think that homeschooling would be too stressful for everyone involved.
So, I can relate to the mothers who long for the time when their children are all in school for a few hours just so they can get their work done without a million interruptions. It's not like we all don't love our children or don't want to be around them.
As for giving families who breed "too much" a box of condoms... I'll just say they don't always work, and I'd be very insulted if someone gave me even one!
|
|
|
Post by madame on Aug 28, 2010 5:20:37 GMT -5
The "leave and cleave" principle is not all bad. I wish my husband and his family lived a bit more by that principle...
|
|
|
Post by fabucat on Aug 28, 2010 8:13:15 GMT -5
My QF friends go through phases like this too! Used to be quite scathing about headcoverings. Called them "beanies." Now they all cover! [/quote]
These days, with all of the stupid controversy about that stupid mosque in NYC, Muslim women who wear burquas or hijab are getting harassed and threatened.
I loved the blog where the husband spewed anti-Muslim hatred and in another entry, the wife discussed why she covered her head. Irony, no?
(BTW, I'm certainly not making a value judgment about what women WEAR when they practice their respective religions).
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 28, 2010 8:21:27 GMT -5
These days, with all of the stupid controversy about that stupid mosque in NYC, Muslim women who wear burquas or hijab are getting harassed and threatened. I loved the blog where the husband spewed anti-Muslim hatred and in another entry, the wife discussed why she covered her head. Irony, no? (BTW, I'm certainly not making a value judgment about what women WEAR when they practice their respective religions). Kind of a cute anecdote my mom told me yesterday. She's a fifth grade public school teacher in a district with many Muslim students whose families have recently moved here from various Arab countries. She overheard a conversation between two Muslim boys yesterday: Boy #1: "Does your mother wear hijab?" Boy #2: "No, she believes it is a symbol of oppression." Boy #1: "What do you mean?" Boy #2: "She believes it is something men force their wives to do." I have no bone in the hijab dispute, not being a Muslim, and I certainly think many women wear it in opposition to various kinds of Western cultural hegemony, but... I thought this conversation was priceless.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Aug 28, 2010 9:29:00 GMT -5
If it's not bluntly taught, it sure feels that way to the people around QF families. There are three new (past year or so) QF families in our church. Everyone likes them. We like their children. We like the parents. We are glad they choose to hang out with us. One father is a wonderful person, honestly if you met him you would LOVE him! But there is a problem, he has no one job that will support his family. He teaches a few music lessons ($20 a week a student) and he is music director for our tiny church (a very part time job). I think all his hopes right now are resting on a CD he just cut, and I hope it sells, but his first CD *I* couldn't listen to and I really wanted to like it! They just had their 5th child- and no one signed up to bring them meals. People are just tired of helping them out, even though we really LIKE them! Oh, and they LOVE their children, and are super nurturing parents. The second family, the father has a good job working for the man. He's in IT with a corporate job. They have four kids and are in the process of trying to adopt from Africa. They can probably afford it. And I am super glad they are not having any more children of their own. And I am really super glad, that both of these families, whose oldest children are just now school age, are sending their children to PUBLIC SCHOOL! Woot! ;D ;D ;D Now I am a long-time home school mom and home school supporter, but I have done nada to encourage either of these families to home school. You know why? Because I don't believe that there are very many large families that do a good job of home schooling. Even if you are a relaxed, eclectic home school mom like myself, making sure kids get everything they need is a big job. No way I could run a large household and be the excellent home school mom I am (if I do say so myself). I'm not saying that no one has pulled it off, but of the many large home schooling families I have known, there are very few graduates I would consider well educated. The third family is in the critical final stages of QF failure. It is easy to tell yourself God will provide in the beginning. It's not that hard to feed five pre-schoolers. People are not yet burned out on rescuing your family, either. Feeding five teenagers, that's hard! Also young children just conform to whatever is expected without giving it much thought. Teenagers think and question! They do not (and should not) just go along with mom's and dad's explanation of life; they put into practice those critical thinking skills home schoolers love to promote. This third family suffered an economic setback two years ago, and all of their fancy talk about living debt-free failed them. They are in deep debt now. In fact, mom was thinking about getting a job of her own, but got pregnant again at the same time dad lost his job. They took the pregnancy as a sign that God wanted her to be a SAHM. Recently I began making friends with this frazzled mom (I like her, she's a good person!) to find out that yes, included with the anti-government rhetoric she was taught, was the idea that the church is supposed to be the Welfare Dept for Christians, and she was hurt that it doesn't work that way. She felt that taking food stamps would be a sin, even though her kids needed it. I told her that it was God-honoring that our society had decided as a unit that we did not want children in our communities going hungry, so we the people elected to create the food stamp option. It relieved her anxiety and now her children can eat well. Score one point for clear thinking! She is a very bright mom, a college graduate with a degree in theatre. I think her oldest are pretty well educated, but I really hope she will come to see that public school is NOT evil, and might even be a better option for her family given their dire financial situation. Oh and I dropped the bomb about pregnancy being a foregone conclusion when fertile people have sex, and that there is nothing supernatural about it. And she still wants to be my friend! That is my current experience with QF families. It seems that the younger moms are shaking off the fear and isolation, at least as far as public education and WIC. So, yay for that, right?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Aug 28, 2010 11:33:37 GMT -5
Oh, and Hopewell. Here is a link to the website that is the group and couple whom my parents were intimately involved with. They are super, uber radical. But what is interesting is that they have a family owned business (lawn care) and on a nightly basis their 23 year old daughter is required to give dad back rubs, clip his toenails, and help with his grooming as a way to "prepare" her for marriage. Its pretty hard to sift through all of her articles, but its well worth it if you want to read some hard-core homeschool p*&n. www.chef-missouri.com (if that doesn't work, try .org at the end. or have vyckie contact me...) Does anyone see anything unhealthy about an adult daughter giving her middle-aged dad a backrub? !!!!! Holy smokes! Actually, the clipping toenails/helping with grooming seems much more unhealthy to me than a backrub... but that of course is without the "required" parts. I guess when my family is visiting together after a day, there are often backrubs being given, not spa-like shirtless backrubs but just some human touch and connection and such. So I think there's probably a difference of imagining what's involved in these backrubs but I don't see anything wrong in spontaneous backrubs between an adult child and parent, it just seems here though that there is entitlement and lack of reciprocation, plus creepy clipping toenails and such. Plus apparently she can't say no. And connecting it explicitly to "preparation for marriage" is SUPER CREEPY.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Aug 28, 2010 11:37:42 GMT -5
Actually, the clipping toenails/helping with grooming seems much more unhealthy to me than a backrub... but that of course is without the "required" parts. I guess when my family is visiting together after a day, there are often backrubs being given, not spa-like shirtless backrubs but just some human touch and connection and such. So I think there's probably a difference of imagining what's involved in these backrubs but I don't see anything wrong in spontaneous backrubs between an adult child and parent, it just seems here though that there is entitlement and lack of reciprocation, plus creepy clipping toenails and such. Plus apparently she can't say no. And connecting it explicitly to "preparation for marriage" is SUPER CREEPY. I'm 100% with jemand on this one. Backrubs were normal in my family. We drove around a lot. We got tense. There was no mood lighting or massage oil involved, but we helped each other get the kinks out of our shoulders. The toenails bit, though... WTF! Barring an actual disability, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that any man who doesn't clip his own damn toenails does not deserve a wife!
|
|
|
Post by juliacat on Aug 28, 2010 11:40:30 GMT -5
We are debt-free except for our mortgage, on which we owe less than some people owe on their cars. And we only have two children and will not be having more. And we love them to bits. And it would drive me completely insane to have to be at home with them all day long. Besides, if I were at home all day long, I wouldn't be able to go out to work, and I like my job. I don't know where I fall in this discussion!
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Aug 28, 2010 12:26:32 GMT -5
I should chime in that I had to overcome a stringent obsession with the idea of becoming debt-free in order to go to university. And no, I'm not even talking about student loans. I am, in fact, talking about the credit cards that I've repeatedly maxed out (to the tune of $5,000) in order to afford books, clothing, and food on my own. Leaving fundamentalism with enough money to live would be an incredible luxury. ETA: And student loans rarely include adequate living expenses.
I sought to disentangle myself as thoroughly as possible from my church and my abusive father, which meant accepting as little help as possible from my parents since my escape. I don't for a second regret using credit for that purpose, although it is taking me a long time to pay it all off now.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 28, 2010 13:55:53 GMT -5
Actually, the clipping toenails/helping with grooming seems much more unhealthy to me than a backrub... but that of course is without the "required" parts. I guess when my family is visiting together after a day, there are often backrubs being given, not spa-like shirtless backrubs but just some human touch and connection and such. So I think there's probably a difference of imagining what's involved in these backrubs but I don't see anything wrong in spontaneous backrubs between an adult child and parent, it just seems here though that there is entitlement and lack of reciprocation, plus creepy clipping toenails and such. Plus apparently she can't say no. And connecting it explicitly to "preparation for marriage" is SUPER CREEPY. I'm 100% with jemand on this one. Backrubs were normal in my family. We drove around a lot. We got tense. There was no mood lighting or massage oil involved, but we helped each other get the kinks out of our shoulders. The toenails bit, though... WTF! Barring an actual disability, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that any man who doesn't clip his own damn toenails does not deserve a wife! The toenail thing sorta reminds me of Mad Men, which is not exactly my favorite show, but I do watch it sometimes... And I remember one episode in which Joan's husband comes home from work after, I dunno, failing to receive his license to practice surgery (or something like that). And she says (in a completely non-sexual way, I have to point out), "Go lie on the bed, and I'll help you get those clothes off so you can get into your pajamas." I remember thinking, "really, wtf??? The man had a disappointing day, and now he can't change on his own prior to bedtime???" Toenail clipping and other such help with grooming seems on a similar scale to me. It's definitely icky for an adult daughter (or, frankly, a minor daughter too) to be doing that for her father.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Aug 28, 2010 15:22:10 GMT -5
As to the Family Business model, this is a great idea but some people absolutely suck at it. I have seen QF moms doing their darndest to get their husband into something like this. One mom I knew went through Amway and numerous other MLM sell programs for her husband to do as a way of eventually quitting his (perfectly good) job and working at home with them all (that quantity thing again).. this went on for years and cost them thousands of dollars and they did not make ONE CENT. Though in her mind they did because she bought tons of stuff from these companies at a seller's discount. The reason it failed is she has a husband who can barely string two sentences together and is NOT a public speaker, stumbles, blushes and mispronounces doing a bible reading at church. He is not going to ever be a high powered salesman but his wife was totally sold on the idea that having a home business and him staying home was God's plan. Once again it is trying to cram diverse families into one formula, a formula (apparently) derived from a couple bible verses written poetically about a nomadic people thousands of years ago. The last time I was on a QF mailing list just about everyone there was on WIC and living very poorly. They felt very guilty about the WIC but most had 10+ children and needed to feed them. A few of them had disabled husbands but the others had husbands with regular working class jobs, they just could not afford all these kids especially when they got to the teen years. You can grind your own wheat all you want but that savings doesn't pay for needing a bigger house to rent and a bigger van etc.. or for medical expenses and on and on and on. My current QF friend is in massive, massive debt. They have entered into all kinds of investments over the last 10 years because "God has called us to.." The investments go from losing money every month but might be okay in a decade to complete scams. They were into some prosperity idea about investing and God will bless you and blah blah.. and they refuse to get rid of any of these investments because that would be saying God did not actually call them to do those things. Some of these things are costing them thousands a month and the debt mounts endlessly. Anyway.. just to say not everyone is the Duggars who seem to have hard work, luck, personality and some smarts on their side as well as their army of unpaid workers. In my reved-up-ness about this subject last night, my husband and I discussed this over dinner. We both hate sales and are lousy at sales. Our skills are geeky ones, and if we had to make a living operating heavy construction equipment or selling things, we'd be destitute. This has actually created much contention with my parents, as I always was attracted to thinkers, but my parents really prefer the self-made types like Jim-Bob. (I told them once when they tried to fix me up that if I had to marry the kind of men they liked for me, I'd kill myself and just get it over with. But they didn't think to much of my temperament and personality either!) The other point here is that people do line up to help the celebrities or the model citizens in the cult while the dregs and the people who do not model the cult ideal get lost in the dust. My husband brought up right away about how nice it was that so many people used to line up to help care for the church's elder's wife who had MS and needed lots of care. It was commendable, but there were people who had just as many needs that were thrown away and ignored. I remembered when (while filling in for the secretary), I informed the asst pastor that I'd made an executive decision by ordering a big fruit basket from the church on the church's account for a girl I worked with whose father had just died. He told me that it was her homegroup's duty and if she didn't have a home group then tough! I explained that she worked two jobs and could not go to homegroup (but tithed), and he could take the cost of the basket out of my pay for the day. She was not a model citizen, so she was not deserving. I wrote a couple of years ago about how one of our elders went on about getting to wash Bob Mumford's car. People line up to take care of the superstars in the cult. It is an honor to scrub Jennie Chancey's toilet (mentioned in that housewives book), but the church member who is not a celeb does not enjoy the perks. I'm sure it is the same with the Duggars. And people feel greater obligation to "serve leadership" because they are told that the leadership in these aberrant cultic groups serves them. They are beholden to the group. The sharing of resources always goes to those who model the cult ideal, the positive reinforcement for compliance with the sacred science and social requirements of the group. Membership and compliance has its benefits.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Aug 28, 2010 15:30:58 GMT -5
I'm 100% with jemand on this one. Backrubs were normal in my family. We drove around a lot. We got tense. There was no mood lighting or massage oil involved, but we helped each other get the kinks out of our shoulders. The toenails bit, though... WTF! Barring an actual disability, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that any man who doesn't clip his own damn toenails does not deserve a wife! The toenail thing sorta reminds me of Mad Men, which is not exactly my favorite show, but I do watch it sometimes... And I remember one episode in which Joan's husband comes home from work after, I dunno, failing to receive his license to practice surgery (or something like that). And she says (in a completely non-sexual way, I have to point out), "Go lie on the bed, and I'll help you get those clothes off so you can get into your pajamas." I remember thinking, "really, wtf??? The man had a disappointing day, and now he can't change on his own prior to bedtime???" Toenail clipping and other such help with grooming seems on a similar scale to me. It's definitely icky for an adult daughter (or, frankly, a minor daughter too) to be doing that for her father. The only situation that might make this appropriate is if the guy had bad eyesight, diabetes, or was physically too fat to get at his own toenails. I would think that in helping with legitimate difficulties like this, it would be appropriate to help. If if that were the case, wouldn't such be stated? Maybe or maybe not. There might be an effort to conceal the guy's limitations. If not, then this is creepy. I have, when my dad was flat on the floor and in pain from a back injury have worked on his tetanized back, but not for pleasure or service but because I wanted to help alleviate his severe pain. I did what is called myotherapy, and I don't think that either of us found it pleasurable, though it yielded greater mobility and some pain relief.
|
|
|
Post by kalikat on Aug 28, 2010 19:13:02 GMT -5
I'm 100% with jemand on this one. Backrubs were normal in my family. We drove around a lot. We got tense. There was no mood lighting or massage oil involved, but we helped each other get the kinks out of our shoulders. The toenails bit, though... WTF! Barring an actual disability, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that any man who doesn't clip his own damn toenails does not deserve a wife! The toenail thing sorta reminds me of Mad Men, which is not exactly my favorite show, but I do watch it sometimes... And I remember one episode in which Joan's husband comes home from work after, I dunno, failing to receive his license to practice surgery (or something like that). And she says (in a completely non-sexual way, I have to point out), "Go lie on the bed, and I'll help you get those clothes off so you can get into your pajamas." I remember thinking, "really, wtf??? The man had a disappointing day, and now he can't change on his own prior to bedtime???" Toenail clipping and other such help with grooming seems on a similar scale to me. It's definitely icky for an adult daughter (or, frankly, a minor daughter too) to be doing that for her father. My husband's family was QF (though they never, as far as I know anyway actually referred to themselves a such), and he's told me that when he was little, he would often tell his mom he was "too tired" to change into his pajamas and ask her to do it for him. He said that he did this because he wanted his mom to pay attention to him, and as a little kid, other than acting out this was the only way he knew how--apparently asking his mom to put his pajamas on for him significantly increased the amount of time she spent tucking him in, which was usually the only one-on-one time he ever got (so sad ).
|
|
|
Post by asteli on Aug 28, 2010 20:47:16 GMT -5
Geez, I didn't even clip my husband's toenails when he got home from 2 months in the hospital & 2 surgeries. He figured out how to manage it himself. (he did get back rubs, though)
Doing that kind of thing for a parent who isn' incapacited is really disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Aug 29, 2010 2:15:13 GMT -5
If it's not bluntly taught, it sure feels that way to the people around QF families. There are three new (past year or so) QF families in our church. Everyone likes them. We like their children. We like the parents. We are glad they choose to hang out with us. One father is a wonderful person, honestly if you met him you would LOVE him! But there is a problem, he has no one job that will support his family. He teaches a few music lessons ($20 a week a student) and he is music director for our tiny church (a very part time job). I think all his hopes right now are resting on a CD he just cut, and I hope it sells, but his first CD *I* couldn't listen to and I really wanted to like it! They just had their 5th child- and no one signed up to bring them meals. People are just tired of helping them out, even though we really LIKE them! Oh, and they LOVE their children, and are super nurturing parents. Humbletigger, I find the part I boldened very sad, and more like the truth of how your church feels about this family: they are nice, we like them, but they better bloody start taking care of themselves!! Society is more tolerant and supportive of people going through a crisis than your church is, from what you have just said. I feel for that poor mom. Tired from night feeds with a newborn, still recovering from giving birth, having to cook meals for 6 people because that lovely "church" who claims to "love them and enjoy them so much" has decided to label them, what? irresponsible? I just hope, Humbletigger, that you never find yourself in a situation where you are overwhelmed, tired, misunderstood and judged by people who slap a smile on their faces every Sunday morning and claim to "just love you". This father, from what you have said, is trying. These are hard times financially for many people. Maybe if the church were willing to step in and love them through this hard time, they may be able to talk some sense into him if they feel he is too much of a dreamer. Your post just made me sad.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Aug 29, 2010 3:11:39 GMT -5
Recently I began making friends with this frazzled mom (I like her, she's a good person!) to find out that yes, included with the anti-government rhetoric she was taught, was the idea that the church is supposed to be the Welfare Dept for Christians, and she was hurt that it doesn't work that way. She felt that taking food stamps would be a sin, even though her kids needed it. I told her that it was God-honoring that our society had decided as a unit that we did not want children in our communities going hungry, so we the people elected to create the food stamp option. It relieved her anxiety and now her children can eat well. Score one point for clear thinking! She is a very bright mom, a college graduate with a degree in theatre. I think her oldest are pretty well educated, but I really hope she will come to see that public school is NOT evil, and might even be a better option for her family given their dire financial situation. Oh and I dropped the bomb about pregnancy being a foregone conclusion when fertile people have sex, and that there is nothing supernatural about it. And she still wants to be my friend! Humbletigger, Actually, the church used to be the welfare system in society. Corrupt as the upper tier was, the actual "body" cared for the poor. I don't see what is so wrong with people believing that the church is like a family, where everyone helps each other out. I understand the frustration with people who think they ought to have their every need provided for by the church. I am not saying that this is right at all, just that church is not supposed to just be about smiling at each other, singing songs together, heartily saying "amen" to the preaching and promising to pray for each other, it is supposed to be a community that truly cares for each other. Jesus said that the sign of a true church is the love they have for each other. True disciples of Christ love each other. It's great that there is a food stamp system, but it can feel very "wrong" to claim it for yourself. I know, because I have been on benefits and have felt guilty and wrong. There is also a stigma attached to it. Finally, the bomb you dropped was most insensitive. Do you really want to be her friend? Do you really care about her? You know, sometimes people on this board get very snarky against the very people they ought to understand. This board is full of stories of women who felt helpless, alone, judged by everyone, etc.. But some of these women seem to have forgotten how it felt (except when they are telling their story) and have no problem turning on women who are in the very place they felt so lonely and helpless in.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Aug 29, 2010 10:36:56 GMT -5
There's a time, though, when helping all the time is just enabling. People are entitled to make their own decisions, but they have to own the consequences, too - and part of being in a group that values that kind of freedom means other people get to make individual decisions too, about how much help they offer.
The lack of duty-bound help goes with the freedom. Back when the church was also the social network there was all sorts of punitive measures against needy people - they were forced into poorhouses, their children were taken away and hired out as labor, etc.
And there's only so much room in every small group for people who need all the time - one of the reasons we have professional paid social workers is because we recognize both that even people who deliberately dig their holes deeper and deeper deserve help, and that it's too hard emotionally for most people to stick with that through the long haul. But that kind of formal help comes with a loss of freedom - there are rules to follow, to get help.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Aug 29, 2010 11:17:32 GMT -5
Rosa,
I may get bashed for this one, but I don't think church is meant to change into an organism where everyone loves their freedom more than their church family members. Jesus left one new commandment: love one-another as I have loved you. He doesn't say to love one-another when we think the other is worthy of our love, but always. And it is this love that shows the world that we are his disciples. If a church lacks love it's not a church. And I consider not wanting to help a family that just had their 5th baby as a sign of lack of love.
Yes, you are right, how much we help is our choice. How much we love is up to us. How much compassion we show is up to us. And yes, love is not always going to be doing what the needy person would like us to do. Sometimes you just have to let people live with the consequences of their actions.
Yes, it's possible that help can turn into enabling.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Aug 29, 2010 12:30:29 GMT -5
I think you are making wrong assumptions here, madame, about me, my church and the people I befriend.
Yes, I really DO want to be her friend, and I show it by speaking plain truth to her instead of indulging the fantasy that she gets pregnant by divine intervention rather than plain old biology. She's my age, college educated and she would have figured it out on her own if FALSE TEACHERS hadn't promoted the LIE that God "opens and closes the womb" by divine fiat every time people have sex because in a few places in the Bible it is recorded that He did so for specific people in specific incidences. She deserves someone to speak the truth to her! God knows false teachers have had no problem speaking lies to her.
(God also healed a few lepers, but we don't refuse medical care to people with leprosy today nor accuse them of being cursed specifically by God, even though Miriam got leprosy when she gossiped about Moses interracial marriage. Sheesh. That whole theology is so bankrupt.)
Friends don't let friends labor under delusions, especially not when it is destroying their lives. This grinding poverty, debt, and guilt are a heavy burden this QF family needlessly bears. A true friend will point out that they do not have to keep living that way (although it will be years before the debt part is ended). She is already so much happier now that she can accept food stamps guilt free and feed her children! ;D
I meant every word I said to her about gov't assistance and every word I wrote about it here.
You say that the other father is doing "everything he can" for his family? No he's not! He could apply for regular 9-5 jobs too. He could use birth control and stop adding to a family that he cannot now support. He is a great guy, but he is most certainly not doing everything he can.
The church is not meant to be a welfare agency. Read II Thessalonians- one of the main themes of that letter is the people are responsible to support themselves and their families by working. In fact, I started the whole lesson income for him myself, as a way of helping them while encouraging self-sufficiency. My son was his first client and at my request.
You should be careful what you wish on other people, especially if you truly believe the law of sowing and reaping. I found out that no one signed up for taking meals because I took a meal (without anyone asking) the day she was in labor, and hurriedly put together another meal for the very next day when I got the sign up sheet and there were no names for the first three days. Then I called around and got other people involved!
I don't know you, perhaps not long ago you were one of those people, expecting the church to help you out of all your troubles while you kept procreating in faith. But it really stretches the limits of a congregation's charity, when a family is doing little to nothing to support themselves yet adding to the family head count without any regard to their ability to support themselves. Five kids in five years with no steady source of income. That is just unwise, no matter how you slice it.
It is wrong, just waiting it out until other people take care of you. I think that is what the QF founders practice and teach, and it is not a workable plan long-term. For some families, it doesn't even work short term. Because it's not really a plan, now, is it?
But then, I am one of those labeled selfish and lacking in faith by QFers- I have only two children. And because of that I have the $$ for music lessons, and taking meals to new parents. If I had ten kids of my own I couldn't afford lessons, or taking multiples meals to other families, or be able to open my home without charge to young adults fleeing patriarchal, abusive QF homes- I wouldn't have the room or the budget to provide well for my own family, much less anyone else.
(new thread: Isn't that the real reason QF is anti-college? They could never afford to send all their children, so they apply the sour grapes rule? Who wants to go to college anyway, waste of money, destroys your faith, etc., etc.)
Rosa, thank you for your comments. You are right on the money.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 29, 2010 12:48:41 GMT -5
humbletigger and Madame: I think you both may be misreading each other. I am not reading Madame as arguing that food stamps and government assistance deserve the stigma that they have--just that the stigma does exist, and that the process can be harsh and dehumanizing for those who have to rely on it. Having had to rely on it, I know that this is true, but this doesn't mean that I'm against government assistance. I simply think "the system"--such as it is--needs to step up its treatment of people who are poor.
Please correct me if I'm wrong about what you said, Madame, but I think you're suggesting that the church does have such a mandate to provide for the poor, even if it hasn't effectively followed through. As a kind of Christian myself, I'm personally partial to the Latin American liberation theology of the Cold War era that argues that God maintains an "option for the poor," that takes seriously the idea that it's harder for a wealthy man to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, and that seriously challenges its people to work for economic justice. I think the witnesses of people like Oscar Romero have been among the most important that mainstream religion has ever seen, and I'm sympathetic to what Madame is saying about how the church doesn't do what it should.
This is not to suggest that I think the church has the capacity to take up the slack now, in the diverse cultures in which we live. It's not to say that I think the church needs to replace welfare agencies--of course, I don't believe this. If I'm any kind of Christian, I'm the post-Marxist kind borne of that legacy of liberation thinking and resistance. So, yes, I believe in all of the government assistance that the good liberals among us likely support--and then some (probably). But I do think there's good reason for calling the church to be accountable to its alleged theology. Not that it should replace the welfare state, but it could go a damned long way in combating insidious belief systems like the prosperity gospel.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Aug 29, 2010 14:38:05 GMT -5
humbletigger and Madame: I think you both may be misreading each other. I am not reading Madame as arguing that food stamps and government assistance deserve the stigma that they have--just that the stigma does exist, and that the process can be harsh and dehumanizing for those who have to rely on it. Having had to rely on it, I know that this is true, but this doesn't mean that I'm against government assistance. I simply think "the system"--such as it is--needs to step up its treatment of people who are poor. Please correct me if I'm wrong about what you said, Madame, but I think you're suggesting that the church does have such a mandate to provide for the poor, even if it hasn't effectively followed through. As a kind of Christian myself, I'm personally partial to the Latin American liberation theology of the Cold War era that argues that God maintains an "option for the poor," that takes seriously the idea that it's harder for a wealthy man to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, and that seriously challenges its people to work for economic justice. I think the witnesses of people like Oscar Romero have been among the most important that mainstream religion has ever seen, and I'm sympathetic to what Madame is saying about how the church doesn't do what it should. This is not to suggest that I think the church has the capacity to take up the slack now, in the diverse cultures in which we live. It's not to say that I think the church needs to replace welfare agencies--of course, I don't believe this. If I'm any kind of Christian, I'm the post-Marxist kind borne of that legacy of liberation thinking and resistance. So, yes, I believe in all of the government assistance that the good liberals among us likely support--and then some (probably). But I do think there's good reason for calling the church to be accountable to its alleged theology. Not that it should replace the welfare state, but it could go a damned long way in combating insidious belief systems like the prosperity gospel. Perhaps you are right, km, and we are misreading each other. She compared my loving statement of truth to a bomb though, a weapon of mass destruction, and questioned the integrity of my friendship in plain words. If I misjudged her, it should be plain where I would get the idea that she thinks evil of me, my heart and my church. Why would she or you assume that my church teaches prosperity theology or that it is full of rich people with hard hearts? We are a tiny Lutheran congregation that meets in a dilapidated old building- which is fine because it feels more comfortable to most of us that way. We are egalitarian, interracial, and have members whose occupationss range from homeless/unemployed to trucker to professionals to one small business owner, and everything in between. Those who have more are often opening their wallets, homes and lives to those who have less. Even so, we are still not called or equipped to carry the financial burden for QF families who keep having children even though they have no steady source of adequate income.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 29, 2010 15:04:02 GMT -5
humbletigger and Madame: I think you both may be misreading each other. I am not reading Madame as arguing that food stamps and government assistance deserve the stigma that they have--just that the stigma does exist, and that the process can be harsh and dehumanizing for those who have to rely on it. Having had to rely on it, I know that this is true, but this doesn't mean that I'm against government assistance. I simply think "the system"--such as it is--needs to step up its treatment of people who are poor. Please correct me if I'm wrong about what you said, Madame, but I think you're suggesting that the church does have such a mandate to provide for the poor, even if it hasn't effectively followed through. As a kind of Christian myself, I'm personally partial to the Latin American liberation theology of the Cold War era that argues that God maintains an "option for the poor," that takes seriously the idea that it's harder for a wealthy man to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, and that seriously challenges its people to work for economic justice. I think the witnesses of people like Oscar Romero have been among the most important that mainstream religion has ever seen, and I'm sympathetic to what Madame is saying about how the church doesn't do what it should. This is not to suggest that I think the church has the capacity to take up the slack now, in the diverse cultures in which we live. It's not to say that I think the church needs to replace welfare agencies--of course, I don't believe this. If I'm any kind of Christian, I'm the post-Marxist kind borne of that legacy of liberation thinking and resistance. So, yes, I believe in all of the government assistance that the good liberals among us likely support--and then some (probably). But I do think there's good reason for calling the church to be accountable to its alleged theology. Not that it should replace the welfare state, but it could go a damned long way in combating insidious belief systems like the prosperity gospel. Perhaps you are right, km, and we are misreading each other. She compared my loving statement of truth to a bomb though, a weapon of mass destruction, and questioned the integrity of my friendship in plain words. If I misjudged her, it should be plain where I would get the idea that she thinks evil of me, my heart and my church. Why would she or you assume that my church teaches prosperity theology or that it is full of rich people with hard hearts? We are a tiny Lutheran congregation that meets in a dilapidated old building- which is fine because it feels more comfortable to most of us that way. We are egalitarian, interracial, and have members whose occupationss range from homeless/unemployed to trucker to professionals to one small business owner, and everything in between. Those who have more are often opening their wallets, homes and lives to those who have less. Even so, we are still not called or equipped to carry the financial burden for QF families who keep having children even though they have no steady source of adequate income. Huh? I'm not assuming anything about you or your church--or whether or not it teaches prosperity ideology. Only that a lot of people who come to this forum have been exposed to this kind of thinking. I think Madame felt that you were dismissive of the woman's fears of welfare stigma, and I can understand how she could have read that from you (though I now think from what you've said that this isn't what you meant). The point I'm making about liberation theology has absolutely nothing to do with small churches and their lack of resources. It's a larger claim about how the Christian church--which is, as a whole, quite wealthy in North America--has failed to uphold the things that appear to have been most important to the Jesus of the Gospels. I do think Madame was making a much more general point like this one, and not one about you or your specific church. I think you're talking past each other in that she's making general claims that have nothing to do with you about the state of Christianity in North America--and you are reading injunctions for your specific church into what she says. These general claims have to do with too many Christians having become comfortable with their wealth--and not taking the words of Jesus very seriously. I think this is very true for many of us who have been exposed to extremely conservative variants of Christianity--there can sometimes be more interest in God's take on consuming shellfish than in what the New Testament says about wealth and riches and the poor. And I think it's absolutely crucial to call these Christians to account for their negligence. I also think she's making a theological point while you're making a practical one, and I think the issue is that you're talking past each other (and not necessarily disagreeing). This isn't to say that, if the church did what it should, we wouldn't need welfare. I think it's about as useful to use Christianity to determine public policy as it is to use Christianity to judge science (which is to say, not at all). But I have a big problem with the way in which the church attends to the poor (or for that matter, attends to the "release of the captive" or "[setting] the prisoner free." I think the claims about social justice in the New Testament are almost never taken seriously enough. And part of that, I think, is the conservative Church's resistance to government assistance (which directly hurts the poor).
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 29, 2010 15:12:40 GMT -5
Even so, we are still not called or equipped to carry the financial burden for QF families who keep having children even though they have no steady source of adequate income. Furthermore, I think this rhetoric sounds very close to far-right rhetoric about "welfare queens" who shouldn't "keep having children that they can't afford." Assistance has nothing to do with whether or not we deem someone to be "worthy" or enough "like us." And someone who is entrenched in QF (as I think Madame was pointing out) is not going to be easily moved by arguments about practicality or common sense. The whole mindset flies in the face of practicality and common sense. I think Madame was in part pointing out that many of us who decry this practice as "stupid" are not all that far-removed from the ideology ourselves. And I can understand your frustration with the system that put your friend in this situation, but I can also see how what you said could seem a little harsh to people who have recently left the lifestyle (or who are still involved in it.).
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Aug 29, 2010 16:59:52 GMT -5
Completely agree. Also probably true, but life is harsh. And people about to experience QF meltdown- when the teens suddenly are not the perfect little angels, and the money is not magically appearing, and the cars are at the end of their lives and no amount of prayer will change that, well, how HARSH is that?! None of the false teachers who set this family up for tragedy are around to help out. Not one. And my friend was not worried about any social stigma of food stamps (which is not the same as welfare btw) only the religious/conservative political stigma put out by those same charlatans. She was HAPPY to understand the rest of the world's point of view, which is that as a society want all of our children to be well-nourished. She was set free to stop looking at the government as the enemy and accept government as the collective voice of our society, our neighbors, our fellow citizens. It was a great load off of her mind, that she would not be sinning to accept the help. I apologize if my honesty was too harsh for the gentle readers of NLQ. I forgot my audience. That is obviously true. Though my IRL friend was helped and not offended, I obviously have offended people here on the form. I am sorry for that. But I am not sorry for the real life conversation, because truth is a beautiful and precious gift that too few people have the courage to share. Even if the woman had been so offended she never wanted to speak to me again, the words would have helped her because they were true. And for me, being a help is more important than personal popularity anyway. But that's neither here nor there as we are still friends and she speaks highly of me and to me, so I have no worries.
|
|