Gimme That Old Time Religion

[Vaysh]

Do we know if the Duggars give their children godparents? I would be interested to know who they pick. In my family, there is a lot of politics involved in choosing godparents. With so many candidates, I wonder how that would go.

 

I doubt it. As Independent Baptists they practice adult baptism don't they? Godparents are probably too "Catholic" for them (Protestants have godparents as well, but not Evangelicals I think).

[GEML]

They don't give them godparents. I would bet a considerable sum on it.

[truelovekiss]

I didn't realize godparents were a "Catholic" thing (even though I was raised Catholic). I thought it was kind of universal amongst Christians, but I guess not! Thank you :)

[Dejana]

I didn't realize godparents were a "Catholic" thing (even though I was raised Catholic). I thought it was kind of universal amongst Christians, but I guess not! Thank you :)

 

I wouldn't say it's only Catholics who have godparents, because I know people from other denominations who had them, but they were definitely frowned upon in my Baptist corner of the world. During infant dedications (never baptisms), you had newer converts who wanted to have godparents as part of the ceremony and it was always strictly forbidden.

[Portia]

They don't give them godparents. I would bet a considerable sum on it.

  

I didn't realize godparents were a "Catholic" thing (even though I was raised Catholic). I thought it was kind of universal amongst Christians, but I guess not! Thank you :)

Someone correct me if I'm mistaken, but my understanding is that godparents go hand-in-hand with infant baptism. They, along with the parents, answer on behalf of the child, and they promise to be responsible for the spiritual upbringing of the child should the parents die. Therefore I don't hear many Evangelicals speaking about godparents, at least not ones who are officially recognized by the church.

I grew up Missouri Synod Lutheran, and we had godparents, but they were called sponsors.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Portia

[GEML]

Many Evangelicals do have godparents now. Some even do infant baptisms. But Fundys don't, period.

[andromeda331]

But Fundys don't, period.

 

Do they even have any plans if something happens to the parents? Most people if something happen to their brother and sister-in-law probably could take in one or two kids but very few would be able to take in four-nineteen nieces and nephews. I imagine it would be even harder in their circle because most Fundy can barely support their own kids.

[GEML]

Most people have at least verbally specified guardians, and some have wills. But I'm Episcopslian and my children's Godparents aren't the same as their guardians, so not all people use that as the same term.

[Marigold]

No way. No fundamentalists will do Godparents.

When we were fundamentalists, extended family asked and we were like "huh?" For some reason that upset people. I have a will in place should my children need guardians.

I thought godparents were spiritual godparents...someone who promises to train the child in the faith but not necessarily a lega guradian and would take the child if the parents died. Maybe for some people they are both?

Well, anyway, no way. No Godparents for the Fundamentalists.

[JenCarroll]

I didn't realize godparents were a "Catholic" thing (even though I was raised Catholic). I thought it was kind of universal amongst Christians, but I guess not! Thank you :)

Jews have them too -- well, traditionally for boys only.

[galax-arena]

I thought godparents were spiritual godparents...someone who promises to train the child in the faith but not necessarily a lega guradian and would take the child if the parents died. Maybe for some people they are both?

Just going by what I've seen personally, a lot of the time it seems like more of a symbolic gesture meant to show that the person chosen as a godparent has a place of importance in the family's life, like maybe they're the mother or father's bff. The godparent isn't seriously expected to take responsibility for the child's faith. 

 

I didn't grow up around that many hardcore evangelicals or Catholics though, mostly only nominal Christians, so I'm sure that explains the difference. 

Edited April 22, 2015 by galax-arena

[GEML]

We chose our godparents as people for our children to go to as people of faith. Same as our son's confirmation mentor. But we're religious (even if we are Episcopalians!)

[Vaysh]

These days godparents fill a mainly symbolical role around here (though they are expected to bring some good gifts for birthdays etc ;) but historically they were a lot more important. Kids were orphaned at an alarming rate in some areas and without a social safety net, godparents were not just spiritual guardians but could end up as physical guardians as well. You can see their importance in old church records; each child was given not just one or two but usually four and not uncommonly six godparents, often married couples, assumingly in the hope that at least one of them would be able to take the child in should tragedy occur. 

[Jusagirlintheworld]

Hi,

 

I've been lurking for a while, but this is the first time I've posted.  This forum has really opened my eyes to the fundamentalist world, especially the posts by GEML and Marigold. 

 

My biggest question about fundamentalists is:  How do these ladies handle their large families?  How is it even humanly possible on a day-to-day basis?  Especially in the beginning when their kids are too young to be "buddies?" 

 

 The "buddy system" is only an option when the oldest children are old enough to be buddies.  It worked for Michelle because she had space between her oldest children and the rest.   Jill and Jessa are having children right out of the gate.

 

Assume Jill has a child every two years after her eldest is born.  (Eg., 2015 = baby 1; 2017= baby 2; 2019 = baby 3; and 2021 = baby 4)  

 

By 2021, she would have four children ages six and under.  Yikes!  Think about that for a moment:

 

The six year old would be too young to be a buddy to his younger siblings.  He couldn't take homeschool lessons on the computer yet.  He would need Mom to spend time teaching him how to read and the concepts of addition and subtraction. 

 

The four year old couldn't take homeschool lessons either.  He would need Mom to teach him his colors and shapes.  He would also be running around getting into everything, like four year olds do. (All those dirty clothes need to be washed!)  Although potty trained, he would still have accidents at times.  (More laundry!)

 

The two-year old would be in his "no" stage . .  climbing, throwing cheerios around, still requiring lots of help from Mom..  He would spill food and drinks often (more laundry and clean-up!)  He may be potty-training.  (Even more laundry!).  He would put everything in his mouth and get sick constantly.  Every stomach virus he contracts would spread to all of the children, requiring Mom to stay awake for days with one sick child after another!

 

The baby would wake up all night long.  Mom would nurse every hour and change diapers at least that often.  (Nursing is exhausting for women!)  Leaking diapers and blowouts would produce even more laundry! 

 

How on earth can a mom attend to her children and still clean the house, do the laundry, cook the meals, and service her headship?  All without Dad's help?!?  And all that with a joyful countenance?   It seems that there wouldn't be enough hours in the day.

 

I have a friend who has three children under five.  (Two were planned and one was a surprise).  She is supermom and one of the most capable women I know.  She stays at home.  Her husband shares in the childcare and household responsibilities.  She has family who helps her, too.  Still, her house is a mess, her car is a mess, and she is utterly sleep-deprived.  (No judgment!  Mine would be, too!)  When the winter viruses hit, she is awake taking care of sick children for days on end. 

 

How do these fundamentalist ladies do the impossible?   What is their secret?

[GEML]

In WV, nearly every family has a family member in their extended family who literally goes from house to house and helps with a new mother for about six months. She's usually someone who never married, was widowed young, or had some sort of unusual tragedy in her life. She may have a small amount of income, but not enough to really live independently. So caring for new mothers is her job.

This keeps mothers from losing their minds. As families have become smaller (even Fundy families) and employment has opened up (even for Fundy women) this is less and less and option. But historically, this was what women did in my part of the world.

[Jusagirlintheworld]

In WV, nearly every family has a family member in their extended family who literally goes from house to house and helps with a new mother for about six months. She's usually someone who never married, was widowed young, or had some sort of unusual tragedy in her life. She may have a small amount of income, but not enough to really live independently. So caring for new mothers is her job.

This keeps mothers from losing their minds. As families have become smaller (even Fundy families) and employment has opened up (even for Fundy women) this is less and less and option. But historically, this was what women did in my part of the world.

This explains a lot.

[kalamac]

As for the child raising, it can be done. My mother had four, and my dad was in the army so was away frequently.

One of my best friends has 5 boys, and her husband works in the mines interstate, so he's gone for 3 weeks at a time. It's easier for her now that her oldest is in school all day, but she's a great hands on parent and doing a wonderful job with the boys, with minimal help, because those of us around her all have our own lives we can't take time away from. (She's not religious, and her boys do watch morning kids TV, which is when she cleans and cooks for the day).

Edited April 22, 2015 by kalamac

[riverblue22]

Anybody read about the Southern Baptist Convention and their new  decision to enforce gender inequality?  Apparently Jimmy Carter has severed his longtime connection with the Southern Baptists because of their moves toward a more patriarchal religion.  Jimmy Carter writes, "It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service."

 

It seems to me that the Southern Baptists are trying to prove they are just as fundamentalist as the next guy, and that more and more Christians in this country are headed this way.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christian-piatt/jimmy-carter-vs-the-southern-baptist-convention-a-sea-change_b_3015449.html

 

[galax-arena]

because of their moves toward a more patriarchal religion.

How dare you use the word "patriarchy"! They're not patriarchal, they're complementarian, which totally isn't just another word that essentially means the same thing (with at most a few surface/superficial differences) that has become the new buzzword among fundies and evangelicals who've adopted it in greater numbers because "patriarchy" has such a negative association. It's definitely not that! 

 

I wonder what the Duggars would call themselves. Complementarianism seems to be the word of choice among more mainstream conservatives who want something with less baggage. The more extreme IFBs don't really give a shit though, I imagine that someone like Steve Anderson would laugh at the idea. 

 

ETA: Okay, snark aside, I think a lot of evangelicals do acknowledge that complementarianism has its roots in biblical patriarchy. But they don't like using the latter especially when addressing the common masses and heathen unbelievers because they know it's a very loaded phrase. 

Edited April 22, 2015 by galax-arena

[JenCarroll]

I dunno. Complementarianism has an awful lot of syllables for someone like The Dashing Binjerman Seewald to take on. :-)

[Ilovemylabs]

  Someone correct me if I'm mistaken, but my understanding is that godparents go hand-in-hand with infant baptism. They, along with the parents, answer on behalf of the child, and they promise to be responsible for the spiritual upbringing of the child should the parents die. Therefore I don't hear many Evangelicals speaking about godparents, at least not ones who are officially recognized by the church.

I grew up Missouri Synod Lutheran, and we had godparent, but they| were called sponsors.

I'm also a Lutheran and we have godparents for infant/child baptism.  Yes, they are supposed to raise the child in faith should anything happen to the parents.  I learn a lot here.  I thought most Christian churches had godparents.  Apparently not.  I'm guessing that the denominations that believe in adult baptism would not have them.  What you need to know about Lutherans is that we like coffee and pot luck dinners! If you're Lutheran check out a you tube video called "Lutheran Airlines".

Edited April 22, 2015 by Ilovemylabs

[CarolMK]

I just wanted to share that my church, Presbyterian USA, has formally approved same sex marriages. I've been Presbyterian all of my life and I think this is a great decision that was made. There are so many people who think that all Christians are against the LGBT community and I'm glad to be part of a church that accepts everybody regardless of who they love. I believe also that Unitarian approves same sex marriages, but off the top of my head I'm not sure about any others..can anyone enlighten me?

[birkenstock]

That's great news!

The Episcopal Church of the United States approved the "rite of blessing" same sex marriages and allows for openly gay clergy. This human rights issue caused divisions in the church.

The Episcopal Church I attend made a clear, strong stance in support of marriage equality prior to, during, and after California's passage of Prop 8 (prohibiting same sex marriage) in 2008. My church's rector conducts same sex wedding ceremonies. I had to do a little Internet searching but it turns out my church's first marriage blessing was in 1992. I was shocked to read that. I knew it was an "activist church" but didn't know the extent of its support.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Cocka doodle dont

[xtwheeler]

My Episcopalian church has been performing same sex marriages since the late '80s. It still baffles me how the Duggars can use Christ as an instrument of hate.

[Micks Picks]

In general, even if a church does not perform same sex marriage, it doesn't mean they hate.  That's such a loaded word, like patriarchy or racist.  The laws requiring same sex marriage can't force all churches, or any churches, to perform them.  

[JennyMominFL]

Reform Judaism has been peforming gay mariages for decades. Conservative Judaism for less 

I wouldn't call a church who won't perform gay mariages haters. I would call them discriminatory, but they have every right to do so. I would not favor the government forcing them to perform them

[birkenstock]

I agree that a church should have control over whether or not it will perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or blessings. Keep church and state as separate as possible.  It's my understanding that there are Episcopal churches that choose not to perform same-sex weddings as well.  

However, I do think that the Duggars use their faith in a discriminatory way that crosses the line into hate on a few issues including LGBT issues.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Cocka doodle dont

[galax-arena]

The laws requiring same sex marriage can't force all churches, or any churches, to perform them.

Well, yeah. But we can still call them hateful or homophobic. I think people absolutely have the right to be homophobic or racist or misogynist, but I'm still going to call a spade a spade. 

 

Anyway, I've made my views on same-sex marriage absolutely clear in previous posts, so I won't rehash them again, except to say that even if you don't think that a church refusing to recognize SSM is inherently homophobic - I completely disagree, as mentioned, but that's neither here nor there - IMO it's evident that the Duggars completely crossed that line a long time ago. Just look at all the crap that Josh Duggar spews for FRC Action, or listen to how Michelle Duggar compared transgender people to child molesters. That's hateful, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Josh might insist that he loves gay people (including his lesbian aunt who totally doesn't want equal - er, I mean "special" - rights), but actions speak louder than words. A bigot never thinks he's a bigot.

 

ETA: One thing I do want to make clear - I don't think that homophobes are necessarily awful people. I think that that particular belief is awful, but it doesn't necessarily extend to the person as a whole. (Unless you're a Duggar. Michelle's words about transgender people absolutely marked her as an awful person in my eyes.) I'm friends with homophobes in the same way that a lot of anti-gay Christians say they have gay friends. Doesn't make me less inclined to think that their anti-gay beliefs are homophobic, just like they're still inclined to believe that homosexuality is a sin. 

Edited April 23, 2015 by galax-arena

[Fosca]

The law cannot force a church to perform marriages; that has always been true and hopefully always will be.  However, some religious people (like the Duggars) are trying to force everyone else to live by their particular religion's rules, which is where things get ugly ("your freedom to swing your fist ends right where my nose begins").

 

And yeah, if a church doesn't let women hold the same religious offices as men and expect them to play a lesser role just because they're women, that's patriarchy (and discrimination).  If a church, like the LDS used to, believe that everyone who isn't white is inferior and therefore cannot hold religious office, that's racism (and discrimination).  If someone won't serve people because of who fall in love/have sex with due to it being against their religion, that's still homophobia/heterosexism (and discrimination).  Just because it's religions/religious people saying it doesn't make it OK.

[Honeycocoa]

To get back to Jusagirlintheworld's question for a second, My impression is that these large families have a lot of systems. - all house hold chores done at certain times in certain ways etc. No spontaneity at all.... The first Dugger book ( 20 and Counting!) apparently tells you some of their systems.  If you click on it in the on line book shop of your choice it will refer you to other books.  This seems to be what these mega moms do, raise a pile of kids and then write a book tell you how you can do it too.  There's also a lot of blogs... I've read a few blogs, some day I may check some of these books out  of the library. It's like reading about a foreign country for me, I am an only child and I have an only child. I know my limits.  I don't really know how they do it, and I don't think they are doing a good job, but I do know they'd be happy to tell you about it, if you'd like to check out their books.... Other  books you might find interesting  is Unorthodox the Scandalous Rejection of my Hassidic Roots, about a young woman who leaves the Hassids and Escape, about a woman who left the FLDS. I haven't seen any books about leaving the Quiverful movement, But there are blogs, so I'm sure there will be books sometime. And we're all waiting for that  Dugger kid  tell all , some day...

[hlemommy]

I didn't realize it was a Catholic thing either. I'm southern baptist and had god parents and my children now have god parents

[birkenstock]

I was wondering, what is the difference between fundy and fundy-lite? Is it clothing, gender dynamics, and access to popular culture? Or is it more the way that one would practice their faith?  How would one know if a Duggar becomes fundy-lite?  Sorry if this has been discussed before or if these are loaded questions.     

[galax-arena]

Bringing this over from the Jessa/Ben thread:

She'll "pray [the girls] through" an eating disorder.

That reminds me of a famous story from Jewish literature:

“DO YOU believe,” the disciple asked the rabbi, “that God created everything for a purpose?”

 

“I do,” replied the rabbi.

 

“Well,” asked the disciple, “why did God create atheists?”

 

The rabbi paused before giving an answer, and when he spoke his voice was soft and intense. “Sometimes we who believe, believe too much. We see the cruelty, the suffering, the injustice in the world and we say: ‘This is the will of God.’ We accept what we should not accept. That is when God sends us atheists to remind us that what passes for religion is not always religion. Sometimes what we accept in the name of God is what we should be fighting against in the name of God.”

 

--

v. 2

 

They asked the Baal Shem Tov, “The Talmud (Chulin 109B) tells us that for everything G‑d forbade, He provided us something permissible of the same sort. If so, what did He permit that corresponds to the sin of heresy?”

 

The Baal Shem Tov replied, “Acts of kindness.”

 

Because when you see a person suffering, you don’t say, “G‑d runs the universe. G‑d will take care. G‑d knows what is best.” You do everything in your power to relieve that suffering as though there is no G‑d. You become a heretic in G‑d’s name.

I wish people like the Duggars would adopt a similar philosophy instead of thinking that prayer will solve everything. Prayer is good, but it's not an excuse to not do anything more proactive.

[Sew Sumi]

Absolutely. It bothered me that there was no mention of professional interventions w/r/t eating disorders. Which is why I am still dubious that Mechelle really had one. There is no shame in this, like there was no real shame in Jilly Muffin having a c-section. It's a pity that they've been conditioned to see shame pretty much everywhere, and that turning to trained professionals for help is in effect admission of failure. So sad.

[RainbowBrite]

Hello all :) I am a long-time lurker, very infrequent poster!

 

Here is my thought: I was not raised in a religious home, but my parents provided me with answers to any questions I had in the form of an illustrated children's bible. They didn't tell me whether it was a fictional book or the truth. They dropped me off at church when I was curious about it, without passing any judgment. Growing up, there was never a point at which I believed any of it. I went through the exploration/reading/attending church to try to figure out what I was missing, that other people saw in it that made them believe.  

 

In my early 20's I took a Meyers-Briggs personality test, and my personality type came up ISTJ. I recently googled my personality type, and learned that ISTJ's make up a huge percentage of athiests. It got me thinking about the Duggars; with so many children, there is a chance that at least one of them has a similar personality type to me. I wonder if all the children really believe what their parents have been teaching them all this time, or if even one of them just plays along. I myself don't know how I would have dealt with my athiesm in a less open family.

Edited April 24, 2015 by RainbowBrite

[Wellfleet]

Absolutely. It bothered me that there was no mention of professional interventions w/r/t eating disorders. Which is why I am still dubious that Mechelle really had one. There is no shame in this, like there was no real shame in Jilly Muffin having a c-section. It's a pity that they've been conditioned to see shame pretty much everywhere, and that turning to trained professionals for help is in effect admission of failure. So sad.

 

Agree. I believe Me-chelle's entire eating disorder story is fabricated, start to finish. She's not having babies any more. She [thinks she] needs something to make her sympathetic, especially in the eyes of the leghumpers. In her convoluted mind, she may view an eating disorder as almost a "fashionable" thing to have sufferered from as a teen. Short of seeing pictures, I don't believe one word of her ED blather.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Wellfleet

[GEML]

Whether or not she had one, I believe that SHE thinks she had one. Which is also a sign for some kind of mental disturbance.

[Wellfleet]

Whether or not she had one, I believe that SHE thinks she had one. Which is also a sign for some kind of mental disturbance.

 

I'm not even sure about that. I think she enjoys telling stories - true and not true - about herself. And she's running out of ways to stay in the limelight. My theory is that she made up something that no one would be able to definitively confirm or dispute. Even her supposed best friend, the trainer, was surprised. And at that age, what teen girls don't do together, they talk about together. Maybe - just maybe - Me-chelle tried sticking her finger down her throat once, didn't like it, never did it again - and is now dragging it back as a talking point 30 years later.

[Apple Clark]

I am torn between hoping she is lying and hoping she's not. I have anxiety/depression, and I've struggled with it since I was around 10-12. I wouldn't wish a mental illness on ANYONE but for her to be lying about makes me sick to my stomach. So, I don't know if I'd rather her really and truly to have gone through that and then gotten over it, or if I'd rather her reach a new low and be lying about something so serious.

[JenCarroll]

I think she's delusional, actually, and may well have convinced herself that the eating disorder (and various other unlikely stories) really happened.

[Dejana]

Michelle didn't use the terms bulimia or bulimic when she recounted it on the show (though she may have in the past, in one of the books the family "wrote"). Maybe it wasn't a full-blown case but behaviors along those lines. I guess I am giving Michelle the benefit the doubt in terms of her friends not knowing, because from personal experience I know a teenager can hide troubling dietary habits without friends and family catching on, and not need clinical help to stop the unhealthiest aspects. Not to say that anorexia and bulimia just need to be prayed away or that therapy wouldn't have helped Michelle a great deal, but we know she turned to religion in a big way after getting involved with Jim Bob and they married when she was just 17. They only slipped further down the Gothard rabbit hole a few years later. Maybe she turned from one unhealthy set of behaviors to another, in religion. She binged on pregnancy, while the modesty rules, blanket training and buddy system all satisfied her need for control. Not to say that this was a good way to deal with her issues, but in Michelle's case she really thinks prayer/God fixed her, and should do the same for anyone else in the family.

[GEML]

If you tell yourself a story enough times, even if you start out knowing it isn't true, you will believe it's true by the time you've told it 100 times. You'll invent memories more vivid and real than what actually took place in your mind, and you can "see" it happen unscrolling in your mind like a movie. You will be CERTAIN that's what really happened.

That's how the brain works.

The Duggars have done this a few too many times.

[funky-rat]

I think it's lovely that people are discussing religion here respectfully.  I'm not overly religious, but I am a seeker and a believer, and it's a topic that just gets too ugly in today's world.

 

It's that side of me that first interested me in the Duggars.  I recognized them as Fundies right away, but I found them interesting, and I found their willingness to stick to their beliefs refreshing, even if I didn't agree with them, but the shine wore off when they ventured into weekly tv from the occasional special here and there, and the longer they're on, the more of their real selves show, and my dislike increases.

 

I've experienced a lot of different sides of religion in my life.  My paternal grandparents were staunch Lutherans - they didn't even like to attend other churches.  My father liked church, but not the rigidity in the services (the endless liturgy), and the fact that a lot of people at church cared more about what you wore than anything else.  My maternal grandmother was Jewish, and my paternal grandfather grew up in a non-denominational hellfire and brimstone type church.  Grandma didn't practice Judaism, and my grandfather often worked 6 days a week, so Sunday was his only day off, and he relaxed.  My mother would attend a small church near her house with neighbors, but it was a Pentecostal church, and she was actually frightened of religion until she met my dad.  She found the same issues with the Lutheran church that he did, and they ultimately drifted away.  When I was born, my parents wanted me to have a foundation, but always made it clear that when I was older, it was my decision as to what I wanted to do.  My mom tried a bunch of churches, and settled with the Methodists.  She felt they were most in-line with what she believed, and she found their modern ideas refreshing, so I grew up Methodist, and joined the church when I was 13.

 

My husband's mother had him at a Lutheran church until his father died, when he was still fairly young.  Then she turned her back on religion.  A neighbor used to take him to her non-denominational church, but they were very strict, and he finally quit going when a youth group member found a Black Sabbath cassette in his Walkman, and took it to the leader, who made him read a book full of fictional stories about popular music and devil worship/animal mutilation, etc.  He remembers it saying that the band KISS stood for "Knights In Satan's Service" and how another band (possibly Judas Priest or Iron Maiden) insisted that a bag of puppies be killed before a show or some nonsense.  At that point, he refused to go back.  We were married in the church I grew up in, but he didn't attend church until he met a minister through his job, who convinced him to come to his church, the Truth Institute.  After one service, I knew it wasn't for me, but he seemed to like it, so I humored him.  I was concerned about their theology.  He didn't flat-out tell me I had to wear dresses, but he dropped hints.  One time, I wore a skirt they thought was too short.  I wore a hat to church and they didn't like that either (I took it off inside).  They only allowed one Bible in church - a Scofield Study Bible.  My confirmation Bible - a Good News Bible (my preference), was strictly forbidden, and I was asked not to bring it back.  They believed the Rapture was imminent.  They told me that my Methodist baptism (when I was 5) was not valid because it wasn't by immersion, and I had to be re-baptized (I don't believe in re-baptism) and that it had to be done in a river, or it didn't count.  Also, he wanted me to confess my sins to him, and then to give a testimonial of at least 15 minutes in front of everyone.  Not happening.  That's between me and God.  I was not allowed to take communion because of this.  I refused to go back when his wife was in the hospital at the same time my paternal Grandfather was.  Pappy liked visitors, and the pastor asked if he could visit him.  I said yes, and Pappy enjoyed his company, because he could be charming when he wanted to be.  The next time I saw the pastor, he told me that God purposely made his wife and my grandfather ill so that he could minister to the man that was sharing a room with my grandfather.  Nope - not happening.  God wasn't giving my Pappy a life-threatening condition (not to mention his wife) just so he could save the soul of a man who was hours away from a touchy surgery, and I doubt ever stepped foot in his "Truth Institute".  We just stopped going.  The pastor called my husband's boss and other customers and said that he was full of Satan, and that they should pray for him, and that something bad was going to happen to me.  Lovely.

 

We returned to the Methodist church after an employer tried to get my husband to attend their church (Nazarene), and we had bad flashbacks of the "Truth Institute" (who moved to a building that looks like a bunker, and they are awaiting the rapture, which they believe is imminent).  We found a church with a great minister, but the congregants left much to be desired.  Very cliquey.  They complained if you sat in "their seat".  That pastor had 2 churches, and we liked the other one better (in a different town) but they had very old-order ideas about things like abortion (we're pro-choice), gay marriage (we're pro-gay marriage), etc.  We stopped going when a man stood up and said that we should boycott network TV because it's glamorizing the gay lifestyle, and making it appealing to impressionable youth.  Suuuure.  Ask my gay friends about that.  Then we renewed our vows for our 15th anniversary, and I was tasked with finding a minister in another city and state.  I chose one for a very specific reason - they had a church satellite in the place I wanted to have the service, but they wouldn't return my calls.  They were some form of Baptist, but I figured they'd like a nice donation for 20 minutes of their time.  But nothing.  They wouldn't call back, fax back, or e-mail back.  Calls to them would have their secretary send me to the prayer hotline.  Then a friend sent me a link to an article about this church.  Apparently, they were very anti-gay - vehemently so.  So much so that they were investigated by the state.  And after asking some friends who know more about various religions than I do, apparently their denomination is also very against vow renewal, for some reason.  They could have told me that instead of blowing me off.  But I had a gay friend and a bi-sexual friend who were attending, so maybe it was God's way of telling me to keep moving.  I Googled "Methodist Churches" and the first one that popped up looked promising, so I e-mailed.  Turned out they were a Reconciling Methodist Church, which meant they decided to be welcoming to all people, including LGTB people.  They even ran a special service for those who were shunned by other churches, and needed to "ease" back into a church life.  They were very welcoming and accommodating, and I was bowled over.  I never knew such a thing existed,  and one of my friends who attended was encouraged to find a church in his area that was welcoming.  When we returned home, we both joined the Reconciling Methodists and we await the day when we have a congregation in our area.  Sadly, it's dividing the Methodists, and a split may be coming soon.  I do miss church sometimes, and am considering checking out the Unitarian church up the street from me.  I hear very good things about them.

 

I do enjoy learning about other religions.  I would never ever put down anyone for what they believed (ie: Buddhist, Sikkh, etc) or for lack of belief (Atheist).  It's all good.  I don't believe in Evangelicalism.  I don't believe in trying to convert people.  Live your life, and I'll live mine.  It saddens me that the Duggar kids have never had the opportunity to experience other religions, and will likely believe all of their days that what they believe is the only way to believe, and the right way, and everyone else is wrong.

[GEML]

Always glad to meet another poster who had taken communion every which way and then some, funky rat! ;)

[funky-rat]

Always glad to meet another poster who had taken communion every which way and then some, funky rat! ;)

Pretty much, GEML.  I've taken communion at most churches out there, save for Catholic (I wasn't sure of the "rules", so I abstained) and the aforementioned "Truth Institute" (which, according to my husband, consisted of broken up Saltines and an odd flavored grape Kook-Aid type drink, and they all drank from the same cup - no thanks), since I was told I wasn't allowed to.  My dad was a wedding photographer for a few years as a way to make extra money (and I assisted him a lot), my mom sang with a gospel group for fun for a number of years (and I would help by playing tambourine, or one of the many instruments I'm trained on), and I atteneded many friend's churches over the years (at the end of sleepovers, for programs, for bring-a-friend Sundays, etc), so I've pretty much seen it all.  At the core, most churches are pretty much the same.  I enjoyed some more than others.  The more old-order or hard-line a church became, the less I enjoyed it.  The Methodists are pretty modern, and view women as equals, and are very accepting of many things, so it was a shock to hear some of the things I've heard over the years. 

 

The last time I set foot into a Fundy church was probably 10-ish years ago for a wedding of a co-worker of my husband.  We kept looking at each other during the service every time the minister made some comment about her obeying him, submitting to him, allowing him control of things, etc.  My husband said that his co-worker must really have loved her, because he was a drinking, foul-mouthed, strip-joint going type of guy, and the service was so out-of-character.  My husband left that job a few months after that.  We later found out that their marriage lasted about a year.  I mostly remember the reception.  They were unable to have it at the church, because they were havnig some sort of indoor revival and some healing thing, so it was held up the road at another church (a Methodist church - one I had attended once or twice with other members of the church I grew up in).  It was very in-line with what we see as receptions on 19 Kids - punch, cake, nuts, cookies, ice cream.  There were cold cuts and a salad (macaroni, I think).  They were provided by the UM Women - a very nice gesture, and something very common with Methodists.  All of the Fundies thought it odd, and weren't eating it.  My husband and I were hungry, and we helped ourselves, and chatted with the UM Women, who showed up to help.  I could see they were a little "hurt".  When we went back to sit down, we encouraged my husband's co-workers, and the co-workers of the bride who weren't Fundy to go eat up.  I was glad when some more did.  It was an odd reception.  No head table.  No speeches.  No music.  Very little socializing.  We left early, lol.

[Happyfatchick]

I only know the Duggars from what little I see them on TV, but I could (with a straight face) call that brand of religion inherently imperialistic. As I recall, the original motivation for doing the show was because (for them) it was a way to show others to Christ. (Or more succinctly to "their" way of thinking). They have videos of j'chelle teaching young mothers how to raise their children to be Godly. jimbob himself does "church" in their living room because (obviously) he's the only one who knows the true teachings of God. There are, without a doubt religious imperialists out there. My oldest brother IS one, has found a church that aligns exactly with his beliefs. He spouts off constantly about his pastor - and this is a sore spot with me. Those churches who build the pastor up to somewhere near the right hand of Jesus drive me up a wall!!!! This is religious imperialism, IMO.

for some reason, I keep thinking in the back of my head that maybe the reason Derick and now Benjirman are talking ministry is because if that family grows at the rate Jb&m have grown, and the family IS the church - then they need leadership. Is that where they're heading? In just a few years when there's a whole herd of toddlers running around, "church" is going to be too big to fit in the living room...

Edited April 27, 2015 by Happyfatchick

[Absolom]

Duggar "church" hasn't been in the living room in years.  They meet in a warehouse type place.  In their brand of Baptistish belief, some man feels (self-proclaimed) a calling and off they go preaching and setting up their own little fiefdom type thing.  I always find it odd that they won't go to a regular Baptist church except as visitors but have no issue renting one for weddings and funerals.  It's like on some level they realize that their "church" isn't really a church or else they'd have all their services there.

[funky-rat]

I always find it odd that they won't go to a regular Baptist church except as visitors but have no issue renting one for weddings and funerals.  It's like on some level they realize that their "church" isn't really a church or else they'd have all their services there.

I always saw it more like an Amish thing (I grew up with old-order Amish as neighbors, and there are many in the area).  They won't own cars - it's against their beliefs - but have no issue riding in cars, accepting rides from people, or even hiring van services (they exist - there are several in my area) to drive them around in groups.  They see it as a means to an end, but don't have to "sacrifice" their beliefs in the process. 

Edited April 27, 2015 by funky-rat

[galax-arena]

I only know the Duggars from what little I see them on TV, but I could (with a straight face) call that brand of religion inherently imperialistic. As I recall, the original motivation for doing the show was because (for them) it was a way to show others to Christ. (Or more succinctly to "their" way of thinking). They have videos of j'chelle teaching young mothers how to raise their children to be Godly. jimbob himself does "church" in their living room because (obviously) he's the only one who knows the true teachings of God. There are, without a doubt religious imperialists out there. My oldest brother IS one, has found a church that aligns exactly with his beliefs. He spouts off constantly about his pastor - and this is a sore spot with me. Those churches who build the pastor up to somewhere near the right hand of Jesus drive me up a wall!!!! This is religious imperialism, IMO.

With imperialism, while I know that people still debate over the precise definition, for me there's this implicit association with foreign institutions attempting to expand/impose their policy/culture on another country's native population. So it's a bit different than the Duggars going on American television to espouse their own brand of Christianity. Not that I appreciate the latter, either, because yeah, it's still annoying when someone tries to impose their own morals and legalism upon others. But I do think that the whole foreigners-among-the-natives aspect makes it that much more troubling.

 

To give another example of what I'm talking about: the US is often accused of global cultural imperialism when it comes to Hollywood and pop culture. I'm an American but I don't take umbrage because, well, where is the lie? (I had to laugh when some Americans whined about how Hollywood was catering to China with Iron Man 3. About time we got to know how it feels when another country begins calling the shots, maybe we'll realize how annoying it is.) On the surface, pop culture and movies seem like a more benign form of imperialism compared to a foreign religion attempting to squeeze out native religions, but I still find it bad because the other country's domestic entertainment industry suffers as a result, not to mention Hollywood movies obviously often come with a very American/Western themes and messages. I think our world is all the richer for having very different movie industries in India and Japan and South Korea and England, etc. The same goes for the different world religions.

Edited April 27, 2015 by galax-arena

[Wellfleet]

Duggar "church" hasn't been in the living room in years.  They meet in a warehouse type place.  In their brand of Baptistish belief, some man feels (self-proclaimed) a calling and off they go preaching and setting up their own little fiefdom type thing.  I always find it odd that they won't go to a regular Baptist church except as visitors but have no issue renting one for weddings and funerals.  It's like on some level they realize that their "church" isn't really a church or else they'd have all their services there.

 

I've wondered about this too and agree. I also strongly suspect that for the Duggars, not attending to a "real" church also means not having to support a real church. No tithing or weekly collections, so they keep their money. No helping with projects, etc so they keep their time and energy. Everything they do is about them and for them.