real encouragement for real homeschooling moms

october 26 podcast

Podcast Logo Listen here to the final podcast interview with Spunky Homeschool Mom, Karen Braun, as we conclude our discussion series on patriocentricity and the concept of “the visionary daughters.”

Please note that a HUGE discussion of this topic is occurring here. It is a continuation of the first thread which can be found here. I would encourage anyone who wants to know as much as possible about the visionary daughters movement to take some time and read through these comments. I am continually amazed at all the interesting things I learn from contributors to these threads.

Also, if you are just now joining me for these podcasts, I would suggest that you go back to the Introduction to Patriocentricity podcast from September 7th and begin there. You can also access the thatmom podcast archives by visiting

As always, I welcome all comments and look forward to a great discussion with you!



  sarah wrote @

I disagree with Spunky’s statement that the Botkin sisters’ vision of marriage is Biblical.

No where do I see in scripture that I should order my life around my husband (as opposed to Christ). No where do I see that husbands are to subject their wives to their “whims” and “heavy requirements.”

I’m really curious why Spunky thinks this attitude about marriage is biblical.

  Cally Tyrol wrote @

I was hoping Spunky could clarify something here for me. When you and Karen were talking about the Botkins and missions, somehow it came up that Dominion theology is rooted in Reformed theology (and that is correct). There was a brief discussion about hypercalvinism and Reformed theology and I’m not quite sure what was being said. Spunky, would you mind clarifying that for us?

Thanks so much!!

  Corrie wrote @

What is “kingdom architecture”? That is an odd term. Where is “kingdom architecture” defined in scripture? I Googled it and I can’t find anything to explain that term in this context.

  Spunky wrote @


Kingdom architecture is a term the girls used in the book to talk about God’s order and design.

p. 265 “Independent missionaries and modern missions organizations that operate outside church authority appear to be outside Kingdom architecture. their work does not strengthen orexpand the Kingdom on God’s terms.”

Previous to that quote they said God’s design consisted of three institutions – The Family, the Church, and the State. Missions are outside of that design, or outside “kingdom architecture.”

That’s why Carmichael and Slessor are crticicized. But ironically, that didn’t stop the Botkins from setting up their own missions organization outside the authority of the local church and under the authority of the state as a 501(c)3 organization.

  Spunky wrote @

Dominin theology is at the root of this teaching. A quick google search on that term will give you more information than I ever could in a comment box. But basically they take the Genesis “mandate” to rule over all that creepeth upon the earth and apply that to all areas of life.

Other terms that are often used are Reconstructionist, and theonomy.

Most of the believers in this are reformed. That’s why the two are often linked. There is a theological reason for that as well, but it’s too long to get into here.

I’ll see if I can link to a few websites that will help you understand this a little better.

  Spunky wrote @

Here are two links to help you along in your study,

This link provides an analysis that is pro-dominion theology

And this link provides a counter to some of their thinking

  Spunky wrote @

Sarah, if you could give me a quote as to what I said exactly, I might be able to explain myself a bit better.

  Spunky wrote @

Sarah, I relistened to the podcast and I realize where you might think that.

I was agreeing was because marriage is a “dying” to self putting another persons needs higher than my own and that is true for the wife AND the husband not just the wife.

If you listen to the rest of the podcast I refer to the wheel and Christ at the center.

I hope that clears that up. “The father is NOT the center of the home, that is Jesus Christ.”

That’s what I said later in the broadcast.

  thatmom wrote @

And, Spunky, I might add that that picture you “drew” for us is a powerful one. As I listened to the podcast Thursday night, I was struck by what a wonderful picture the wheel chart is for one anothering. Thank you so much for sharing that with us.

  Krista wrote @

I loved Spunky’s illustration of the wheel, with Jesus at the center. Perfect – the family is to be Jesus-centric, not father-centric.

By some odd coincidence (or not), my family and I happened to listen to a certain episode of Focus on the Family’s radio program “Adventures in Odyssey.” It is an older episode that aired a couple years ago, but the general gist of the episode is as follows. (here’s the link, btw: )

Audrey Shepherd is leaving for college in a few days, but her younger sister Bethany doesn’t like the idea at all. She doesn’t want her sister to leave. Besides that, her mom has been emotional about the whole “my daughter is leaving home” bit and her dad has been moping about it as well. Bethany gives Audrey a talking to about her selfishness in thinking about herself, about putting herself before the family.

Audrey decides to stay home this year, but her father takes her aside. In a really good moment of the episode, he asks her what God had told her during the past year that she had been praying about going to college. Audrey admits that she, as well as her parents, had come to believe that it was God’s will for her to go to school.

It is then that her dad reminds her that while family should come before self, there is Someone who should come before family. And since, after much prayer, they had decided that school was God’s will for Audrey, she had no choice but to go.

As I listened to that episode, I couldn’t help but think that Patriocentrists would agree with Bethany’s point of view, that Audrey was being selfish in her desire to go to college when they would miss her at home.

But I have to agree with Audrey’s father (irony there for you, a father actually encouraging his daughter to go to school, much like my own father pushing and encouraging me to get a full-time job outside the home). God comes first. Not family, not friends, not the “church,” not myself.

True, we need to be careful not to ascribe selfish motives to “God wants me to do this,” but there is just as much danger of putting God in a box and saying that He has only one right way for a single girl to live.

I just want to say that I really appreciate this last series of podcasts, Karen. They have been a huge encouragement and very thought-provoking. I am sure you have blessed many other women as you have me. So, thank-you!

  TulipGirl wrote @

Downloading it now. . .

  Spunky wrote @


In a similar way to your story about college, the Botkins view a daughter who desires to go into the mission field as coming from a “selfish heart”

On p. 263 they rhetorically ask,

“Okay, so it’s not purely biblical for women to become overseas missionaries on thier own, but I feel like God is calling me to the mission field. Doesn’t the revelation God gives me over-rule anything in Scripture?”

They then answer their own question this way….

“No. His revelation is Scripture, not the imagination of your heart. Proverbs 28:26 says, “He that trusteh in his own heart is a fool: but whose walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.” Our hearts can be desperately selfish and darkly deceitful.”

The Botkins purport that foreign missions is not “purely biblical” and outside “kingdom architecture” as we talked about in the podcast. Their biblical support for such a stance is not very strong. They use Sarah and Uzzah to imply that there is a “wrong way to do right.”

But how does that translate into foreign missions being a “wrong way to do right?” It doesn’t except for the fact that the Botkin girls say it does and therefore it is not “purely biblical.” And on that basis they then say that the daughter is acting “selfishly” for listening to the imagination of her own heart rather than Scripture, thus selfish in motive.

But the scripture doesn’t say whether an unmarried daughter can or cannot go into foreign missions. If a daughter believes it does based on reading So Much More she is acting on the Botkin’s revelation and the imaginations of their heart, because their isn’t any scriptural support.

Ironically, we have a clear instruction in Titus 2 that it is the OLDER women who are to teach the younger women. Yet, that didn’t stop the Botkin girls from persuing the desires of their heart and write a book teaching young girls. A role clearly left for mothers, fathers, pastors, and elders within the church. They are not in any of those positions. So this causes one to ask, is their book “purely biblical” or the leadings of two girls operating from a “selfish heart?”

  thatmom wrote @

Krista, the story you shared from the Odyssey series is very timely, isn’t it. And it points out the very truth of these things. If the Scripture does not clearly forbid something, then in deciding God’s will for a family or for a son or daughter, there is much freedom. Sensitivity to the calling of the Holy Spirit is crucial.

One of the problems in the visionary daughters approach is discounting the genuine Biblical truth that the Holy Spirit does place callings on all children of the living God, fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters and will make His will known to them. For an outsider (Botkin sisters et al.) to presume that their personal applications and teachings can be super-imposed over others is nothing but legalism. That is all that it is. Legalism.

God is working in the lives of His own, despite the Botkins and their promoters and friends.

  sarah wrote @


Thank you for the explanation. I agree that marriage is dying to self, but certainly not in the bizarre way the Botkin sisters apparently view marriage.

  Corrie wrote @


Yes! What we need more of is “Jesus-centric” families and not more idolatry where we put a man at the center. We must all revolve around Jesus, looking to Him for direction.

  Spunky wrote @

“Yes! What we need more of is “Jesus-centric” families and not more idolatry where we put a man at the center.”

Exactly Corrie and that’s why my first podcast with Karen focused on the idolatry in my own life. It’s so easy to make an idol out of the things of God, worshiping the creation more than the Creator. I never set out to make my family an idol or take my focus off of Jesus, but it happened. Thankfully, God in his wonderful mercy convicted me and broke the idol.

Even more amazing is now that my children are older, they are my contant reminders and encouragement that it’s all for Him.

  molleth wrote @

Oooh, goody…I’m downloading this right now…

  thatmom wrote @

“Yes! What we need more of is “Jesus-centric” families and not more idolatry where we put a man at the center.”

Krista, this is absolutely correct. One thing that has long bothered me in the patriocentric circles is the emphasis on God the Father but not on Jesus. Look at Colossians 1:

11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy,

12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

  Lindsey @ enjoythejourney wrote @

I’m late on this edition so I will have to get to it this week when I find time to listen. I’m loving the podcast series. Can you find them on iTunes yet? Just curious. You can submit just about any podcast for consideration!

  thatmom wrote @

Lindsay, someone told me they got them on itunes but I had nothing to do with it. I don’t know how that works. I will have to check it out, errr, rather, have my techno-patriarch do it for me! 🙂

  Cindy Kunsman wrote @

About dominion theology… I wonder who proofed their writing?

Dominionism is the seeking to establish Christianity as a dominant influence within all “spheres” of human activity which include the personal, family, church and society. Christian reconstruction specifically focuses on the establishment (or re-estab.) of Christianity’s influence within civil government which would be a subset of the society sphere which can be alternately called the civil sphere. Based on what’s written here, the Botkin girls skipped the topic and bumped down to the sub heading, so to speak.

Now, how on earth is missions outside of “kingdom archetecture” then? Missionary endeavors are the feet of dominionism!!! The last thing that Jesus said to us was to go forth into all the world and make disciples of all nations. It certainly falls within the realm of society as the effort to evangelize the lost, reaching out beyond the sphere of the church into the larger sphere of society. I’d like to see their Venn diagram of how all these spheres interrelate.

How interesting. I wonder if it is only their neo-tribal worldview or just their ignorance that produced this error and omission?

  Spunky wrote @

“About dominion theology… I wonder who proofed their writing?”

Cindy, your question is a question I’ve been wondering about with much of the writing that comes from patriocentric authors. They lack a good content editor who will challenge suppositions and force the writer to refine their arguments. This is a long and grueling process that many writers skip; allowing only writers that agree with their point of view to analyze their writing. But if they submt their work prior to publishing the finished book is that much better. But submitting a manuscript to someone you know will disagree takes a great deal of maturity and a willingness not to take the critcism personally.

And to the point about missions and “kingdom architecture.” The Botkins are not saying that missions is not a part of Dominionism, but that there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Amy Carmicheal and Mary Slessor and those that take on short term missions trips through missions organizations are doing a good deed the wrong way. They are “well-intentioned” substitutes for God’s design. All missions should come from the local church. Since a woman’s sphere of influence is the home, her “missions” work should all be done from there only. So they are not against a young lady doing missions work, but it must be ‘under her father’s roof’ and in her local area only.

Page 268, “In terms of missions activies, are there not many things that could be done right on the home front in our suffering communities, which are drowning in unbelief? If churches and families routinely involved young people in the tasks of reaching out to the less fortunate, there would be much less blindness on the part of of so many spoiled Westerners, who only see the spiritually needy in regions safely removed from the harsh realities of their own neighborhoods.”

  Cindy Kunsman wrote @

Oh, I get it….

A parachurch organization (although a Christian endeavor) — they would not consider this a legitimate church activity if not actually under the direction of a specific, local church. That’s still lame. That’s the equivalent of the Catholic church and the catholic church… They are sticking with the capital “C.” Thus, in their buearocratic preference of hierarchy, a parachurch organization (what, like Vision Forum?) is a rogue organization that falls under society and not within the category of church.

I suppose they’ve investigated to see whether women missionaries in the field without a patriarch have done so without the blessing, contributions and authority of their local church? I’m sure Mary Slessor was out there, all on her own? Carmichel & Elliott, too?

So for women who are single for whatever reason, they must have a patriarch under their roof to watch over them, be it on the mission field or at home. No self-respecting legitimate church would send a woman out into the field without a patriarch, eh? Only those nasty, rebellious parachurch organizations send poor defensless women out into the field, I suppose. At least they advocate for home missions and care of the poor in one’s locale which is not a very commonly promoted message in patriocentric circles. God bless them for including that admonishment.

  Spunky wrote @

“Thus, in their buearocratic preference of hierarchy, a parachurch organization (what, like Vision Forum?) is a rogue organization that falls under society and not within the category of church.”

Exactly and in a cross-post from True Womanhood this is a tenuous position for these girls to expound upon. They solicit funds through a missions organization, Western Conservatory of Arts and Science, for the move “Return of the Daughters.” This organization operates outside of kingom architecture because it is a 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization under the authority of the state and an independent board of directors. This work is obviously not under the sphere of the state, but for the benefits the state provided them they were willing to make the sacrifice. Yet another example of a pragmatic decision.

  Zan wrote @

You know, I really love reading the conversations here (the podcasts) and on truewomanhood, but I am *so* disappointed that ladies (or men) with an opposing view point don’t join in.

I really want to hear what they have to say. They do post what they believe on their blog, but because they silence debate (delete comments/not post them) and leave so many questions unanwsered, I don’t take them seriously anymore. I guess, they just don’t have any answers and can’t defend their viewpoint. What else am I supposed to think?

I ordered the “Passionate Housewives” book because I want to know what all the hype is about, but I am wondering if I wasted my money. Do these people just want a platform to speak, but not to answer questions?

  Cally Tyrol wrote @

Zan, I’m not that far into the book, but so far, I’m not at all impressed. Its not been inspiring at all and not really all that helpful either.

Believe it or not, I bought it, not to critique it, but because I really do want to hear what these women have to say. I just haven’t found its contents to be very compelling…. yet… but I’m still reading 🙂

  Zan wrote @


I’ve never read any of the popular homeschooling books like CTBHH. I thought it was about time I read one of these controversial books for myself.

  thatmom wrote @

If there is any question at all as to whether or not the Botkin girls consider young unmarried daughters to be out of their homes to be sin, I just watched The Return of the Daughters and near the end they make the statement that many daughters are returning home to obey God’s law.

I intend to watch the movie a couple more times before I actually do a review but did want to share that comment.

  Cally Tyrol wrote @

Wow, Karen. Just Wow. I’m speechless. Here’s my questions for the Botkins- would you be so kind as to show us WHERE IN GOD’S LAW THIS IS COMMANDED? What? You can’t? And why is that? Oh, because its not? Well, thanks for at least being honest…

Sorry for the caps. This comment just got to me, that’s all…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: